Answer for Econo re packer subsidy question

[Econ101]

I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman. :wink:

Can you prove that Cargill has no numbered companies in Canada Agman?
I find it hard to beleive that Cargill owned about 1/4 of the cattle that Tyson owned at the time. They have about the same slaughter capacity.

Is that true?

Again you ask someone else to prove your statements. Your credibility is at stake here Randy not Agmans. You claimed the numbers you prove them!!!!!!! :x

I say it was a good economic move on their part to simply take everything they could get while the getting was good and easy.

Randy can you tell us just what would have happen to the Canadian Beef industry if the packers hadn't ramped up processing? Can cattle stand around for months on feed or is there a prime time for processing those cattle? Just what do you think the backlog of over fat cattle would have been like? Do you think the NCBA would have backed the border openning to live cattle if they had come to Canada and witnessed feedlots filled to the max with over fat cattle? If the packers wouldn't have ramped up once the border openned up to boxed beef. We as producers would have had no support from at least part of the US industry for the reopenning to live cattle because of the fear of what our backlog would have done to them. Thanks to the Packers and their added slaughter capacity we didn't have a backlog, so the NCBA and the USDA didn't have to fear our supply of cattle destroying the US cattle prices like R-CALF claimed they would. But I guess the Packers were just looking out for their pocket books right Randy. :roll:

Tell us Randy if Big C would have been operating would they have ramped up to help clear out the Back log or would they have just kept up the same old pace and not taken advantage of the silver platter handed to them too?

Tam and the other Canadians, from this experience you should be well aware of the moves in the U.S. market of abuse of captive supply and its effect on the cash market. Seems like you lived the same scenario with overfat beef because of the BSE closing. Canadian govt. stepped in with the bailout. Pickett had no bailout. Do you not see that these are economic games being played on the whole cattle market? If you want big swings in the cattle market with low lows and highs that import cheaper world market beef and increase use relatively lower priced substitutes, keep doing the same thing. Believe SH and all the packer excuses. Your donations to our richest (and worst acting) families here in America by Canadian taxpayers is .....well.......part of the problem. Get caught in the details and ignore the big picture and your destiny will always be controlled by smarter fishermen from the south.

Don't you think there is a better way?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Read the above post. The law says that packers can not discriminate against the producer. So it is okay for packers to claim "no discrimnation against us" but they can discriminate against producers? Pickett proved that they did to 12 jurors.

The appellate judges had to come up with some excuse, what was it, "legitimate business reason""?

I thought we were talking about whether or not Tyson and Cargill were justified in receiving government subsidies. When did we go back to your worthless Pickett arguments.

Stay on track for once!

Kindergarten: "Are you telling me that because Canadian taxpayers can't "discriminate" against wealthy American families they had to pay Cargill and Tyson so many hard earned tax dollars? Sounds like they have the same politicians as we have down here in the USA.

The amount in question was close to the rip-off dollars."

If Cargill and Tyson were not qualified to receive a government subsidy they would not have received one.

Kindergarten: "There are almost no defendants that go into a trial claiming a not guilty verdict who don't hold to their claim. Are all of them not guilty?"

Some are proven guilty and others are not. What point do you think you have made now?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Read the above post. The law says that packers can not discriminate against the producer. So it is okay for packers to claim "no discrimnation against us" but they can discriminate against producers? Pickett proved that they did to 12 jurors.

The appellate judges had to come up with some excuse, what was it, "legitimate business reason""?

I thought we were talking about whether or not Tyson and Cargill were justified in receiving government subsidies. When did we go back to your worthless Pickett arguments.

Stay on track for once!

Kindergarten: "Are you telling me that because Canadian taxpayers can't "discriminate" against wealthy American families they had to pay Cargill and Tyson so many hard earned tax dollars? Sounds like they have the same politicians as we have down here in the USA.

The amount in question was close to the rip-off dollars."

If Cargill and Tyson were not qualified to receive a government subsidy they would not have received one.

Kindergarten: "There are almost no defendants that go into a trial claiming a not guilty verdict who don't hold to their claim. Are all of them not guilty?"

Some are proven guilty and others are not. What point do you think you have made now?



~SH~

The point is that you decry any discrimination against packers and yet defend any discrimination by packers. You decry socialism and yet defend govt. handouts to large corporations. I could go on and on with your inconsistencies. Whatever works at the time, I guess.

Who holds the decision of if the burden of proof was met? Obviously you believe it is judges. I still believe in the people---unless there was evidence to the contrary. In the Pickett case there was no evidence to the contrary cited. What example was cited was used incorrectly by the judges.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The point is that you decry any discrimination against packers and yet defend any discrimination by packers."

There was no discrimination BY PACKERS. That is a figment of your imagination. Dropping your price in the cash market when your needs have been met in the formula market is not discrimination and never will be. You can't change the rules of the game to fit your need to blame large packers.

Kindergarten: "You decry socialism and yet defend govt. handouts to large corporations."

I never supported the Canadian government subsidies but if they are going to be issued, they should be issued to all legal qualifiers regardless of size. You want to discriminate based on size which is bullsh*t.

Kindergarten: "I could go on and on with your inconsistencies."

You could go on and on making up inconsistencies because facts never did matter to you, why would you change now?

Kindergarten: "Who holds the decision of if the burden of proof was met? Obviously you believe it is judges."

In most cases the jurors understand the evidence enough to make the right decision. That was not the case in Pickett so the Judge overruled and the 11th Circuit supported his decision and you can't deal with it. Poor you!

Kindergarten: "I still believe in the people---unless there was evidence to the contrary."

There was no evidence for the initial guilty verdict. If there was, WHAT WAS IT??? Ahh......ummm.....you don't know, I KNOW!

Kindergarten: "In the Pickett case there was no evidence to the contrary cited."

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON THIS STUPIDITY OF TYSON PROVING THEIR INNOCENSE????

THE PLAINTIFFS HAD TO PROVE TYSON'S GUILT, TYSON DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE YOU IDIOT. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS????

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU BE SO DENSE????

Kindergarten: "What example was cited was used incorrectly by the judges."

What would you know about what was used incorrectly by the judges? You don't know anything about this industry or the laws that govern it and you've admitted you hadn't read any of the testimony. You form opinions based on your packer blaming bias only.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "The point is that you decry any discrimination against packers and yet defend any discrimination by packers."

There was no discrimination BY PACKERS. That is a figment of your imagination. Dropping your price in the cash market when your needs have been met in the formula market is not discrimination and never will be. You can't change the rules of the game to fit your need to blame large packers.

Kindergarten: "You decry socialism and yet defend govt. handouts to large corporations."

I never supported the Canadian government subsidies but if they are going to be issued, they should be issued to all legal qualifiers regardless of size. You want to discriminate based on size which is bullsh*t.

Kindergarten: "I could go on and on with your inconsistencies."

You could go on and on making up inconsistencies because facts never did matter to you, why would you change now?

Kindergarten: "Who holds the decision of if the burden of proof was met? Obviously you believe it is judges."

In most cases the jurors understand the evidence enough to make the right decision. That was not the case in Pickett so the Judge overruled and the 11th Circuit supported his decision and you can't deal with it. Poor you!

Kindergarten: "I still believe in the people---unless there was evidence to the contrary."

There was no evidence for the initial guilty verdict. If there was, WHAT WAS IT??? Ahh......ummm.....you don't know, I KNOW!

Kindergarten: "In the Pickett case there was no evidence to the contrary cited."

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON THIS STUPIDITY OF TYSON PROVING THEIR INNOCENSE????

THE PLAINTIFFS HAD TO PROVE TYSON'S GUILT, TYSON DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE YOU IDIOT. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS????

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU BE SO DENSE????

Kindergarten: "What example was cited was used incorrectly by the judges."

What would you know about what was used incorrectly by the judges? You don't know anything about this industry or the laws that govern it and you've admitted you hadn't read any of the testimony. You form opinions based on your packer blaming bias only.



~SH~

SH, I agree with Rober Mac. If it is not a pertinent to the thread let us not go there. Your name calling included.

 

[rkaiser]

Did I ever say that the fact that fat cattle left the feedlots was a bad thing Tam.

No I did not.

What I said was, the notion that Cargill and Tyson slaughter more to help the industry out is a joke. They did it because they could. They did it to line their pockets. If it helped anything, it helped them first and then it helped drop numbers.

But go kiss their butts some more Tam, it must be working for you.

 

[Jason]

Randy the simple point is why didn't Tyson and Cargill just kill the bare minimum of cattle and make the surplus bigger making feedlots more desperate to sell at a lower price?

My answer is that there was a profit to be made, they took the profit while it was there, and it was good for their suppliers that they need to stay killing for the long term.

If short term gain was their motive they could have taken all the money by now and left the country. That wasn't what they were/are interested in.

You have said before you are jealous of the money they make. Then step up buy your boxes and get selling your own beef.

 

[Econ101]

Randy the simple point is why didn't Tyson and Cargill just kill the bare minimum of cattle and make the surplus bigger making feedlots more desperate to sell at a lower price?

My answer is that there was a profit to be made, they took the profit while it was there, and it was good for their suppliers that they need to stay killing for the long term.

If short term gain was their motive they could have taken all the money by now and left the country. That wasn't what they were/are interested in.

You have said before you are jealous of the money they make. Then step up buy your boxes and get selling your own beef.

That would be real easy with another payout the size Tyson and Cargill got. Can you swing that one, Jason?

This does bring out another very interesting point that underlies some of these ag. issues. Who pressured/lobbied the govt. to give such relief to the Canadian cattle owners? Who made the decision of how it was to work? Would this relief have happened without the big two's involvement in the process? This deserves its own thread.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason wrote:
Randy the simple point is why didn't Tyson and Cargill just kill the bare minimum of cattle and make the surplus bigger making feedlots more desperate to sell at a lower price?

My answer is that there was a profit to be made, they took the profit while it was there, and it was good for their suppliers that they need to stay killing for the long term.

If short term gain was their motive they could have taken all the money by now and left the country. That wasn't what they were/are interested in.

You have said before you are jealous of the money they make. Then step up buy your boxes and get selling your own beef.

First of all we are selling beef Jason. Have our first federal kill slated for Ranchers in November as well.

Your question has a very simple answer Jason. In fact maybe two parts. First of all your plan to kill less and somehow make feeders more desperate makes no sense. Over supply is over supply. Which leads to my question that no one has ever answered on ranchers. How was the price of cattle arrived at from Sept. 2003 on.

Secondly. You are supposed to be the one who understands this industry so well. This industry is no different than any other economically. If a situation was presented to you like the one that was presented to Cargill and Tyson, a consultant that suggested the plant back off and not take advantage of the salmon run might be run down the road by four Tyson wise guys.

What a ridiculous notion Jason.

Of course they were interested in short term gain ------ and long term gain. Gain is all that any business should be interested in.

If you want to keep talking ethics and business, talk about the red cross or something. Cargill and Tyson move well on the battlefield, and in the war room.

 

[agman]

I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman. :wink:

Can you prove that Cargill has no numbered companies in Canada Agman?

I find it hard to beleive that Cargill owned about 1/4 of the cattle that Tyson owned at the time. They have about the same slaughter capacity.

Is that true?

You made a comment you cannot backup. Now you are trying a Sandhusker by trying to get me to prove your point. You made the claim, it is up to you to prove your statement. I will await your evidence. You are way too easy.

 

[rkaiser]

Packer Bwamer spewed -

I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman.

AND it worked. Agman came out to DEFEND THE PACKERS.

How's this Agman. I CANNOT prove that Cargill has any numbered companies in Canada. Are you happy.

I think they do though.

9 million is still a lot of bucks for a "so called" producer who had access to a lucrative wholesale boxed beef market, while the rest of the "producers" were at their mercy due to oversupply.

 

[Econ101]

I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman. :wink:

Can you prove that Cargill has no numbered companies in Canada Agman?

I find it hard to beleive that Cargill owned about 1/4 of the cattle that Tyson owned at the time. They have about the same slaughter capacity.

Is that true?

You made a comment you cannot backup. Now you are trying a Sandhusker by trying to get me to prove your point. You made the claim, it is up to you to prove your statement. I will await your evidence. You are way too easy.

Agman, do you think they have other companies that they are holding?

 

[Tam]

Packer Bwamer spewed -

I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman.

AND it worked. Agman came out to DEFEND THE PACKERS.

How's this Agman. I CANNOT prove that Cargill has any numbered companies in Canada. Are you happy.

I think they do though.

9 million is still a lot of bucks for a "so called" producer who had access to a lucrative wholesale boxed beef market, while the rest of the "producers" were at their mercy due to oversupply.

Gee what a big surprize Randy can't prove another statement he made :shock: Now if you can admit you can't prove a few other statements you have made we will all know not to take anything you say as credible. :wink:

 

[rkaiser]

Keeps a pathetic soul like you coming back though, doesn't it Tam. Got nothing better to to than read an uncredible guys ranting? You certainly bring nothing more to this site than anyone else.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy (to Tam): "You certainly bring nothing more to this site than anyone else."

Typical discerditing statement of the "factually defenseless".

Nobody backs their position any better than Tam does. I'd like to see you prove Tam wrong with opposing facts. That would be the day!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

What is your point this time Kindergarten Economics?

Did Tyson and Cargill receive payments illegally?

If Tyson and Cargill were not eligible for these payments, where is your proof?



~SH~

Illegally? No, but they can not claim "free enterprise" for everyone but themselves. Such socialist hypocrits.

Did they complain about payments to other producers or do you not know that other producers also received payments? Those other producers who took payments are they also socialists? Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance and bias per subject matter. Go back to your little classroom and try to impress yourself and your students.

Agman,

If you want to argue that it is okay for the Canadian govt. (taxpayers) to pay two LARGE (one family controlled, one family owned) American companies that control a large part of the Canadian slaughter, go ahead. It pretty well falls into the socialist category instead of the free market captitalistic category.

I don't care what other producers recieved as payments or any other argument. The above fact remains. It would have been a much more JUST outcome if the packing plants who sold animal parts from their manufacturing process to feeders as feed to be held accountable for the spread of the BSE that caused the border closing in the first place.

Instead the packers RECIEVED a government handout for their actions. If that isn't a HOOT for the packers I don't know what is.

What is ironic, is that the packers then took advantage of what happened to the markets 4 short months later to take more of the producer surplus and use the money from both to consume another competitor. This blew SH's cash market follows boxed beef arguements to bits. You even have fools like Jason and others coming to your side supporting all of this nonsense. "Let the government stay out of the contract business"----when it is convenient to packer interests.

Get back on your merry-go-round with SH and spin some more.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "What is ironic, is that the packers then took advantage of what happened to the markets 4 short months later to take more of the producer surplus and use the money from both to consume another competitor. This blew SH's cash market follows boxed beef arguements to bits. You even have fools like Jason and others coming to your side supporting all of this nonsense. "Let the government stay out of the contract business"----when it is convenient to packer interests."

Prove to me that live cattle prices do not follow boxed beef prices in the U.S.

You made the allegation, now back it.

We're not talking Canada, who exports most of their product and suddenly found themselves without an export mareket, we are talking U.S.

The only fool here is you with all of your baseless conspiracy theories.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "What is ironic, is that the packers then took advantage of what happened to the markets 4 short months later to take more of the producer surplus and use the money from both to consume another competitor. This blew SH's cash market follows boxed beef arguements to bits. You even have fools like Jason and others coming to your side supporting all of this nonsense. "Let the government stay out of the contract business"----when it is convenient to packer interests."

Prove to me that live cattle prices do not follow boxed beef prices in the U.S.

You made the allegation, now back it.

We're not talking Canada, who exports most of their product and suddenly found themselves without an export mareket, we are talking U.S.

The only fool here is you with all of your baseless conspiracy theories.



~SH~

SH, they may do that but it is not causative. I have already shown you that supply/demand is the real market equilibrium determinate. Do you disagree?

 

[Jason]

Sheesh Econ, how do you suppose supply/demand in the packing industry is measured except through the boxed beef/cutout prices?

 

[Econ101]

Sheesh Econ, how do you suppose supply/demand in the packing industry is measured except through the boxed beef/cutout prices?

As you should surely know by now, Jason, the packer is not the producer. Don't you have enough local, recent examples of that? Think about it.