• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

ANSWER ON TRIM

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman:"Here's the way I see it; Packers buying Aussie lean does nothing to put money in my pocket - I'm not selling Aussie lean. If they couldn't get that lean, they would use chucks from US cattle - which I am selling. The folks who talk about the "value" of those rounds should tell the whole story on who owns that "value"."

Who owns the "ALLEGED" value of "M"COOL?

Why on earth would you want to devalue your chucks to lean down 50/50 trim?

Why wouldn't you rather sell your chucks for $2.00 per pound and import cheap lean trimmings to add value to your worthless 50/50 trim?


Sandman: "If the 50/50 trim is a byproduct (and not a profit center), it should be minimized."

You are absolutely right about that. It should be minimized. Unfortunately, as you accurately pointed out, marbling and seam fat go hand in hand and easy fleshing cattle tend to be found more readily in harsh environments.


Sandman: "Packers can do this by paying less for cattle that produce a lot of it and paying more for cattle that do not."

They already do. They pay a premium for Yield grade 2s over Yield grade 3s. An angus that produces a Yield grade 1 carcass that grades choice would probably not do too well in our northern climates.

You are right with your basic contention here.


Sandman: "During my 25 years of paying attention to "what they want", I've seen ranchers change their cattle half a dozen times. This tells me ranchers have no problem with trying to provide "what they want" if they see any economic advantage."

The problem is what you sacrifice in fertility when you start reducing seam fat in your genetics.


Sandman: " Even though we're finding marbling does not provide the benefits we once thought it did, the packers want high marbled beef and the fat that comes with it. Then, they claim the need imports to mix with that fat in a salvage operation and try to tell us we're profiting from the value? Our system is antiquated and our knowledge begs an overhauling. Yet, those in position to modernize don't do it. Don't you wonder why?"

Don't you remember McDonalds CEO talking about the difficulty in obtaining cull cows?

The issue was a difficulty in obtaining "CHEAP" cull cows. If McDonalds adds too much expense to their hamburgers, consumers will switch to cheaper protein sources and we lose.

You are basically right though, we have chased this marbling fad for so long and now we have the seam fat that goes with it and contributes to our surplus 50/50 trim. It's also true that big ships turn slowly which creates an opportunity for smaller niche markets to produce and provide a product that reduces fat, that ages to compensate for marbling, and has the ability to survive in colder northern climates.

That's precisely where branded beef programs that address these needs have stepped in to pick up the ball.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, show me where hamburgers have changed in price in relation to hamburger meat. Bring out "sticky prices".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Why on earth would you want to devalue your chucks to lean down 50/50 trim?"

First of all, they're not my chucks anymore. They're you and the packers. I don't make a dime when Aussie lean is bought.

SH, "Why wouldn't you rather sell your chucks for $2.00 per pound and import cheap lean trimmings to add value to your worthless 50/50 trim?"

That is the packer's position, not mine. That is part of your problem SH, you see everything thru a packer's eyes, but then again, we all knew that. My position is that I'd rather the packers use chuck from my cattle than anything from imports. I don't profit one bit from imports - only the packers and you do.

And please, don't try to pass that 50/50 trim off as "worthless". You do the math - how many pounds of $2 chuck does it take to bring a ton of 50/50 to 70/30 that then sells for $1.79 - but that trim is worthless? I'll take all that "worthless" trim off their hands for free.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Show US where hamburgers have changed in price in relation to hamburger meat. Just how many Mickey Dee's hamburger patties can you get out of one Pound of beef and out of a avg. cull cow?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "SH, show me where hamburgers have changed in price in relation to hamburger meat. Bring out "sticky prices"."

Do your own research!

The price of hamburgers changes very little because big hamburger suppliers like McDonalds are not going to pay much more for cull cows and increase the price of their hamburgers. If they did, consumers would switch to other protein sources.


Sandbag: "First of all, they're not my chucks anymore. They're the packers. I don't make a dime when Aussie lean is bought."

You don't believe that the value of these products is not passed on to the producer then how can you believe that any value from "M"COOL would be passed on to you? Am I to believe that "M"COOL is for the packer's well being? DAMN HYPOCRITE!

The fact is, any value that is added to the carcass results in higher cattle prices and if that was not the case, you wouldn't be promoting U.S. beef and boxed beef prices would not track with live cattle prices.

If the packers devalued rounds by grinding them with 50/50 trim so they didn't have to import lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand, they would pay you less for your cattle due to the rounds being worth less and that's a fact. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything.


Sandbag: "My position is that I'd rather the packers use chuck from my cattle than anything from imports. I don't profit one bit from imports - only the packers do."

They'd in turn pay you ground beef value for the round portion of your cattle rather than round value. How stupid can you be?

Under this situation, the rounds from your cattle would be devalued resulting in lower cattle prices and your 50/50 trim would be reduced to the value of pure fat also resulting in lower cattle prices.

You couldn't be more wrong.


Sandbag: "And please, don't try to pass that 50/50 trim off as "worthless". You do the math - how many pounds of $2 chuck does it take to bring a ton of 50/50 to 70/30 that then sells for $1.79 - but that trim is worthless? I'll take all that "worthless" trim off their hands for free."

It's basically worthless ($.08 per pound) UNTIL YOU ADD VALUE TO IT by blending lean trimmings with it not after it has been blended. Did I really need to explain that to you?

Your scenerio would devalue the price of our cattle.

R-CALF - "working against the U.S. cattle producer"


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, could you please provide for us the formula packers use to distribute their profits back to the producer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "SH, could you please provide for us the formula packers use to distribute their profits back to the producer?"

Who is "us"? You still carrying those sheep pellets around in your pocket?

If I have stated something that is incorrect, prove me wrong with facts to the contrary. I'm not playing your research games anymore.

If you don't think the packers pay according to what they get for boxed beef, then present your position to the contrary. If you can't, then you got nothing AS USUAL.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "SH, could you please provide for us the formula packers use to distribute their profits back to the producer?"

Who is "us"? You still carrying those sheep pellets around in your pocket?

If I have stated something that is incorrect, prove me wrong with facts to the contrary. I'm not playing your research games anymore.

If you don't think the packers pay according to what they get for boxed beef, then present your position to the contrary. If you can't, then you got nothing AS USUAL.


~SH~

I've got plenty, SH. I KNOW packers will pay as little as they can for cattle regardless of what they are making. You can't seem to grasp that basic business concept. (along with giving the customer what they want, long - term planning, recognition of competition, marketing, etc...)

You want proof that packer's prices have nothing to do with boxed beef? CANADA, SH. They were getting the same boxed beef prices from Canadian beef as US beef, but the prices paid for cattle was much different. If they pay according to boxed beef prices, when can the Canadians expect their checks?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "I KNOW packers will pay as little as they can for cattle regardless of what they are making. You can't seem to grasp that basic business concept. (along with giving the customer what they want, long - term planning, recognition of competition, marketing, etc...)"

I KNOW packers have to pay as much as the competition in order to get the cattle bought. You can't seem to grasp that basic business concept along with the fact that if you are going to differentiate your product, YOU HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING.


Sandbag: "You want proof that packer's prices have nothing to do with boxed beef? CANADA, SH. They were getting the same boxed beef prices from Canadian beef as US beef, but the prices paid for cattle was much different. If they pay according to boxed beef prices, when can the Canadians expect their checks?"

Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is not the U.S. situation of more slaughter capacity than cattle during the same time frame.
Packers may have been getting the same boxed beef prices but that doesn't circumvent the fact that Canadian packers had the added costs of SRM removal on ALL CLASSES OF CATTLE. Something an idiot like you and your shallow observations would never realize.

Prove that live cattle prices do not track with boxed beef prices in the U.S. then you will have something. Until then, you got nothing, AS USUAL.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "I KNOW packers have to pay as much as the competition in order to get the cattle bought. You can't seem to grasp that basic business concept along with the fact that if you are going to differentiate your product, YOU HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING."

The competition for those cattle never changed, SH. It was pretty much the exact same buyers before, during, and after. Yet, you tangent off from my statement. It is a fact the packers paid as little as they could for the cattle regardless of boxed beef prices. That is the truth, Mr. no bias.


Quote:
Sandbag: "You want proof that packer's prices have nothing to do with boxed beef? CANADA, SH. They were getting the same boxed beef prices from Canadian beef as US beef, but the prices paid for cattle was much different. If they pay according to boxed beef prices, when can the Canadians expect their checks?"


SH, "Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is not the U.S. situation of more slaughter capacity than cattle during the same time frame. Packers may have been getting the same boxed beef prices but that doesn't circumvent the fact that Canadian packers had the added costs of SRM removal on ALL CLASSES OF CATTLE. Something an idiot like you and your shallow observations would never realize."

Nice strawman, SH. Let's get back on track, shall we? Did prices for Canadian fats go in the same direction as prices for Canadian boxed beef?

SH, "Prove that live cattle prices do not track with boxed beef prices in the U.S. then you will have something. Until then, you got nothing, AS USUAL."

I see you don't want to talk about boxed beef and fats prices in Canada, eh? Backtracking a little? :wink: Let me point out something to you, SH; The companies who's offers for fats went the opposite direction as boxed beef are the very same ones buying fats down here.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, Just admit it. You don't know ANYTHING about the economic reality of the beef industry. You just like to act like you do and cast dispersions on everyone else. Then when you find out you are wrong, you never admit to it and you start backpeddling. Your post just shows that the prices of cattle in relation to boxed beef is dependent on competition between the companies that bid on cattle and sell boxed beef. Then on to the price manipulation (which I would guess is the reason you bring this up) excuses. There can be manipulation of producer prices based on the economic reality that supply does not quickly react to prices due to the reproduction cycle of cattle and the supply in the "pipelines". This issue was known long ago when the PSA was written. That is partly why parts of Section 202 were written they way they are. They would prevent the kind of manipulation that Pickett proved in court.

In economics there is a thing called the producer surplus. It is the value that producers recieve for their efforts. Some people are break even producers and some people actually make money. The manipulation proved to the jury in the Pickett case and the global realities of different countries being on different cattle cycles will reduce the amount of money people get for their cattle. It is a rotten game that packers are playing and it reduces the producer surplus. Tyson makes out because they also are the biggest poultry company and can make money when they swing the cattle markets the way they do. They can run the competition out of both the chicken industry and the beef industry with these methods of market power and abuse.

You are not going to win your argument on causuality of cattle prices to boxed beef. Canada proved you wrong. Competition on the other side of the packers than the producers is not proof of no collusion on the producer side. You can have both, at the same time, and it creates barriers of entry to all of these niche processing plants that do not cheat producers. It sets up a system where everyone must cheat producers or be at a competitive disadvantage and it swings the cattle markets lower and higher.

You are so fond of calling people names and diverting from any substantive discussion on the merits of the argument and rely on intimidating tactics to push your point of view. Can you have a discussion without names and your silly judgements on what other people say? I know you are scared of losing an argument on its merits, but it is time to grow up. You call sandhusker, myself and others names when you don't have a valid argument. It is your "tell" as my cousin would say.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Since Picket, et al vs IBP was mentioned, and with no real reference to the post, this bit from Beef Stocker Trends comes to mind:

"...all cattle producers are entitled to market preferences, but not to force their preferences on other segments of the market place."

That is interesting and I wonder who said it, and what the 'other' part of the comment is.

MRJ
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Conman to SH: You are not going to win your argument on causuality of cattle prices to boxed beef. Canada proved you wrong. Competition on the other side of the packers than the producers is not proof of no collusion on the producer side. You can have both, at the same time, and it creates barriers of entry to all of these niche processing plants that do not cheat producers. It sets up a system where everyone must cheat producers or be at a competitive disadvantage and it swings the cattle markets lower and higher.

Canada proved that boxed beef does drive prices higher. When the border opened to boxed beef from Canada the price climbed.

Your next sentences don't even make sence. Of course competiton doesn't prove collusion. No one but you is trying to say there is collusion.

So competiton and no collusion make entry barriers to niche processors. OK then you admit a highly competative processing industry exists without collusion. Your words.

If there is no collusion how are cattle producers cheated? Then you say the price swings up and down, so when the price rises the producers are cheating the processors? Or do you mean the processors attempt to cheat the producers comes back and bites them? Either way the producer comes out even.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Conman to SH: You are not going to win your argument on causuality of cattle prices to boxed beef. Canada proved you wrong. Competition on the other side of the packers than the producers is not proof of no collusion on the producer side. You can have both, at the same time, and it creates barriers of entry to all of these niche processing plants that do not cheat producers. It sets up a system where everyone must cheat producers or be at a competitive disadvantage and it swings the cattle markets lower and higher.

Canada proved that boxed beef does drive prices higher. When the border opened to boxed beef from Canada the price climbed.

Your next sentences don't even make sence. Of course competiton doesn't prove collusion. No one but you is trying to say there is collusion.

So competiton and no collusion make entry barriers to niche processors. OK then you admit a highly competative processing industry exists without collusion. Your words.

If there is no collusion how are cattle producers cheated? Then you say the price swings up and down, so when the price rises the producers are cheating the processors? Or do you mean the processors attempt to cheat the producers comes back and bites them? Either way the producer comes out even.

Jason, either I need to explain things to you a little slower or you need to take a reading comprehension course. You are using Chuck Lambert's comeback when asked this question. Tell me how the domestic (and I include Canada in this) producers benefit when there are imports--Oh I forgot, you believe imports help domestic producers. Tell that to the textile industries in the U.S. The textile producers did not "come out even" as you suggest.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Stay with the cattle industry Conman, quit diverting.

Go back and show where my numbers were wrong in the imported trim example I walked you through.

Re-read your paragraph I quoted. For a supposed prof you have so many double negatives you can't even make sence of what you write.

Prove the Canadian market didn't respond to the higher price for boxed beef recieved after the border opened in August of 2003.

Oh yes this fourm is no place for proof. :roll:

The tally of direct questions you have avoided answering is climbing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Stay with the cattle industry Conman, quit diverting.

Go back and show where my numbers were wrong in the imported trim example I walked you through.

Re-read your paragraph I quoted. For a supposed prof you have so many double negatives you can't even make sence of what you write.

Prove the Canadian market didn't respond to the higher price for boxed beef recieved after the border opened in August of 2003.

Oh yes this fourm is no place for proof. :roll:

The tally of direct questions you have avoided answering is climbing.

On your import example you make a lot of assumptions. Here are a few:

1) Imports are not substitues for domestic production. (Blatently false)

2) The cow, when cut up, all goes into hamburger. False again.

3) Producers would not buy up cows at 60 cents and put a little weight on them at a profit at 60 cents per lb. Your scenario assumes that packers are going to pay the same price per lb. for two vastly different types of animals for no reason. (sometimes happens but known not to)

Jason, if your reading comprehension allows you to read my double negatives the way you do, then I must remind myself to go a little slower for you to be able to read and understand my posts. I will try harder for your sake next time. As you know, the packer argument is one that says that there is competition on the consumer side of the packer and it makes the assumption that there is therefore competition on the producer side of the packer. This is not necessarily true. My paragraph with the double negatives were there for you to understand the argument and its weaknesses. I am sorry you had so much trouble with it.

What does your question have to do with the price of tea in China? If I answer you, will you misconstrue my answer as much as you did this post?

Jason, sometimes it isn't worth arguing with you.

I hope you get your operation reversed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "The competition for those cattle never changed, s*** was pretty much the exact same buyers before, during, and after. Yet, you tangent off from my statement. It is a fact the packers paid as little as they could for the cattle regardless of boxed beef prices. That is the truth, Mr. no bias."

BULL! THE COMPETITION ABSOLUTELY CHANGED!

Many of those cattle that were stuck in Canada used to be sold in the U.S.

THE CLOSING OF THE CANADIAN BORDER CREATED A SITUATION IN CANADA OF MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY. That gave the Canadian packer leverage. That was not the situation when the border was opened before and that is not the situation with the border opened now.

You R-CULTers handed Tyson and Cargill the ammunition to take advantage of that situation at the cost of the Canadian producer.


Sandbag: " Nice strawman, SH. Let's get back on track, shall we? Did prices for Canadian fats go in the same direction as prices for Canadian boxed beef?"

What's wrong Sandbag? Don't want to address the fact that Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity and they could no longer send those cattle South to other packing plants?

Why don't you want to discuss the facts? Are they getting in the way of your need to blame packers?

Are Canadian fat cattle prices tracking with boxed beef prices MINUS THE COSTS OF SRM REMOVAL NOW that the border is open so Canada's slaughter options match their number of cattle? ABSOLUTELY!

Canada' situation is not the U.S.'s situation which makes it a "RED HERRING" to divert attention away from the fact that U.S. cattle prices track with boxed beef prices.


Sandbag: "I see you don't want to talk about boxed beef and fats prices in Canada, eh? Backtracking a little? Let me point out something to you, SH; The companies who's offers for fats went the opposite direction as boxed beef are the very same ones buying fats down here.'

What's wrong Sandbag? Don't want to discuss the U.S. situation of cattle tracking with boxed beef prices so you deceptively resort to the Canadian situation of a closed boder resulting in more cattle than slaughter capacity that you helped prolong?

You want to divert attention away from the fact that you R-CULTers stabbed Canadian producers in the back by lying about the safety of their beef to cleanse your filthy conscience!


Conman: " SH, Just admit it. You don't know ANYTHING about the economic reality of the beef industry. You just like to act like you do and cast dispersions on everyone else. Then when you find out you are wrong, you never admit to it and you start backpeddling."

MORE CHEAP TALK!

Prove me wrong by taking any statement I have made and presenting facts to the contrary.

BRING IT CHEAP TALKER!

You won't because it never happened.


Conman: "Your post just shows that the prices of cattle in relation to boxed beef is dependent on competition between the companies that bid on cattle and sell boxed beef."

Which is exactly what we have in the U.S.


Conman: "There can be manipulation of producer prices based on the economic reality that supply does not quickly react to prices due to the reproduction cycle of cattle and the supply in the "pipelines"."

More cheap talk with no supporting facts. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Conman: "It is a rotten game that packers are playing and it reduces the producer surplus. Tyson makes out because they also are the biggest poultry company and can make money when they swing the cattle markets the way they do. They can run the competition out of both the chicken industry and the beef industry with these methods of market power and abuse."

More cheap talk with no supporting facts. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Conman: "You are not going to win your argument on causuality of cattle prices to boxed beef. Canada proved you wrong."

Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is not the U.S. situation and never has been. You are so desperate to find something to blame the packers for that you use Canada's situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity DURING THE CLOSED BORDER.

You don't know what the Canadian packer profits were for Tyson or Cargill while the border was closed.

You don't know what the costs of SRM removal was in Canada.

You don't know what the Canadian packers were getting for their boxed beef.

IN SHORT, YOU DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING CONMAN!

Tyson's financial report showed that there was a period of time when the Canadian border was closed that Lakeside actually lost money. That was in Tyson's financial reports. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT CONMAN?

You can't because you just repeat what you hear that you want to believe and make the rest up as you go.


Conman: "Competition on the other side of the packers than the producers is not proof of no collusion on the producer side. You can have both, at the same time, and it creates barriers of entry to all of these niche processing plants that do not cheat producers. It sets up a system where everyone must cheat producers or be at a competitive disadvantage and it swings the cattle markets lower and higher."

More cheap talk with no supporting facts! ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Bring something of relevance to the table for once besides your relentless "THEORIES", "OPINIONS", "SUPPOSITIONS", and "CONJECTURE".

You are so factually void and such a complete phony! YOU GOT NOTHING!



~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Conman:
On your import example you make a lot of assumptions. Here are a few:

1) Imports are not substitues for domestic production. (Blatently false)

2) The cow, when cut up, all goes into hamburger. False again.

3) Producers would not buy up cows at 60 cents and put a little weight on them at a profit at 60 cents per lb. Your scenario assumes that packers are going to pay the same price per lb. for two vastly different types of animals for no reason. (sometimes happens but known not to)

I never claimed imports were a substitue to domestic. In my example I clearly added the pounds of imports to the domestic cow.

The post above my example was about whole cow ground beef. Try to keep up conman.

No where did I say producers would buy cows. They sell cull cows. A cow is what producers get calves from, when they are done their reproductive usefulness they are termed culls. You don't seem to be able to keep up with simple concepts.

If the packers were to pay a different amount for the 2 cows in my illustration, they would pay less for the lean cow so the price benefit to producers from using imports to blend with 50/50 trim would be even more.

Care to point out any more items from the example?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, I don't have the will to reply to your breakdown. Most of them are tangents from the topic, anyway.

Here's the facts; I say that packers will pay as little as they can for fats regardless. You said that fats prices track boxed beef. I proved you wrong with the Canadian example. Fat's prices did NOT track boxed beef.
You then make up excuses and try to backtrack. Bottom line is you're clearly wrong. The sad part is that you refuse to recognize that even though it is obvious. The frustrating part is that you'll make the same comment again and you'll claim again that nobody has ever refuted you and that I don't bring the facts....

And you're only bias is the truth...... :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Conman:
On your import example you make a lot of assumptions. Here are a few:

1) Imports are not substitues for domestic production. (Blatently false)

2) The cow, when cut up, all goes into hamburger. False again.

3) Producers would not buy up cows at 60 cents and put a little weight on them at a profit at 60 cents per lb. Your scenario assumes that packers are going to pay the same price per lb. for two vastly different types of animals for no reason. (sometimes happens but known not to)

I never claimed imports were a substitue to domestic. In my example I clearly added the pounds of imports to the domestic cow.

The post above my example was about whole cow ground beef. Try to keep up conman.

No where did I say producers would buy cows. They sell cull cows. A cow is what producers get calves from, when they are done their reproductive usefulness they are termed culls. You don't seem to be able to keep up with simple concepts.

If the packers were to pay a different amount for the 2 cows in my illustration, they would pay less for the lean cow so the price benefit to producers from using imports to blend with 50/50 trim would be even more.

Care to point out any more items from the example?

So Jason, where are you going to sell all that ground beef? Is it going to be exported or is it going to take the place of domestic ground beef? If it is used domestically then it is a substitute for domestic production. Try to keep up.

Jason, I know a lot of ranchers who buy cull cows that need a little fattening. 60 cents a lb. is a good price when you can put gain on for less than a quarter. Beats steer gain sometimes.

Yes, Jason, with no imports, the price of beef will go up--even for ground beef. Why should cattle ranchers produce beef at a loss most of the time? So Wendy's can make more profit? So poor people can afford to buy it? If you were so interested in poor people you might have a different opinion on the labor issues as well as giving rich americans Canadian taxpayer money. If you wanted to include cattle in the picture, give your own away, and not the whole cattle market. You are so into everyone else paying for mistakes for you. They are all just excuses to do what you want, they will not help out economic efficiency.
 

Latest posts

Top