Atkins?

[Sandhusker]

Thanks, RM.

 

[Murgen]

If increased consumption is going to grow the USA cattle sector, USA beef has to be differentiated from imported beef and preferred by consumers. If not, increased consumption could be made up from increased imports passed off as USA beef by packers.

Good post Robert, but will just labelling beef as US product suffice?

Didn't work with US built automobiles. The foreign cars have come to North America and given the consumer what they want in features/attributes and stolen quite a bit of the market.

As Canadians, we will label our product as Canadian, more and more, but we will also let the consumer know a little more than just being from Canada (age, quality, tenderness, source, etc)

 

[agman]

Conman: "Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ."

Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~

The quote SH has given and the part he high lighted doesn't give enough information to answer the question he asked. Econ knows this and that is why he doesn't answer the question. SH knows this, but is trying to get a "got ya" quote to exploit against Econ.

I'm sure most of you already knew this and quit reading this thread sometime ago. The problem is the confusion it creates with consumption and demand(AGman could be clearer in the way he uses these terms).

Beef consumption is simply the amount of beef offered for sell in the USA market. Per capita consumption is 'beef consumption' divided by the USA population.

Demand is a function of 'beef consumption' and the price that beef is sold. Demand can rise while consumption declines.
65 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $195.00
60 lbs. X $3.50/lb retail = $210.00

Demand can rise while price declines.
60 lbs. X $3.25/lb retail = $195.00
70 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $210.00

Important to note that it takes a greater change in consumption to make up for a smaller change in price. That means price is dominate to consumption with respect to demand. The fact that beef consumption has changed very little over the past 10-15 years means changes in demand has been price dominated. As producers of the raw product, our portion of the industry grows when consumption increases. If consumption changes are supplied with imported beef, the USA cattle sector remains the same or decreases( as in my part of the USA). If the USA cattle sector is going to grow, we have to increase consumption of USA beef by the consuming public, not just get them to pay a higher price for the same amount of beef. Getting the public to consume more beef AND pay more for it is, as AGman says, the best demand scenario. If increased consumption is going to grow the USA cattle sector, USA beef has to be differentiated from imported beef and preferred by consumers. If not, increased consumption could be made up from increased imports passed off as USA beef by packers.
Hope I haven't made this more confusing! :?

RM, my compliments, you have come a long way but you are not home. I am really proud of you. What you over look with imports, especially lean product, is the relative cost of production advantage. This allows U.S producers to grow the industry by means of growing higher valued product which is exactly what we are doing. That is where we must focus, that is where we have the advantage. We cannot compete with Australia, New Zealand or South America in lean beef production due to high land costs.

Your statement that we must increase consumption is only partially true. If consumption is just constant then we must increase our herd and annual beef production just to maintain a constant per capita supply. That is very bullish and can be sustained only if prices also advance. That is if per capita consumption is constant while prices advance leads to increased revenue which in turn will finace continued growth. As you aptly stated, the best of all worlds would be to raise both consumption and price. Is that not what happened from 1999-2002 and again in 2005. In 2005 both consumption and prices are above 2004. Are we not blessed?

Additional note: Econ101 does not answer the question because he can't . He never answer questions, he just diverts. He has no knowledge of economics or supply/demand analysis. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. He is delusional regarding his knowledge level of this industry and business in general. I am quite certain you can ascertain that fact on your own. All he provides is a good laugh when he posts. I am sorry, but he is a total fraud.

 

[Murgen]

Additional note: Econ101 does not answer the question because he can't . He never answer questions, he just diverts. He has no knowledge of economics or supply/demand analysis. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. He is delusional regarding his knowledge level of this industry and business in general. I am quite certain you can ascertain that fact on your own. All he provides is a good laugh when he posts. I am sorry, but he is a total fraud.

here here!!!!!

Or he is a paid RCALF hack, who is employed to blame all, but the salesbarns! Funny how he showed up when RCALF started losing ground on this site, and in the public's opinion!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~

The quote SH has given and the part he high lighted doesn't give enough information to answer the question he asked. Econ knows this and that is why he doesn't answer the question. SH knows this, but is trying to get a "got ya" quote to exploit against Econ.

I'm sure most of you already knew this and quit reading this thread sometime ago. The problem is the confusion it creates with consumption and demand(AGman could be clearer in the way he uses these terms).

Beef consumption is simply the amount of beef offered for sell in the USA market. Per capita consumption is 'beef consumption' divided by the USA population.

Demand is a function of 'beef consumption' and the price that beef is sold. Demand can rise while consumption declines.
65 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $195.00
60 lbs. X $3.50/lb retail = $210.00

Demand can rise while price declines.
60 lbs. X $3.25/lb retail = $195.00
70 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $210.00

Important to note that it takes a greater change in consumption to make up for a smaller change in price. That means price is dominate to consumption with respect to demand. The fact that beef consumption has changed very little over the past 10-15 years means changes in demand has been price dominated. As producers of the raw product, our portion of the industry grows when consumption increases. If consumption changes are supplied with imported beef, the USA cattle sector remains the same or decreases( as in my part of the USA). If the USA cattle sector is going to grow, we have to increase consumption of USA beef by the consuming public, not just get them to pay a higher price for the same amount of beef. Getting the public to consume more beef AND pay more for it is, as AGman says, the best demand scenario. If increased consumption is going to grow the USA cattle sector, USA beef has to be differentiated from imported beef and preferred by consumers. If not, increased consumption could be made up from increased imports passed off as USA beef by packers.
Hope I haven't made this more confusing! :?

RM, my compliments, you have come a long way but you are not home. I am really proud of you. What you over look with imports, especially lean product, is the relative cost of production advantage. This allows U.S producers to grow the industry by means of growing higher valued product which is exactly what we are doing. That is where we must focus, that is where we have the advantage. We cannot compete with Australia, New Zealand or South America in lean beef production due to high land costs.

Your statement that we must increase consumption is only partially true. If consumption is just constant then we must increase our herd and annual beef production just to maintain a constant per capita supply. That is very bullish and can be sustained only if prices also advance. That is if per capita consumption is constant while prices advance leads to increased revenue which in turn will finace continued growth. As you aptly stated, the best of all worlds would be to raise both consumption and price. Is that not what happened from 1999-2002 and again in 2005. In 2005 both consumption and prices are above 2004. Are we not blessed?

Additional note: Econ101 does not answer the question because he can't . He never answer questions, he just diverts. He has no knowledge of economics or supply/demand analysis. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. He is delusional regarding his knowledge level of this industry and business in general. I am quite certain you can ascertain that fact on your own. All he provides is a good laugh when he posts. I am sorry, but he is a total fraud.

Agman, you are so full of yourself. Answering any question for SH that has anything to do with reasoning or mathematical aptitude is an absolute waste of time as Sandhusker has pointed out.

Both you and SH are prone to not even being able to read posts without jumping to some conclusion not stated in the post so you can prove yourself right. As I have said before, in any argument you are engaged in with yourself, you have the ability to win (and lose at the same time).

If you want to be the big guy here that shows he knows, take industry packer economist Schroeder and use his numbers in the year 2001 to 2003 to make your point. We have a posting on Atkins and increased demand for animal proteins in the data, substitution numbers for substitutes, pork and poultry, calculated by Schroeder and his "beef index" and total dollars made in these industries due to price increases. Subtract from that the "negative" margins (or whatever you claim them to be). You will see that the data supports all of my assertions from Atkins to the affects of substitution products of pork and poultry and the industry's further concentration in all sectors.

It is a nice little market power plan that the government economists are either incompetent to see or unable to stop through the current legislative tools and recent court decisions of judges who know little about economics.

Unlike you (and SH's little questions) I like to post the data that I am using as a basis for the conclusions I reach. On this forum it has been hard to post that type of data and this is not the crowd that would know if the calculations were correct or not. Most of the people that are the potential audience want someone to do all the mathematics and analysis for them and come up with an answer for the beleif they currently hold. I am not going to waste my time on doing that on this forum. When I don't answer a question by you or SH, it is not because I do not know the answer, it is because it would be a waste of my time. I have better things to do.

Go do the calculations. Your convenient approach to put everything on shifts in demand instead of the exercise of market power is a joke to anyone who is smart enough to know what kind of calculations have to be made to come up with the correct conclusions. While the courts want to get caught up in the semantics of the reasoning to come up with ways to back the fallacious corporate view that will lead to this continued corporate control of the protein markets, I don't.

With the capitalization it takes to get in the cattle business as a land owner, the United States is at a comparative disadvantage to many foreign countries. I still do not believe that low cost economic decisions are in the best interest of America. I am not a protectionist, per se(I wouldn't consider Canada high risk), but all of these strategies lead to risks that are not being taken into account when the analysis is being done. It is short sighted. Food security must be a high priority of Homeland Security and when the producer surplus is not as equal weight as the consumer surplus, we will continue to see our food being produced internationally and the farm communities economically wrecked. Johanns is going around the country trying to figure out how to get more young people in agriculture when their economic policies, as seen by their inability to protect the producer surplus with the regulatory agencies, is counterproductive. This leads to government sponsored economic fruad that plays into the hands of the food processors of this country. It is a cheap food policy.

 

[RobertMac]

RM, my compliments, you have come a long way but you are not home. I am really proud of you. What you over look with imports, especially lean product, is the relative cost of production advantage. This allows U.S producers to grow the industry by means of growing higher valued product which is exactly what we are doing. That is where we must focus, that is where we have the advantage. We cannot compete with Australia, New Zealand or South America in lean beef production due to high land costs.

AGman, I don't dispute the fact that lean imports put more dollars into the industry...if it didn't, it wouldn't be happening. But there are others farther up the food chain that get their share of those dollars before the USA producer.
By 'growing higher valued product' I assume you mean pre-cooked convenience products. I agree this is the proper direction for the industry to grow consumption and net price return, but I also see this as an ideal product to sell inexpensive, lean whole cut imports. The second biggest problem the beef industry faces is the publics inability to cook our product properly(other than ground beef). The other direction for 'higher valued product' is 'high fat' products(high choice and prime)...but to fully capitalize on that, we have to over come the biggest problem the beef industry faces...the general public stigma that high fat beef is in the same category as tobacco.

The price of land is a factor(although I think NZ has similar prices), but I think the cost of regulations through out our industry is a bigger factor. If these regulation make our product safer(or perceived safer by the consumer), we have to try to recover that cost by differentiating our product. Most imported products are not raised and processed with the same oversight as USA production(this is why Canada,as an exception, wouldn't have a problem selling Canadian labeled product in the USA).

Your statement that we must increase consumption is only partially true. If consumption is just constant then we must increase our herd and annual beef production just to maintain a constant per capita supply. That is very bullish and can be sustained only if prices also advance. That is if per capita consumption is constant while prices advance leads to increased revenue which in turn will finance continued growth. As you aptly stated, the best of all worlds would be to raise both consumption and price. Is that not what happened from 1999-2002 and again in 2005. In 2005 both consumption and prices are above 2004. Are we not blessed?

We have imported enough beef, along with higher slaughter weights, to maintain a constant per capita supply over the last 15 or so years while USA cattle numbers have shrunk to 1950's level!
SH is correct that retail prices are limited by cross over to other protein sources.
The best of both worlds starts with addressing our biggest problem(see above).
You know I don't have access to '04 and '05 numbers...would love to see them.

As for Econ, if he is a 'total fraud' as you and SH claim, all will realize that in due time. Your and SH's lack of civility with people you disagree is more indicative of you than them. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says. At one time, market power was a concern in our capitalistic system...why isn't it anymore? I feel that too much market power is repressive to small business and I'm small business, as are all producers. You know which side I'm on.
Stay warm and don't forget to bring your beer inside, Robert

 

[Econ101]

Agman, the only problem with the analysis of demand that you made is that it assumes a perfectly competitive market. There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away.

When you start with a false assumption, as you have, you end up with the total crap you bring up that is sold as "expert knowledge" to the unwitting. I am not one of them.

I will post an example of this for pointrider in our more civil discussion as he is on the right track. Feel free to put your imput there as long as you are civil. Your little attack dog, SH, is about to have his teeth kicked in once more. Sometimes I like to hear him bark. I find it humorous.

 

[agman]

Agman, the only problem with the analysis of demand that you made is that it assumes a perfectly competitive market. There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away.

When you start with a false assumption, as you have, you end up with the total crap you bring up that is sold as "expert knowledge" to the unwitting. I am not one of them.

I will post an example of this for pointrider in our more civil discussion as he is on the right track. Feel free to put your imput there as long as you are civil. Your little attack dog, SH, is about to have his teeth kicked in once more. Sometimes I like to hear him bark. I find it humorous.

Get real, another phony assumption on your part. For you to be correct consumers would have no control over their decision. In the real world they are the decision makers which blows your phony theory into outer space. You are in way over your head on this subject matter. Where do you even dream up all these goofy and misleading statements you make? You are the most inept person regarding supply/demand analysis I have ever encountered. You are a complete fool as you continue to only fool yourself.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, the only problem with the analysis of demand that you made is that it assumes a perfectly competitive market. There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away.

When you start with a false assumption, as you have, you end up with the total crap you bring up that is sold as "expert knowledge" to the unwitting. I am not one of them.

I will post an example of this for pointrider in our more civil discussion as he is on the right track. Feel free to put your imput there as long as you are civil. Your little attack dog, SH, is about to have his teeth kicked in once more. Sometimes I like to hear him bark. I find it humorous.

Get real, another phony assumption on your part. For you to be correct consumers would have no control over their decision. In the real world they are the decision makers which blows your phony theory into outer space. You are in way over your head on this subject matter. Where do you even dream up all these goofy and misleading statements you make? You are the most inept person regarding supply/demand analysis I have ever encountered. You are a complete fool as you continue to only fool yourself.

And you misuse the economic assumptions that allow price times quantity to be the measure for demand. Go see my example for Pointrider.

 

[agman]

RM, my compliments, you have come a long way but you are not home. I am really proud of you. What you over look with imports, especially lean product, is the relative cost of production advantage. This allows U.S producers to grow the industry by means of growing higher valued product which is exactly what we are doing. That is where we must focus, that is where we have the advantage. We cannot compete with Australia, New Zealand or South America in lean beef production due to high land costs.

AGman, I don't dispute the fact that lean imports put more dollars into the industry...if it didn't, it wouldn't be happening. But there are others farther up the food chain that get their share of those dollars before the USA producer.
By 'growing higher valued product' I assume you mean pre-cooked convenience products. I agree this is the proper direction for the industry to grow consumption and net price return, but I also see this as an ideal product to sell inexpensive, lean whole cut imports. The second biggest problem the beef industry faces is the publics inability to cook our product properly(other than ground beef). The other direction for 'higher valued product' is 'high fat' products(high choice and prime)...but to fully capitalize on that, we have to over come the biggest problem the beef industry faces...the general public stigma that high fat beef is in the same category as tobacco.

The price of land is a factor(although I think NZ has similar prices), but I think the cost of regulations through out our industry is a bigger factor. If these regulation make our product safer(or perceived safer by the consumer), we have to try to recover that cost by differentiating our product. Most imported products are not raised and processed with the same oversight as USA production(this is why Canada,as an exception, wouldn't have a problem selling Canadian labeled product in the USA).

Your statement that we must increase consumption is only partially true. If consumption is just constant then we must increase our herd and annual beef production just to maintain a constant per capita supply. That is very bullish and can be sustained only if prices also advance. That is if per capita consumption is constant while prices advance leads to increased revenue which in turn will finance continued growth. As you aptly stated, the best of all worlds would be to raise both consumption and price. Is that not what happened from 1999-2002 and again in 2005. In 2005 both consumption and prices are above 2004. Are we not blessed?

We have imported enough beef, along with higher slaughter weights, to maintain a constant per capita supply over the last 15 or so years while USA cattle numbers have shrunk to 1950's level!
SH is correct that retail prices are limited by cross over to other protein sources.
The best of both worlds starts with addressing our biggest problem(see above).
You know I don't have access to '04 and '05 numbers...would love to see them.

As for Econ, if he is a 'total fraud' as you and SH claim, all will realize that in due time. Your and SH's lack of civility with people you disagree is more indicative of you than them. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says. At one time, market power was a concern in our capitalistic system...why isn't it anymore? I feel that too much market power is repressive to small business and I'm small business, as are all producers. You know which side I'm on.
Stay warm and don't forget to bring your beer inside, Robert

I can and am civil with most people even though I may disagree. If you have not discerned Econ's lack of any real knowledge then I have over estimated what you understand regarding economics. How many false accusations does he have to make before you realize he is a fraud? Most comments he has made regarding economics are truly laughable.


I am on the producers side just as you are. The difference is I don't believe every large corporation is out to screw producers. That makes zero economic sense. I have seen a litany of accusations over the years but no factual evidence. When put to the test the accusations have proven to be false. Perception and reality many times are miles apart. Conspiracy theories are born from ignorance of the subject rather than knowledge of the subject. Have a cool one.

 

[agman]

Agman, the only problem with the analysis of demand that you made is that it assumes a perfectly competitive market. There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away.

When you start with a false assumption, as you have, you end up with the total crap you bring up that is sold as "expert knowledge" to the unwitting. I am not one of them.

I will post an example of this for pointrider in our more civil discussion as he is on the right track. Feel free to put your imput there as long as you are civil. Your little attack dog, SH, is about to have his teeth kicked in once more. Sometimes I like to hear him bark. I find it humorous.

Get real, another phony assumption on your part. For you to be correct consumers would have no control over their decision. In the real world they are the decision makers which blows your phony theory into outer space. You are in way over your head on this subject matter. Where do you even dream up all these goofy and misleading statements you make? You are the most inept person regarding supply/demand analysis I have ever encountered. You are a complete fool as you continue to only fool yourself.

And you misuse the economic assumptions that allow price times quantity to be the measure for demand. Go see my example for Pointrider.

If you think demand is not a price/quantity function then you are even more inept than you have appeared to this point which would be an achievement in itself. If price times quantity is not a measure of demand then please explain what it is? Folks, this is going to be hilarious, stand by for Econ's attempt to explain "demand". The floor is yours Econ-have at it!!!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Get real, another phony assumption on your part. For you to be correct consumers would have no control over their decision. In the real world they are the decision makers which blows your phony theory into outer space. You are in way over your head on this subject matter. Where do you even dream up all these goofy and misleading statements you make? You are the most inept person regarding supply/demand analysis I have ever encountered. You are a complete fool as you continue to only fool yourself.

And you misuse the economic assumptions that allow price times quantity to be the measure for demand. Go see my example for Pointrider.

If you think demand is not a price/quantity function then you are even more inept than you have appeared to this point which would be an achievement in itself. If price times quantity is not a measure of demand then please explain what it is? Folks, this is going to be hilarious, stand by for Econ's attempt to explain "demand". The floor is yours Econ-have at it!!!!!!

When there is absolute market power, the monopsonist sets demand. It is not a curve. You would know that if you had any real economic education instead of being a hack just trying to get people into marketing agreements so the markets could be manipulated. Sure, they have factors, but not competitive market factors. You assume that to be the case and it is a false assumption. When you build your house upon the sand......

 

[Cattleman]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

 

[Jason]

That's an answer of what demand is?

Conman wrote:

When there is absolute market power, the monopsonist sets demand. It is not a curve.

So packers have control of consumers as to how much beef they will buy at what price.

Remember Conman agreed that all dollars in the beef industry come from the consumer.

Now he is claiming the packers tell consumers how many dollars to put into their purchases.

I wish I had that kind of power to tell people how much they should spend, and on what things. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

Here is a pretty good article on the subject. Note that the index used for calculating the model were based on the years from 1982 to 1998. Agman has been challenged to use the numbers in this index to show what happened from 2001 to 2003. Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics.

http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/bulletins_2/todays_market/Focusonbeefdemand.pdf

 

[agman]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

Cattleman, you have it right. Thanks, I just hope others can learn what demand rally is and how it is measured as opposed to the phony examples being provided by Econ.

 

[Econ101]

That's an answer of what demand is?

Conman wrote:

When there is absolute market power, the monopsonist sets demand. It is not a curve.

So packers have control of consumers as to how much beef they will buy at what price.

Remember Conman agreed that all dollars in the beef industry come from the consumer.

Now he is claiming the packers tell consumers how many dollars to put into their purchases.

I wish I had that kind of power to tell people how much they should spend, and on what things. :roll:

Jason, don't read too much into this. The demand curve is a relational representation of a product and its substitutes in a mix of goods. Of course packers do not control consumers as to how much beef they will buy at what price. They can control the price to a degree, which has consequences, and they can control the quantity to a degree, which has consequences. All of the consequences are based on the consumer's actions to those changes.

You are jumping way around in this post with your assertions of what I am saying.

The fact is that given market power, the packers sometimes use it. Pickett proved that. The consequences of those actions are way beyond your understanding as this post shows. If you have questions, ask them. Don't continue to make the same mistakes in your posting of claiming I am saying something I am not.

As a matter of fact, Jason, you do have that power; at what price you are willing to sell your bulls and how many you offer. If you pick too high of a number, then you sell none. If you pick too low of a number you sell and lose some of your producer surplus. Your sales ability to claim and convince others the highest value for those bulls is what shifts the demand curve in your specific transaction--- or doesn't allow it to go lower than it should. This is your best guess of the quantity demanded. The sum of all of the transactions for your bull selling and at what price levels is your supply curve. The sum of all of the transactions of the buying of your bulls at different prices is the demand curve for your bulls. Each transaction is a point on that curve.

The quantity demanded is the amount of bulls that customers are willing to pay you at a given price, holding all other things constant. The demand curve is the schedule of bulls your customers will purchase over a range of prices.

Go read the article.

 

[agman]

The quote SH has given and the part he high lighted doesn't give enough information to answer the question he asked. Econ knows this and that is why he doesn't answer the question. SH knows this, but is trying to get a "got ya" quote to exploit against Econ.

I'm sure most of you already knew this and quit reading this thread sometime ago. The problem is the confusion it creates with consumption and demand(AGman could be clearer in the way he uses these terms).

Beef consumption is simply the amount of beef offered for sell in the USA market. Per capita consumption is 'beef consumption' divided by the USA population.

Demand is a function of 'beef consumption' and the price that beef is sold. Demand can rise while consumption declines.
65 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $195.00
60 lbs. X $3.50/lb retail = $210.00

Demand can rise while price declines.
60 lbs. X $3.25/lb retail = $195.00
70 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $210.00

Important to note that it takes a greater change in consumption to make up for a smaller change in price. That means price is dominate to consumption with respect to demand. The fact that beef consumption has changed very little over the past 10-15 years means changes in demand has been price dominated. As producers of the raw product, our portion of the industry grows when consumption increases. If consumption changes are supplied with imported beef, the USA cattle sector remains the same or decreases( as in my part of the USA). If the USA cattle sector is going to grow, we have to increase consumption of USA beef by the consuming public, not just get them to pay a higher price for the same amount of beef. Getting the public to consume more beef AND pay more for it is, as AGman says, the best demand scenario. If increased consumption is going to grow the USA cattle sector, USA beef has to be differentiated from imported beef and preferred by consumers. If not, increased consumption could be made up from increased imports passed off as USA beef by packers.
Hope I haven't made this more confusing! :?

RM, my compliments, you have come a long way but you are not home. I am really proud of you. What you over look with imports, especially lean product, is the relative cost of production advantage. This allows U.S producers to grow the industry by means of growing higher valued product which is exactly what we are doing. That is where we must focus, that is where we have the advantage. We cannot compete with Australia, New Zealand or South America in lean beef production due to high land costs.

Your statement that we must increase consumption is only partially true. If consumption is just constant then we must increase our herd and annual beef production just to maintain a constant per capita supply. That is very bullish and can be sustained only if prices also advance. That is if per capita consumption is constant while prices advance leads to increased revenue which in turn will finace continued growth. As you aptly stated, the best of all worlds would be to raise both consumption and price. Is that not what happened from 1999-2002 and again in 2005. In 2005 both consumption and prices are above 2004. Are we not blessed?

Additional note: Econ101 does not answer the question because he can't . He never answer questions, he just diverts. He has no knowledge of economics or supply/demand analysis. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. He is delusional regarding his knowledge level of this industry and business in general. I am quite certain you can ascertain that fact on your own. All he provides is a good laugh when he posts. I am sorry, but he is a total fraud.

Agman, you are so full of yourself. Answering any question for SH that has anything to do with reasoning or mathematical aptitude is an absolute waste of time as Sandhusker has pointed out.

Both you and SH are prone to not even being able to read posts without jumping to some conclusion not stated in the post so you can prove yourself right. As I have said before, in any argument you are engaged in with yourself, you have the ability to win (and lose at the same time).

If you want to be the big guy here that shows he knows, take industry packer economist Schroeder and use his numbers in the year 2001 to 2003 to make your point. We have a posting on Atkins and increased demand for animal proteins in the data, substitution numbers for substitutes, pork and poultry, calculated by Schroeder and his "beef index" and total dollars made in these industries due to price increases. Subtract from that the "negative" margins (or whatever you claim them to be). You will see that the data supports all of my assertions from Atkins to the affects of substitution products of pork and poultry and the industry's further concentration in all sectors.

It is a nice little market power plan that the government economists are either incompetent to see or unable to stop through the current legislative tools and recent court decisions of judges who know little about economics.

Unlike you (and SH's little questions) I like to post the data that I am using as a basis for the conclusions I reach. On this forum it has been hard to post that type of data and this is not the crowd that would know if the calculations were correct or not. Most of the people that are the potential audience want someone to do all the mathematics and analysis for them and come up with an answer for the beleif they currently hold. I am not going to waste my time on doing that on this forum. When I don't answer a question by you or SH, it is not because I do not know the answer, it is because it would be a waste of my time. I have better things to do.

Go do the calculations. Your convenient approach to put everything on shifts in demand instead of the exercise of market power is a joke to anyone who is smart enough to know what kind of calculations have to be made to come up with the correct conclusions. While the courts want to get caught up in the semantics of the reasoning to come up with ways to back the fallacious corporate view that will lead to this continued corporate control of the protein markets, I don't.

With the capitalization it takes to get in the cattle business as a land owner, the United States is at a comparative disadvantage to many foreign countries. I still do not believe that low cost economic decisions are in the best interest of America. I am not a protectionist, per se(I wouldn't consider Canada high risk), but all of these strategies lead to risks that are not being taken into account when the analysis is being done. It is short sighted. Food security must be a high priority of Homeland Security and when the producer surplus is not as equal weight as the consumer surplus, we will continue to see our food being produced internationally and the farm communities economically wrecked. Johanns is going around the country trying to figure out how to get more young people in agriculture when their economic policies, as seen by their inability to protect the producer surplus with the regulatory agencies, is counterproductive. This leads to government sponsored economic fruad that plays into the hands of the food processors of this country. It is a cheap food policy.

Pardon me, but I was instrumental and initiated the action in moving the industry toward developing the very demand index you cite to better allow producers to understand what demand is actually doing. You are preaching to one of the authors-got ya!! Dr Schroeder was also part of the assembly which met in Florida at the Deseret Ranch for this purpose at the invitation of the NCBA. Other economists in attndence along with Dr Schroeder were Dr Ward from Florida State, Dr Wayne Purcell, Virginia Poly-Tech and Chuck Lambert from the NCBA. Others in attendance represented all and every segment of the beef industry. It was a terrific two day exchange of ideas to bolster demand for beef.

Now, what is it that you want me to to learn from studying the data from Schroeder? As I have previously stated I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis than you will ever know. The fact is you do not even know enough to discern which data is required for proper analysis and interpretation.

All you have is your distorted versions of every event. A manipulation theory for every price movement. Have you explained to all readers your version of "demand". I can't wait!!! Have your learned yet, per your previous erroneous claim to the contrary, that prices can go up without supply going down? What is that called? One thing is for certain and that is you certainly could not come up with the correct calculations for the courts to examine. You don't even know the basics of supply/demand analysis despite your ongoing rhetoric. The last laugh is for someone so misinformed as you to attmept to pass your judgement on those who actually can and do the analysis.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Have your learned yet, per your previous erroneous claim to the contrary, that prices can go up without supply going down?

Put up the whole paragraph, Agman. You make the meaning something I did not when you misquote the context. Is this the only thing you have?

Good for you on the article from Schroeder. Tell me, does the calculation for the substitution of poultry and pork hold up during the 2001-2003 time period? If not, why not? Maybe you need to go over and read the article again!!! Show your numbers.

The demand curve is a schedule of beef quantities consumers will purchase over a range of beef prices.

Do your little analysis with changes in the price and quantity of poultry and pork using Schroeder's (and your) calculated numbers of substitution. When you are done, answer these questions:

1) Was there a demand shift up probably attributable to Atkins for meats during this time?

2) Did the substitution numbers published in the article hold up to actual data? If not, why not?

3) Did Tyson benefit from higher beef prices in its primary business of poultry even as beef margins decreased? Was there a benefit to "swinging" the market and driving down supplies due to lower prices for cattle even if they were not in the beef industry for Tyson in poultry and Swift in pork?

 

[agman]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

Here is a pretty good article on the subject. Note that the index used for calculating the model were based on the years from 1982 to 1998. Agman has been challenged to use the numbers in this index to show what happened from 2001 to 2003. Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics.

http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/bulletins_2/todays_market/Focusonbeefdemand.pdf

Is this aforementioned comment which you reference for real? "Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics." Did you not just previously say that in a monopsony there is no demand curve, it is set by the monopsonists? Boy-wonder you are really confused. You truly do not have a clue what you are talking about. You cannot confide in one statement which contradicts your previous statement. What is it that you really believe or do you even know?

So as not to confuse the readers with your phony and contradictory statements I willl point to key factors that determine demand in what I believe are consumer priorities. In order:

The price of beef
The price of beef realtive to competing meats
Consumer disposable and discretionary income
Demographics are intertwined with the previous three and affect various beef cuts differently

Food safety issues
advertising

Given the world a break from your fantasies Conman.