Sandhusker
Well-known member
Thanks, RM.
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.
RobertMac said:~SH~ said: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! :?
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 said:RobertMac said:~SH~ said: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 said: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 said: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?
Econ101 said: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 said:Econ101 said: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.
RobertMac said:agman said: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).
AGman said: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 said:agman said:Econ101 said: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 said:Econ101 said:agman said: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.
Cattleman said: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 said: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 said: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 said:agman said:RobertMac said: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.
Have your learned yet, per your previous erroneous claim to the contrary, that prices can go up without supply going down?
Econ101 said:Cattleman said: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