Beef Demand

[agman]

My preliminary demand data for the second quarter shows a decline in beef demand of 2.8% versus year ago level. Additionally, beef demand, seasonlly adjusted, declined approximately .8% from the first quarter of 2005. Point: Demand erosion is accelerating from the first quarter. Each $1.00 per capita decline in domestic consumer spending on beef reduces income to the beef industry by approximatly $296 million dollars.

Net beef supplies declined during the second quarter, a result of reduced domestic production and increased export sales. Net beef supplies are inclusive of all imports.

 

[Anonymous]

Agman,

I was just thinking today about the CAFTA critics argument that you cannot trade with countries that don't have any money or this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates.

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?

That data would pretty much slam dunk that argument!

I've seen that data but I can't recall where.



~SH~

 

[STAFF]

Devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates. Would this would solve alot of problems?Maybe

 

[agman]

Agman,

I was just thinking today about the CAFTA critics argument that you cannot trade with countries that don't have any money or this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates.

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?

That data would pretty much slam dunk that argument!

I've seen that data but I can't recall where.



~SH~

There is an excellent piece by DR Darrel Peel from Oklahoma State University per this subject. The U.S. has been a net winner in beef trade with Mexico since NAFTA and slight looser to Canada.

 

[agman]

Devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates. Would this would solve alot of problems?Maybe

Currency valuations have less to do with commodity trade than is generally believed. What has total trade with these countries done since NAFTA? It has increased.

 

[STAFF]

With currency values the same,shipping costs become the only big factor

 

[ocm]

this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates.

WARNING--not even close to what I said.

Are you stooping to misquoting, too, ~SH~?

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with exchange rates or relative values of currency.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman,

I was just thinking today about the CAFTA critics argument that you cannot trade with countries that don't have any money or this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates.

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?

That data would pretty much slam dunk that argument!

I've seen that data but I can't recall where.



~SH~

While you're asking him questions, why don't you ask the big one? Ask him of these trade agreements require us to give up sovereignity? Ask him if NAFTA or WTO has ever overruled a law in this country. Ask him, SH.

ASK HIM, SH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mrj]

Agman,

I was just thinking today about the CAFTA critics argument that you cannot trade with countries that don't have any money or this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates.

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?

That data would pretty much slam dunk that argument!

I've seen that data but I can't recall where.


~SH~

While you're asking him questions, why don't you ask the big one? Ask him of these trade agreements require us to give up sovereignity? Ask him if NAFTA or WTO has ever overruled a law in this country. Ask him, SH.

ASK HIM, SH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandhusker, wouldn't the more fair (and important!) question be......what is the score of USA versus other nations in trade disputes settled by NAFTA or WTO "governing organizations"? And......does the USA have representation on those "governing organizations"?

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

From what I have gleaned, it appears we've put the WTO on other folks more that it's been put to us. However, you're missing the point. It's not a score deal. It's a deal where governments have traded sovereignity in order to be part of the WTO. This means that they have agreed that the WTO will rule over everybody and they will be subject to the WTO's rulings. If a US law that has been enacted by duly elected representation is challenged to the WTO and they find the law is counter to trade, we must strike the law or face sanctions or a fine. Understand, MRJ, that a foreign body has power over our elected government.

Do you think that is right? Do you think that say, a Frenchman, Italian, and Argentine should be able to tell the State of South Dakota "That law is bad for trade, you must rescind it or be subject to a $10,000,000 fine"? And then they have authority given them from Washington to enforce their ruling?

 

[Anonymous]

From what I have gleaned, it appears we've put the WTO on other folks more that it's been put to us. However, you're missing the point. It's not a score deal. It's a deal where governments have traded sovereignity in order to be part of the WTO. This means that they have agreed that the WTO will rule over everybody and they will be subject to the WTO's rulings. If a US law that has been enacted by duly elected representation is challenged to the WTO and they find the law is counter to trade, we must strike the law or face sanctions or a fine. Understand, MRJ, that a foreign body has power over our elected government.

Do you think that is right? Do you think that say, a Frenchman, Italian, and Argentine should be able to tell the State of South Dakota "That law is bad for trade, you must rescind it or be subject to a $10,000,000 fine"? And then they have authority given them from Washington to enforce their ruling?

SH asked for examples-- the WTO's NAFTA ruling on the Mexican trucks is a good example.... They ruled we had to allow in the Mexican trucking companies-- but then the individual states were liable for the expense of the safety inspections regarding the trucks and the drivers....Last I heard that the states and US inspectors couldn't even inspect 10% of them- but according to NAFTA they must be allowed to roll the highways of the US- waiting time bombs :? .........

 

[Anonymous]

SH : ".....this North American Union conspiracy theory of OCM's regarding devaluing our currency to Canadian and Mexican currency rates."

ocm (in response): "WARNING--not even close to what I said."

ocm (in response): "What I said had absolutely nothing to do with exchange rates or relative values of currency."

Here's a quick recap on what ocm really stated:

ocm (before): "Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us.”

ocm (beore): "The European Union is the premier example of regional integration.

As applied to North America it would mean.

Common Markets--no tarriffs, no quotas

Common Currency--Do away with the currencies of the US, Canada, Mexico and other participants and replace them with a common currency(like the Euro in Europe)

ocm (before): "CAFTA advances regional integration"

ocm (before): "CAFTA advances the creation of a North American Union."

Replacing our currency with a common currency of Canada and Mexico would be to devalue our currency.

You can't get away with denying what you stated previously here, you should have known that. Here, people are held accountable for what they say.

The saddest thing is that you can't even tie this North American Union conspiracy theory to anything stated in the CAFTA agreement. You guys just make this crap up as you go and "heeeeeeere come the lemmings" to swallow it, unconditionally.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, there is no way that you will change your mind based on anything I, ocm, or anybody else presents once you have set your feet. There is only 1 person here who you take to be a higher authority than you, and you ignore my challenge to ask him on this board where we all can see the question and response. Why, SH? What are you afraid of? Can't you see I'm not letting up on this? Ask Agman and shut me up - I dare you!

 

[pointrider]

The world has always had "foreign trade," but for those of you who don't believe that trade and the trade agreements that are necessary to make it work in today's world are desirable, 2008 is only 3 years away.

I do not remember trade agreements being a big issue in the past few presidential elections, but that does not mean that you can not try to make it one in the next election. I would suggest that you make it clear to the candidates how you feel about it, and then ask them how they feel about trade.

If you can find one candidate who will promise to veto any and all legislation regarding trade agreements, then, by all means, get behind him or her. It is your right. Then we will see what happens.

If you can't find a candidate who is against trade, well, all I can say is, "MAYBE in 2012." All you can do is keep trying and live with reality until then - or quit living. Good luck!

By the way, have you heard of Mercosur? How about "Political Mercosur?" If not, do a Google search. Find out who they are and then find out how long the EU has been courting them and trying to work out a "regional trade agreement" between those trade unions.

This might explain why we, as a country (and perhaps as the group, NAFTA) seem to be in a hurry to work things out in Central and South America. Global competition is today's reality, and it is not going to go away soon. Our government has taken the position that countries are like companies. You are either going forward or you are going backward. In the real world, there is no such thing as the status quo. They believe we must compete, because they see the long-term alternative as unacceptable.

But, once again, there's always 2008 and 2012 and --------- if you don't agree with that.

 

[RobertMac]

Agman,

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?


~SH~

Comparing 'live cattle' imports to 'value added beef' exports is not a fair comparison...it would be like comparing the value of imported sheet metal with the value of an exported automobile. Adjust the value of imports to reflect their full value impact on the supply system to make a fair comparison. I would be interested in seeing those figures, Agman!!!

 

[pointrider]

Have you checked up on Mercosur yet? If you did, did you get deep enough into it to learn that the EU is encouraging maximum regional integration of the organization which means more member states? Why would they do this? Because they want the organization to be as large as possible when they finalize their trade agreement.

Even though "W" and Tony are big buddies, do you think that GB and the other EU states will try to limit what Mercosur can do with us if they can get the deal done? You bet they will! And what about the time line? Did you notice that they are trying to get all of this done by the end of 2006?

Hillary Clinton, upon being asked about the failure of her national health care system when Bill was President, admitted, "We tried to do too much at one time. In the future we will have to move on smaller fronts and take a little longer to get the job done."

In my opinion this is why we have NAFTA and then CAFTA and then ??? "W" et al understand what Hillary was talking about. Otherwise, we would have moved on all of North and South America at one time. I just hope that there is some dialog between the U.S. and Mercosur to at least let them know the hopes for the future. Perhaps this will be enough to make them stall a while in the "signed working agreements" between Mercosur and the EU.

 

[agman]

Agman,

Do you happen to have the import vs. export value data for Mexican beef and live cattle trade, prior to the closing of the borders, available?


~SH~

Comparing 'live cattle' imports to 'value added beef' exports is not a fair comparison...it would be like comparing the value of imported sheet metal with the value of an exported automobile. Adjust the value of imports to reflect their full value impact on the supply system to make a fair comparison. I would be interested in seeing those figures, Agman!!!

The net is approximately +$40 per head. Your aforementioned comment is incorrect. It is the added value differential that makes importing a raw material worthwhile and exporting a processed product whether that is steel and auto parts converted to cars or cattle to beef. Also, remember that this figure does not include any residual gain, just direct gain.

I believe imports from Canada are a perfect example. We import total, live plus product, approximately the amount of our total exports of beef. The difference is we get the benefit of direct added value plus residual gain. That is higher plant utilization, employment, taxes spending etc.

If we did import we would have to compete with Canada in the export of goods. They would garner the advantage of added value plus residual benefits.

 

[Murgen]

If we did import we would have to compete with Canada in the export of goods. They would garner the advantage of added value plus residual benefits

That's where we're heading, I hope it continues!

 

[RobertMac]

Agman: "I[Agman] believe imports from Canada are a perfect example. We[packer/feeders] import total, live plus product, approximately the amount of our[packer/wholesaler] total exports of beef. The difference is we[packer] get the benefit of direct added value plus residual gain. That is higher plant utilization, employment, taxes spending etc.

Where is the 'us' as in USA producers in this equation?

Agman: "It is the added value differential that makes importing a raw material worthwhile and exporting a processed product whether that is steel and auto parts converted to cars or cattle to beef."

Adding value to imported raw material is even MORE worthwhile when the imported raw material cost less than the home grown raw material[USA live cattle]. And what happens to the price of the home grown raw material when it is displaced with imports???

I didn't think packer profits were good enough to be considered "worthwhile"? Maybe they just need to be importing more raw material...OH, that's right, they are working on that with FTAs!!!!!
I'm sure you meant..."If we did[not] import we would have to compete with Canada in the export of goods."

Tyson and Cargill would still be processing the Canadian beef, but would actually have to label it as Canadian beef. Is there a reason they would rather sell it as perceived USA beef?????

 

[RobertMac]

Have you checked up on Mercosur yet? If you did, did you get deep enough into it to learn that the EU is encouraging maximum regional integration of the organization which means more member states? Why would they do this? Because they want the organization to be as large as possible when they finalize their trade agreement.

Even though "W" and Tony are big buddies, do you think that GB and the other EU states will try to limit what Mercosur can do with us if they can get the deal done? You bet they will! And what about the time line? Did you notice that they are trying to get all of this done by the end of 2006?

Hillary Clinton, upon being asked about the failure of her national health care system when Bill was President, admitted, "We tried to do too much at one time. In the future we will have to move on smaller fronts and take a little longer to get the job done."

In my opinion this is why we have NAFTA and then CAFTA and then ??? "W" et al understand what Hillary was talking about. Otherwise, we would have moved on all of North and South America at one time. I just hope that there is some dialog between the U.S. and Mercosur to at least let them know the hopes for the future. Perhaps this will be enough to make them stall a while in the "signed working agreements" between Mercosur and the EU.

Pointrider, who stands to benefit the most from the WTO being the controlling body over all these 'regional integration' organizations?

And could you explain incremental politics to SH...you have obviously studied Democratic politics over their last fifty years of being in control.