- Feb 10, 2005
- Reaction score
- Denver, CO
RobertMac said: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?????
If you cannot understand the derived benefit to U.S. producers then a further explanation would do you no good. Your thinking does not allow you to go beyond a load of cattle crossing the border. That is a sad situation.