MRJ:There you go AGAIN, Econ, practicing your "do as I say, not as I do" tactics. Your mind reading skills just aren't up to par. Nor is your crystal ball gleaming with accurate information for you!
Where is the 'rule' for ranchers.net saying only Econ may RIGHTEOUSLY call people names reflective of their comment on this site?
Econ: I have addressed the reasons for my conclusions about you and I wish you would do the same instead of just dismissing my reasons based on your unsubstantiated opinion. I don't mind you having a different opinion--as long as it is substantiated based on real facts. Put up some good reasons for calling names as I have, and I will address them.
MRJ:Where is it documented that only Econ is "intellitent enough" to comment accurately or honestly, or never posts based on his own biases and agenda?
Econ: It isn't. You have called me on spelling errors and errors of form, not substance, and I will do the same to you now. "intelligent". I have biases, but they are based on experience and the facts that are shown. I often show a bias in questions when it comes to the USDA and their opinions. I want them to show facts and let the people be the judge of the facts, not the government. You seem to want the opposite. My questions are meant to help develop the facts that I deem relevant to the understanding of the truth. Yours seem to be relevant only to your idea of the truth. I ask for facts and data, you ask for opinions and come up with excuses for packers because they are part of "the beef industry".
MRJ: Who named you king of "realism", "rationallity", and champion of "the little people"?
Econ: I will let others decide after tough questions are asked, not a plethora of excuses you seem to put forward.
MRJ: Isn't it true that Tyson has paid fines or has other punishments for convitions such as you headline?
Econ: Yes, and no. In some cases they have paid fines but they rarely stop the actions, as the repeated violations show. Tyson is out to win the competition game however they can and our system is not making them pay the complete costs of their actions. It is like continually giving a $10 parking ticket with no other penalty. It seems that the regulatory agency, GIPSA, tries to hide the facts in cases where they investigate so the damages to Tyson and other big players is minimized. They do this behind the excuse of "trade secrets" and confidentiality.
MRJ: I don't give "benefit of doubt" unless there IS doubt. You post plenty of it and expect us to accept your word for everything you post. Given your history here, I can only say: Fat Chance!
Econ: As I said before, I don't expect you to change. What is they say about an old dog learning? The least you could do is ask for the facts, not the opinions of your beloved NCBA. It has been shown time and time again, you don't care about the facts as much as you care about the opinion of someone who you agree with. My question to you is, why is this always against the producer and for the packer?
MRJ:you see "questions of competition" and stopping certain trade practices, I see suppression of cattle producers' to choose how to market. our cattle. "Nanny government" is so tiresome and limiting! Too bad you can't see the dangers in it.
Econ: I have no problem with ANY cattlemen to market their cattle they best way they see fit. It is the basis of competition. I do, however, have problems with the packers breaking the operative economic section of the Packers and Stockyards Act. You do not seem to. Is it because you believe in competition for producers and not packers who have market power (this is the whole reason the Packers and Stockyards Act was passed). Does this come under the heading for you, "Can't teach an old dog new tricks?"
MRJ:Were not Swift and Tyson forced to operate under laws/rules restricting what they may ask potential employees about their origin?
Econ: So you bought that line of bull? It shows how gullible you are. I am sure Tyson skipped asking those kind questions you ask when they were busy coyoteing (sp) illegal immigrants from Mexico to their U.S. plants. Perhaps you should use that as a defense for Swift. You really do like excusing these guys don't you?
MRJ: From your self-proclaimed pinnacle of knowledge and information, how much more money would you say the consumer will put into the beef market in order for packers to pay workers what those workers want for an honest days work, done on a slowed down, safe chain speed, with as many inspectors as the unions deem necessary to produce a 'pristine' product? If the money consumers would pay isn't enough, how low will they have to drop cattle prices to make a 'reasonable profit' for doing business in the 'kinder, gentler' manner you seem to espouse?
Econ: So you think that we should have an economy where housing prices increase at huge rates compared to the food people consume? You have talked about increasing the pie and not griping about the size of the pie before. I see a shrinking pie when it comes to food in relation to other goods. You claim to use this bull argument. I think the legal market should set the rate of pay, not the illegal alien suppressed prices. You may disagree. You might even enjoy the benefits of child labor, if it reduces your costs at Wacky World. I have a much broader view. If beef prices have to climb a little so workers are safer and our food supply is safer, then yes, I think that is a good trade off. When Tyson or Swift are blocked from paying the full costs of illegal activity, the people who do not engage in these activities are at a comparative disadvantage. It leads to a consolidation in the industry and abuse of market power. It becomes more imperative that the PSA is enforced.
MRJ: I do tend to look on the positive side, and am an optimist by nature. However, I don't believe i have EVER said "everything is fine" for the entire beef industry. We do have enemies. Have you ever addressed or worked against the REAL enemies of the cattle/beef industry???
Econ: So you just overlook the problems to keep your optimism. Talk about having your head in the sand!!! If you don't think suppressed prices for the overall market is an enemy of producers, think again!!! You have yet to show where the Beef Checkoff has helped in relation to poultry, beef's main competitor. You have yet to comment in a vociferous manner over the uncovered abuses of GIPSA against producers at the political level, and instead have spouted off the party line handed down by the NCBA. Just who are the REAL enemies of the cattle/beef industry if it is not the stupidity you exemplify?
Econ: You miss the bigger issues, MRJ.
MRJ: I damn sure know enough pessimists to realize they simply will not allow "everything to be fine" in life nor industry.
Econ: I don't consider myself a pessimist. I think of a pessimist as someone who is waiting for it to rain. And I feel soaked to the skin.
* Leonard Cohen
