• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

CAFTA countries can't afford Beef

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
LEGAL/REGULATORY NEWS
CAFTA missed implementation date

by Pete Hisey on 1/2/2006 for Meatingplace.com




None of the Central American countries that are part of the Central American Free Trade Agreement has written, rewritten, repealed or implemented the laws necessary for implementation of the trade pact, and it missed its implementation date of Jan. 1. A spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said the bitterly contested CAFTA will be delayed by at least a month, perhaps longer.

U.S. Democrats, who opposed the pact, pointed to the lack of movement by the Central American countries as evidence of a flawed policy. Of the six countries affected, all but Costa Rica have ratified the agreement, but none has taken any of the internal steps, including tariff removal, necessary for implementation.

Under the provisions of the pact, tariffs on U.S. pork and beef eventually would have been dropped altogether, a boon to the pork industry in particular. The poverty-stricken countries can't afford much U.S. beef, but there is a large market for pork variety meats in Latin American nations.

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Under the provisions of the pact, tariffs on U.S. pork and beef eventually would have been dropped altogether, a boon to the pork industry in particular. The poverty-stricken countries can't afford much U.S. beef, but there is a large market for pork variety meats in Latin American nations.

I thought this part was very interesting...Heres a writer for a Packer industry publication now telling us just the opposite of what the Packers, USDA, NCBA, SH, MRJ, Agman and all the Packer bought politicians were saying before CAFTA passed.....

MRJ- I see nothing in here about all those tourists eating all that expensive meat in lovely Honduras- maybe he forgot- or maybe its such a small drop in the bucket its about nonexistent....

Nice of NCBA to spend the cattlemens dollars to back Tysons pork production!!!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
Under the provisions of the pact, tariffs on U.S. pork and beef eventually would have been dropped altogether, a boon to the pork industry in particular. The poverty-stricken countries can't afford much U.S. beef, but there is a large market for pork variety meats in Latin American nations.

I thought this part was very interesting...Heres a writer for a Packer industry publication now telling us just the opposite of what the Packers, USDA, NCBA, SH, MRJ, Agman and all the Packer bought politicians were saying before CAFTA passed.....

MRJ- I see nothing in here about all those tourists eating all that expensive meat in lovely Honduras- maybe he forgot- or maybe its such a small drop in the bucket its about nonexistent....

Nice of NCBA to spend the cattlemens dollars to back Tysons pork production!!!!
I am glad you and Haymaker keep posting here to show everyone how a typical R-Calfer thinks and can twist things around. Thanks Oldtimer.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
I find it very interesting that there is someone else that states the very same thing many on this board have been saying. I wonder if this guy is as "ill informed" as many here have been accused of.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
Under the provisions of the pact, tariffs on U.S. pork and beef eventually would have been dropped altogether, a boon to the pork industry in particular. The poverty-stricken countries can't afford much U.S. beef, but there is a large market for pork variety meats in Latin American nations.

I thought this part was very interesting...Heres a writer for a Packer industry publication now telling us just the opposite of what the Packers, USDA, NCBA, SH, MRJ, Agman and all the Packer bought politicians were saying before CAFTA passed.....

MRJ- I see nothing in here about all those tourists eating all that expensive meat in lovely Honduras- maybe he forgot- or maybe its such a small drop in the bucket its about nonexistent....

Nice of NCBA to spend the cattlemens dollars to back Tysons pork production!!!!
I am glad you and Haymaker keep posting here to show everyone how a typical R-Calfer thinks and can twist things around. Thanks Oldtimer.

Bill, what is your take on it? Oldtimer just posted an article and commented on it. You attacked his comment. What is your take? Has NAFTA lived up to its promises for Canada?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill, "I am glad you and Haymaker keep posting here to show everyone how a typical R-Calfer thinks and can twist things around. Thanks Oldtimer."

Maybe you, as an anti-R-CALFer, could show us how OT got it twisted around?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
It would be interesting to have Mr. Hisey comment on the slant given his comments on this thread.

It would be interesting to ask him if he believes CAFTA has value to the US livestock/meat industry.

How many times have we read that some of these countries are gaining in personal incomes? Maybe they don't have much income today and cannot buy a lot of beef. However, as their circumstances improve, I would like them to be able to buy US beef without the outrageous tariffs currently in place. You don't have to participate in world trade if you don't want to, as far as I can see. And you do not have a right to keep people who do want to from participating, IMO.

BTW, can any of you show us that any of those CAFTA countries have NO tourism? It seems to me there are people who go to many places you and I might not be interested in travelling to. And tropical type climates, or those having summer when we in the northern hemisphere are having winter do have an added attraction!

OT, how NCBA spends cattle producer members money has been decided upon by those members. If you are not a member, it is not your business how the membership money is spent. Please do not try to tell us any Beef Checkoff money was spent lobbying for ANYTHING!

MRJ
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "I am glad you and Haymaker keep posting here to show everyone how a typical R-Calfer thinks and can twist things around. Thanks Oldtimer."

Maybe you, as an anti-R-CALFer, could show us how OT got it twisted around?

Nice of NCBA to spend the cattlemens dollars to back Tysons pork production!!!!Good enough?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Oldtimer said:
I thought this part was very interesting...Heres a writer for a Packer industry publication now telling us just the opposite of what the Packers, USDA, NCBA, SH, MRJ, Agman and all the Packer bought politicians were saying before CAFTA passed.....

MRJ- I see nothing in here about all those tourists eating all that expensive meat in lovely Honduras- maybe he forgot- or maybe its such a small drop in the bucket its about nonexistent....

Nice of NCBA to spend the cattlemens dollars to back Tysons pork production!!!!
I am glad you and Haymaker keep posting here to show everyone how a typical R-Calfer thinks and can twist things around. Thanks Oldtimer.

Bill, what is your take on it? Oldtimer just posted an article and commented on it. You attacked his comment. What is your take? Has NAFTA lived up to its promises for Canada?
NAFTA has benefitted both countries and Canadian agriculture in particular. In case you haven't noticed western Canada has a whole lot of land and not many people to consume what we produce. What has disappointed many of us has been US failure to honor certain areas of the agreement.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
I don't think NAFTA has been all roses for Canada, Bill. What I have seen since the beginning was the almost total loss of the Canadian packing industry to the US. It has led to our industry being completely at the whim of the US, be it radical fringe groups like rcalf or high paid lobbyists, we are only ever one court ruling away from being shut out of a market that we have become dependant on by the very document that is supposed to be our 'saviour'.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Silver said:
I don't think NAFTA has been all roses for Canada, Bill. What I have seen since the beginning was the almost total loss of the Canadian packing industry to the US. It has led to our industry being completely at the whim of the US, be it radical fringe groups like rcalf or high paid lobbyists, we are only ever one court ruling away from being shut out of a market that we have become dependant on by the very document that is supposed to be our 'saviour'.
No most definitley NAFTA has not been all roses for Canada but the agreement as written contains benefits for both countries as well as areas of give and take like any other "trade" agreement.

The restructuring of the Canadian packing industry had less to do with NAFTA than ongoing labor disputes and outdated western plants that Canadian companies were not investing capital in. They were outdated and the Alberta gov't desperate to keep a packing industry in the province gave the American companies concessions to invest.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Bill said:
Silver said:
I don't think NAFTA has been all roses for Canada, Bill. What I have seen since the beginning was the almost total loss of the Canadian packing industry to the US. It has led to our industry being completely at the whim of the US, be it radical fringe groups like rcalf or high paid lobbyists, we are only ever one court ruling away from being shut out of a market that we have become dependant on by the very document that is supposed to be our 'saviour'.
No most definitley NAFTA has not been all roses for Canada but the agreement as written contains benefits for both countries as well as areas of give and take like any other "trade" agreement.

The restructuring of the Canadian packing industry had less to do with NAFTA than ongoing labor disputes and outdated western plants that Canadian companies were not investing capital in. They were outdated and the Alberta gov't desperate to keep a packing industry in the province gave the American companies concessions to invest.

Well, that could be true, but the coincidence is too much for me. The end result was still a Canadian herd that is too big, and that creates obvious problems.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,052
Reaction score
131
Location
Big Muddy valley
Silver said:
Bill said:
Silver said:
I don't think NAFTA has been all roses for Canada, Bill. What I have seen since the beginning was the almost total loss of the Canadian packing industry to the US. It has led to our industry being completely at the whim of the US, be it radical fringe groups like rcalf or high paid lobbyists, we are only ever one court ruling away from being shut out of a market that we have become dependant on by the very document that is supposed to be our 'saviour'.
No most definitley NAFTA has not been all roses for Canada but the agreement as written contains benefits for both countries as well as areas of give and take like any other "trade" agreement.

The restructuring of the Canadian packing industry had less to do with NAFTA than ongoing labor disputes and outdated western plants that Canadian companies were not investing capital in. They were outdated and the Alberta gov't desperate to keep a packing industry in the province gave the American companies concessions to invest.

Silver our herd is not to big but we did leave our processing up to the highest bidder. If the border had never been closed we would have been sailing along feeling great. It was a wake up call to have the border closed so lets hope we can support the small packers that took the risk to invest in our industry. what Bill said about a out of date packing industry strife with labour problems was 100% correct.

Well, that could be true, but the coincidence is too much for me. The end result was still a Canadian herd that is too big, and that creates obvious problems.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Speaking of NAFTA (another joke piece of paper)-- I see where Mexico has really flourished with it :???: ...

On FOX news the other night they listed Mexicos three main sources of income- which mostly was from the US- and the first two were illegal..

1. Illegal Drug trade and Crime
2. Income sent back to families by US alien workers- most of which are illegal
3. Tourism- with the majority of the tourist dollars coming from the US.....

Agriculture, oil, industrial income, transportation, etc. were all further down the list- and how long has NAFTA been in effect?

And now the Mexican government has hired a US PR firm to make them look good to the US citizen, so we don't put up more border security :roll:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Silver said:
Bill said:
Silver said:
I don't think NAFTA has been all roses for Canada, Bill. What I have seen since the beginning was the almost total loss of the Canadian packing industry to the US. It has led to our industry being completely at the whim of the US, be it radical fringe groups like rcalf or high paid lobbyists, we are only ever one court ruling away from being shut out of a market that we have become dependant on by the very document that is supposed to be our 'saviour'.
No most definitley NAFTA has not been all roses for Canada but the agreement as written contains benefits for both countries as well as areas of give and take like any other "trade" agreement.

The restructuring of the Canadian packing industry had less to do with NAFTA than ongoing labor disputes and outdated western plants that Canadian companies were not investing capital in. They were outdated and the Alberta gov't desperate to keep a packing industry in the province gave the American companies concessions to invest.

Well, that could be true, but the coincidence is too much for me. The end result was still a Canadian herd that is too big, and that creates obvious problems.
Do a bit of research if you don't believe me Silver. You can blame the Unions for a huge part of the demise of the plants of 20-30 years ago. I agree with BMR the Canadian cowherd is not too big and it will get larger. The grain industry in western Canada is in a heap of trouble and definitley not sustainable in it's current structure. There will be more acres seeded back to grass and the cowherd will increse dramatically. I agree we are too dependent on the US market for live cattle and need to diversify our packing industry with some new plants. It will be interesting to see who succeeds and who doesn't. Some valuable lessons have been learned since May 2003 and some tremendous opportunities now exist. Our responsiblity is to make sure they aren't squandered and that trade continues.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Silver said:
Bill said:
No most definitley NAFTA has not been all roses for Canada but the agreement as written contains benefits for both countries as well as areas of give and take like any other "trade" agreement.

The restructuring of the Canadian packing industry had less to do with NAFTA than ongoing labor disputes and outdated western plants that Canadian companies were not investing capital in. They were outdated and the Alberta gov't desperate to keep a packing industry in the province gave the American companies concessions to invest.

Well, that could be true, but the coincidence is too much for me. The end result was still a Canadian herd that is too big, and that creates obvious problems.
Do a bit of research if you don't believe me Silver. You can blame the Unions for a huge part of the demise of the plants of 20-30 years ago. I agree with BMR the Canadian cowherd is not too big and it will get larger. The grain industry in western Canada is in a heap of trouble and definitley not sustainable in it's current structure. There will be more acres seeded back to grass and the cowherd will increse dramatically. I agree we are too dependent on the US market for live cattle and need to diversify our packing industry with some new plants. It will be interesting to see who succeeds and who doesn't. Some valuable lessons have been learned since May 2003 and some tremendous opportunities now exist. Our responsiblity is to make sure they aren't squandered and that trade continues.

Bill, it is hard for any country like the U.S. and Canada to compete on labor with countries that don't have the labor or social standards of our countries. Mexico is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and so is China. The problem is that these trade agreements make this happen. I would not blame the unions totally on the inability of our trade negotiators to have some sort of social advancement in the countries we are making these deals with. We would be a lot more "Christian" if we kept this as one of the considerations of our trade deals. Maybe we could really help some of the poverty conditions in other countries instead of exacerbating the problems. That was one of the "promises" of NAFTA and we have not seen enough results.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Bill, until Canada has a diversified market for its cattle our herd is too big. That's just the way it is. It has created a dependancy on the US market and politics that makes us way too vulnerable for my liking. And that is attributable to NAFTA and nothing else.
It's not that I'm against free trade, it's done us and the US a lot of good. I just wish it was fair trade.
As far as union troubles, we still got 'em. Looks like Brooks is still simmering.
I agree that some fantastic opportunities now exist, it's too bad we had to have bse to wake up to them. We now have the responsibility to stay on our MP's and MLA's to ensure they don't put us back on the back-burner.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Silver said:
Well, that could be true, but the coincidence is too much for me. The end result was still a Canadian herd that is too big, and that creates obvious problems.
Do a bit of research if you don't believe me Silver. You can blame the Unions for a huge part of the demise of the plants of 20-30 years ago. I agree with BMR the Canadian cowherd is not too big and it will get larger. The grain industry in western Canada is in a heap of trouble and definitley not sustainable in it's current structure. There will be more acres seeded back to grass and the cowherd will increse dramatically. I agree we are too dependent on the US market for live cattle and need to diversify our packing industry with some new plants. It will be interesting to see who succeeds and who doesn't. Some valuable lessons have been learned since May 2003 and some tremendous opportunities now exist. Our responsiblity is to make sure they aren't squandered and that trade continues.

Bill, it is hard for any country like the U.S. and Canada to compete on labor with countries that don't have the labor or social standards of our countries. Mexico is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and so is China. The problem is that these trade agreements make this happen. I would not blame the unions totally on the inability of our trade negotiators to have some sort of social advancement in the countries we are making these deals with. We would be a lot more "Christian" if we kept this as one of the considerations of our trade deals. Maybe we could really help some of the poverty conditions in other countries instead of exacerbating the problems. That was one of the "promises" of NAFTA and we have not seen enough results.
Aren't all countries basically oligarchies? Oligarchy is a political regime where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (oligo) and "rule" (arkhos). Some political theorists have argued that all governments are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system. China does however happen to be one that is Communist and one that is quickly becoming one of the US biggest suppliers. How you think trade agreements "make this happen" is beyond me.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Do a bit of research if you don't believe me Silver. You can blame the Unions for a huge part of the demise of the plants of 20-30 years ago. I agree with BMR the Canadian cowherd is not too big and it will get larger. The grain industry in western Canada is in a heap of trouble and definitley not sustainable in it's current structure. There will be more acres seeded back to grass and the cowherd will increse dramatically. I agree we are too dependent on the US market for live cattle and need to diversify our packing industry with some new plants. It will be interesting to see who succeeds and who doesn't. Some valuable lessons have been learned since May 2003 and some tremendous opportunities now exist. Our responsiblity is to make sure they aren't squandered and that trade continues.

Bill, it is hard for any country like the U.S. and Canada to compete on labor with countries that don't have the labor or social standards of our countries. Mexico is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and so is China. The problem is that these trade agreements make this happen. I would not blame the unions totally on the inability of our trade negotiators to have some sort of social advancement in the countries we are making these deals with. We would be a lot more "Christian" if we kept this as one of the considerations of our trade deals. Maybe we could really help some of the poverty conditions in other countries instead of exacerbating the problems. That was one of the "promises" of NAFTA and we have not seen enough results.
Aren't all countries basically oligarchies? Oligarchy is a political regime where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (oligo) and "rule" (arkhos). Some political theorists have argued that all governments are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system. China does however happen to be one that is Communist and one that is quickly becoming one of the US biggest suppliers. How you think trade agreements "make this happen" is beyond me.

By "make this happen" I meant that domestic firms have to compete with China and Mexico on labor and the associated lower social costs of those countries. It brings us down to the common denominators of social responsiblity that those countries have unless we can keep abreast with technological advancement that is greater than those cost savings.

The promise of NAFTA was that it would help "bring up" the economies of Mexico and therefore the U.S. would not have the labor influx from Mexico. This has not happened to as great enough of an extent as needed.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
Bill, it is hard for any country like the U.S. and Canada to compete on labor with countries that don't have the labor or social standards of our countries. Mexico is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and so is China. The problem is that these trade agreements make this happen. I would not blame the unions totally on the inability of our trade negotiators to have some sort of social advancement in the countries we are making these deals with. We would be a lot more "Christian" if we kept this as one of the considerations of our trade deals. Maybe we could really help some of the poverty conditions in other countries instead of exacerbating the problems. That was one of the "promises" of NAFTA and we have not seen enough results.
Aren't all countries basically oligarchies? Oligarchy is a political regime where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (oligo) and "rule" (arkhos). Some political theorists have argued that all governments are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system. China does however happen to be one that is Communist and one that is quickly becoming one of the US biggest suppliers. How you think trade agreements "make this happen" is beyond me.

By "make this happen" I meant that domestic firms have to compete with China and Mexico on labor and the associated lower social costs of those countries. It brings us down to the common denominators of social responsiblity that those countries have unless we can keep abreast with technological advancement that is greater than those cost savings.

The promise of NAFTA was that it would help "bring up" the economies of Mexico and therefore the U.S. would not have the labor influx from Mexico. This has not happened to as great enough of an extent as needed.
Excuse me for misunderstanding what you wrote "Mexico is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs and so is China. The problem is that these trade agreements make this happen." :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top