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

Canada imposes duties on US.Corn but affects Cattle Industry

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Murgen said:
Got to remember that a lot of countrys businesses moved out of the USA and the growth came from having to import goods that were in Canada and the USA before moving.

What does that have to do with the overall economies. If they are growing that means more jobs, higher pay etc.

It comes down to growth of the economy, competition, and exposing your competitive product to a higher poulation/market.

I do find it funny that people like Econ and groups like RCALF wave their flag for competition, but are against free trade!

Competition seems to be fine, if it is American company's. Well, one way to create competition/retail margin in the US as a sealed trade jurisdiction, would be to lower wages, which are most often the highest input cost!!!

Another way is to promote the efficiency and lower input costs of your suppliers of raw material.

Murgen, you are correct that R-CALF is against free trade. However, I would like to point out they are pro fair trade. There is a difference.
 
R-CALF's CEO Bill Bullard says we'd be better off without any trade. R-CALF says we don't need an export market. They're position on trade varies depending on the day they are asked and the political climate on trade at the time.


Porker, you call a 7 year average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the beef industry a failure? I'd consider that a success. The failure is the protectionists who can't understand world market concepts and use BSE as a convenient excuse to stop imports.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
R-CALF's CEO Bill Bullard says we'd be better off without any trade. R-CALF says we don't need an export market. They're position on trade varies depending on the day they are asked and the political climate on trade at the time.


Porker, you call a 7 year average $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade surplus in the beef industry a failure? I'd consider that a success. The failure is the protectionists who can't understand world market concepts and use BSE as a convenient excuse to stop imports.



~SH~

SH, we still have NAFTA - what is the surplus for ALL AGRICULTURE products now compared to what it was pre-NAFTA?
 
Murgen said:
By strengthening the rules and procedures governing trade and investment on this continent, the NAFTA has allowed trade and investment flows in North America to skyrocket. According to figures of the International Monetary Fund, total trade among the three NAFTA countries has more than doubled, passing from US$306 billion in 1993 to almost US$621 billion in 2002. That's US$1.2 million every minute.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2004/NAFTA_A_Decade_of_Success.html

All member economies have grown significantly from 1993-2003:

· United States: 38% economic growth

· Canada: 30.9% growth


· Mexico: 30% growth

● U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from US$134.3 billion (US$46.5 billion to Mexico and US$87.8 billion to Canada) to US$250.6 billion (US$105.4 and US$145.3 billion respectively).

● Mexican exports to the United States reached over US$138 billion, while Mexican exports to Canada grew from US$2.7 billion to US$8.7 billion, an increase of almost 227%.

● Canada's exports to its NAFTA partners increased by 104% in value.

Murgen, are you saying that the growth in those economies would not have happended without NAFTA?

As to the trade, those numbers are not conclusive proof that the people in those economies were better off. Mexico is full of oligarchs that control the economy. It is one of the reasons that the NAFTA and CAFTA trade deals have come under question. If a few people that control the economy are gaining all the benefits of the economy and of trade, then we are not helping solve some of the problems that these trade deals were touted as being able to solve. It doesn't help if the benefits of trade due to NAFTA and CAFTA go to the Cargills, Tysons or any of the other huge Mexican businesses (like their concrete monopoly) and don't get passed down. The Mexican economy trails the U.S. in part because the benefits of the economy are not shared with the populace as much as they are in the U.S. or in Canada. It is the culmination of all of the deadweight losses that are imposed by the structure of the country's economy (all of the market power plays of the big boys) that causes this to happen. We may find ourselves in the same boat as Mexico in that respect if we are not careful.
 
Conman: "It doesn't help if the benefits of trade due to NAFTA and CAFTA go to the Cargills, Tysons or any of the other huge Mexican businesses (like their concrete monopoly) and don't get passed down."

It doesn't help if you have conspiracy theorists like Conman claiming that the benefits of trade are not passed on to the producer in the form of higher cattle prices.


Sandbag,

I am only talking about the beef and live cattle aspect of NAFTA, not other agricultural commodities. This is ranchers.net, not farmers.net.



~SH~
 
SH, "Sandidol, I am only talking about the beef and live cattle aspect of NAFTA, not other agricultural commodities. This is ranchers.net, not farmers.net."

You're bragging up NAFTA, why not tell the whole story?
 
Sandbag: "You're bragging up NAFTA, why not tell the whole story?"

Hahaha! Listen to you! In light of R-CULT's phony trade graph that fails to show beef variety meat and hide trade, that's funny.

I showed the whole picture of beef, live cattle, and beef by product trade unlike the phony deceptive organization you support.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "It doesn't help if the benefits of trade due to NAFTA and CAFTA go to the Cargills, Tysons or any of the other huge Mexican businesses (like their concrete monopoly) and don't get passed down."

It doesn't help if you have conspiracy theorists like Conman claiming that the benefits of trade are not passed on to the producer in the form of higher cattle prices.


Sandbag,

I am only talking about the beef and live cattle aspect of NAFTA, not other agricultural commodities. This is ranchers.net, not farmers.net.



~SH~

Well then, what is a packer lover like you doing on it? Go make up "Packers.net".
 
You should consider yourself fortunate that your lies are even allowed here.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "You're bragging up NAFTA, why not tell the whole story?"

Hahaha! Listen to you! In light of R-CULT's phony trade graph that fails to show beef variety meat and hide trade, that's funny.

I showed the whole picture of beef, live cattle, and beef by product trade unlike the phony deceptive organization you support.


~SH~

Come on, SH. Tell us about the whole agricultural story post NAFTA.

I ask you about telling the whole story and you sidestep that and try to talk about R-CALF? What is is that you love to say, "Those who can not debate divert"? Yeah, I think that is what I've heard you say a couple hundred times.
 
Bill said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
MR I got blasted about this awhile back from Bill about it protecting the barley growers. The SSGA position was that we have to be competative to have a strong feeding setor. The barley growers would feel the hurt more if those cattle went south to feed rather then a limited amout of corn coming north. The price of freight is makeing that corn higher for most Alberta feeders anyways. A perfect world would be nice but we have to make do with the best we can.
I wouldn't call it blasting anyone but here was the discussion

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5750&start=60

OK I was wrong it was a disscussion and a good one.
Did you see the letter in the producer from the Barley Growers not supporting the Corn Duty?
 
It doesn't help if the benefits of trade due to NAFTA and CAFTA go to the Cargills, Tysons or any of the other huge Mexican businesses (like their concrete monopoly) and don't get passed down. The Mexican economy trails the U.S. in part because the benefits of the economy are not shared with the populace as much as they are in the U.S. or in Canada

And yet we have the large corporations here in Canada and the US! In Mexico and Southern America, most of the large companies are family run.

Does a large publically traded company make it more condusive to passing "down" the wealth or not?

ECON, do you own shares in Tyson? You should buy some, everybody that thinks they make so much money should! Hedge your bets! Kinda like buying shares in Oil companies, or better yet, oil commoditys!

Maybe that's some of the difference in South America and North America!
 
Murgen said:
It doesn't help if the benefits of trade due to NAFTA and CAFTA go to the Cargills, Tysons or any of the other huge Mexican businesses (like their concrete monopoly) and don't get passed down. The Mexican economy trails the U.S. in part because the benefits of the economy are not shared with the populace as much as they are in the U.S. or in Canada

And yet we have the large corporations here in Canada and the US! In Mexico and Southern America, most of the large companies are family run.

Does a large publically traded company make it more condusive to passing "down" the wealth or not?

ECON, do you own shares in Tyson? You should buy some, everybody that thinks they make so much money should! Hedge your bets! Kinda like buying shares in Oil companies, or better yet, oil commoditys!

Maybe that's some of the difference in South America and North America!

I probably do but I don't know for sure. Tyson was fined not too long ago because they were taking money (or things of value; the use of property, etc.) out of the company without the oversight and approval of the board. Our current system of compensation and board oversight is a complete joke and everyone knows it. It has led to the downfall of many companies and the fleecing of many more by CEOs. I try not to invest in companies whose boards and whose management are fleecing the company or cheating in some way in their business. It usually catches up to them.

Murgen, your "if you don't like the fraud that is done, become one of those committing the fraud" is not for me. I bet you could get Jason to bite on that one though.
 
Murgen, your "if you don't like the fraud that is done, become one of those committing the fraud" is not for me. I bet you could get Jason to bite on that one though.

I'm not advocating investing in a corporation that is committing fraud!

Don't speak for me!!

Is a family run business as transparent as a publically run company?

Fraud will be exposed if it is happening, soon enough, and yes investors will lose money because of it, but I don't think many invest in any company that they know is comitting fraud. And if they do, they are willing to pay the consquences.

What is shameful is accusing every large corporation of fraud, without have details outlining that fraud!!!

I don't want my investmensts attacked without good reason! If you do, you're only hurting the little guy's chance of profiting off businesses I can't afford total ownership in!

Communism doesn't work, it's been proven many times, Capitalism does work. And I'd like the chance to participate without the likes of ECON spouting off about his government restrictions, and controlling markets.
 
Murgen said:
Murgen, your "if you don't like the fraud that is done, become one of those committing the fraud" is not for me. I bet you could get Jason to bite on that one though.

I'm not advocating investing in a corporation that is committing fraud!

Don't speak for me!!

Is a family run business as transparent as a publically run company?

Fraud will be exposed if it is happening, soon enough, and yes investors will lose money because of it, but I don't think many invest in any company that they know is comitting fraud. And if they do, they are willing to pay the consquences.

What is shameful is accusing every large corporation of fraud, without have details outlining that fraud!!!

I don't want my investmensts attacked without good reason! If you do, you're only hurting the little guy's chance of profiting off businesses I can't afford total ownership in!

Communism doesn't work, it's been proven many times, Capitalism does work. And I'd like the chance to participate without the likes of ECON spouting off about his government restrictions, and controlling markets.

Capitalism only works when there are rules and laws that are followed and consequences when they are not. Many of the rules for industry have to do with combatting market power.

Murgen, when the California utility markets were thrown over to the "free market", companies like Enron and others used the lack of good regulations and restrictions to completely ruin that market. Go preach your "no rules" to someone who is a little more gullible than I. I think that the markets should determine the supply and demand equilibriums but the use of market power should have consequences that would not allow them to happen. Maybe you want only one person giving out all of the water. It is called totalitarianism. I don't. Fascism occurs when capitalism goes too far to the right. It is just as bad as communism. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian fascist country. I believe in capitalism, but not fascism. You may have a different view.
 
Murgen, when the California utility markets were thrown over to the "free market", companies like Enron and others used the lack of good regulations and restrictions to completely ruin that market

You've proven my point, fraud will be sought out and shown, in the free market.

Up to this point the fraud that you are pointing out has not been proven, many have tried and haven been proven wrong by the court system that you value.
 
Murgen said:
Murgen, when the California utility markets were thrown over to the "free market", companies like Enron and others used the lack of good regulations and restrictions to completely ruin that market

You've proven my point, fraud will be sought out and shown, in the free market.

Up to this point the fraud that you are pointing out has not been proven, many have tried and haven been proven wrong by the court system that you value.

This judicial decision was not one based on the merits of the case. It was based on the political influence that Tyson and the other food companies have in Washington D.C. That is apparent to more and more economists.
 
This judicial decision was not one based on the merits of the case. It was based on the political influence that Tyson and the other food companies have in Washington D.C. That is apparent to more and more economists.

Econ, there should be some published papers on this, that put it all together in a logical manner. Do you know of any papers that have been widely accepted that would help us all understand it all a little better?

Have you published any of your own work, that might help the producer understand what is really going on, so we can "rise up" and take back the power as a group?

Are integrated markets and alliances working to end this situation? and how do we get involved in them? Hearing that info. would be more beneficial than just sitting back and complaining about the situation, thanks!
 
Manitoba_Rancher said:
This is the stupidest damn thing I ve ever seen. I dont think our Liberal government has a brain in their damn head! If we soon dont get Mr Paul Martin out of there he is going to wreck this damn country!!!!!! :mad:

I got to agree with you the mans got to go ..if we are going to trade lets trade.
 
Murgen to Conman: "Have you published any of your own work, that might help the producer understand what is really going on, so we can "rise up" and take back the power as a group?"

GOD HELP THIS INDUSTRY if Conman ever publishes his lies.

Sandbag, I am only interested in discussing beef trade and that's all I plan to discuss.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top