Canadian Retail Prices

[Sandhusker]

Tam, there's more than one thing that Rod and I don't agree on. However, when we reach an impasse, we back down and go on to the next topic. I respect an individual such as that much more than somebody who twists statements and deliberately misinterprets for their "cause". I'm afraid that even if the truth had claws and fangs, you wouldn't know if it bit you on the rear.

 

[Tam]

4) The Canfax pre-BSE slaughter and processing costs of $100 include any transport charges to the cutting facility. Let me ask a question: How many Canadian facilities have a slaughter facility in the same plant or adjacent to?

According to the Standing Committee on Agriculture Report the George Morris Centre speculated that the average unit operating cost for Canadian packers was about $150 per head Pre BSE. They also estimated that cost would be $250 pre head Post BSE due to the the cost of the new regulations that I seem to remember you claiming would be about $35. So can you explain why your Canfax numbers don't match the George Morris numbers when George Morris compiles and writes reports for Canfax?

 

[Econ101]

Rod: "I grow weary of hearing how wrong I am, yet no-one steps up to the plate to prove it...."

I just did AGAIN! You credited the entire weight of the carcass to a retail beef value of $5.23. I was the one who once again reminded you that at least 25% of that carcass was bone, trim, and waste. Hopefully, this time it sunk in so you're not repeating the same thing in another month.

BTW, for a "SUPPOSEDLY" educated man, you should know that "too" (meaing "also") is not spelled "to". I usually don't make an issue of spelling until someone claims to be so educated yet misses something so obvious. Kinda like Conman not knowing that beef demand can drive cattle prices independent of supplies or not knowing what "cwt" means.


~SH~

I am getting a little tired of you and Jason assuming because I don't answer one of your stupid little questions that I don't know the answer to it. Then you go around spouting it out that your conclusion is a fact. You are such a fool, SH, that no one believes what you say anymore. You sit back and call me "lying king" like some juvenile that can not make a point in an argument and must rely on name calling. You rely too heavily on name calling, incorrect assumptions, and facts not in evidence.

For your economic lesson, which I have given you numerous times before but you fail to learn, the phrase "all other things held constant" means that all other things are held constant for the conclusion to hold. It does not mean that there are never any other factors; it excludes them.

You have to have seen even agman use this terminology before. It is the technical terminology of the discipline of economics. It is so common a term that it is understood most of the time and therefore does not need to be said. I am sorry your experience in economics is so limited that you do not know this and make yourself out to be a fool every time you say it. Other people see how much of a fool you are when you post such nonsense as I am sure agman does.

On the point that agman brought up, that some of the increase in prices was due to supply (most of his calculated figure) and the other part was in part due to an increase in substitutes (namely poultry and to a lessor extent pork in that particular example) which was calculated as an increase in demand for beef. The problem with that scenario is that Tyson is the largest producer of poultry Tyson with the other players have huge market concentration which allows them to calculate and increase the price of substitutes given the limited supply of beef. Thus, the demand for the proteins group as a whole is controlled by a handful of companies who exert their market power. An economist could hardly call an increase in beef "demand" as measured by price times quantity to be changes in consumer demand in a free market without acknowledging that the demand was manipultaed by those who control the substitutes.

This may be well over your head and because it is, you should stop talking about it. You look like a fool when you do.

 

[Tam]

Tam, there's more than one thing that Rod and I don't agree on. However, when we reach an impasse, we back down and go on to the next topic. I respect an individual such as that much more than somebody who twists statements and deliberately misinterprets for their "cause". I'm afraid that even if the truth had claws and fangs, you wouldn't know if it bit you on the rear.

This coming from a man that doesn't know what MAINTAIN means :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Rod seems to thinks limiting others marketing options and mandating regulations on people that don't want them when a voluntary system will work without risking anything and hurling charges and attracting media and politicial attention to something that has been proven in a number of industry and government investigation to be false, is doing all producers good. When the reports on those investigation are pointed out to him, he claims they didn't have access to the right information but we are to believe he does. :roll: Even When one of those reports came right out and stated if we keep stirring up attention to the beef industry issues they will become Consumer issues, and that would not be in the best interest of the whole industry PRODUCERS INCLUDED. What does he do Two and Half Years later he is still stirring the pot. Sounds Like R-CALF material to me :x

one more thing

I respect an individual such as that much more than somebody who twists statements and deliberately misinterprets for their "cause".

Lets see the OIE told R-CALF they were misinterpreting the OIE guidelines and why were they doing that Sandhusker to Further their cause and you still respect them . George Morris Centre said "Misunderstanding and misusing information promotes nothing useful" and this report was written to prove that some producers like Rod were wrong about packer profits. I'd have to think they thought he was misunderstanding and misusing information to further his cause. no wonder you respect him Sandhusker he is just as good at misinterpreting the facts to further his cause as R-CALF is.

 

[Econ101]

Packer money is buying Washington and the heads of the Agriculture committees in the House and Senate have been the whores who are selling our free markets when they should have been protecting it. The do nothing ethics committees are do nothing committees because the parties have been benefiting from packer money. The heads of these committees (including the ethics committee) are either incompetent or corrupt; willing to allow these frauds to continue for their party's benefit. Agman already alluded to the packers being able to buy either the democrats or republicans.

Our problems in this industry working in the free market have their origin with these bribes and the market frauds they allow that go unaddressed.

Members of the judiciary committee are also involved as the previous money trail has shown.

As I said before, some of these members of congress should be in jail instead of selling out our democracy in their committees with oversight responsibility. They are enemies of our republic as much as terrorists. One deals in innocent lives and the other deals with market frauds which results in innocent lives being affected. The result is the same.

SH, if you can not recognize this, you are the idiot.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, there's more than one thing that Rod and I don't agree on. However, when we reach an impasse, we back down and go on to the next topic. I respect an individual such as that much more than somebody who twists statements and deliberately misinterprets for their "cause". I'm afraid that even if the truth had claws and fangs, you wouldn't know if it bit you on the rear.

This coming from a man that doesn't know what MAINTAIN means :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Rod seems to thinks limiting others marketing options and mandating regulations on people that don't want them when a voluntary system will work without risking anything and hurling charges and attracting media and politicial attention to something that has been proven in a number of industry and government investigation to be false, is doing all producers good. When the reports on those investigation are pointed out to him, he claims they didn't have access to the right information but we are to believe he does. :roll: Even When one of those reports came right out and stated if we keep stirring up attention to the beef industry issues they will become Consumer issues, and that would not be in the best interest of the whole industry PRODUCERS INCLUDED. What does he do Two and Half Years later he is still stirring the pot. Sounds Like R-CALF material to me :x

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, Tam. You, SH, & Rod have posted enough times on this board for one to make an educated conclusion on your individual levels of common sense, intelligence, and industry knowledge.

 

[Econ101]

Sandhusker, check your messages.

 

[Anonymous]

I knew Rod wouldn't contribute a damn thing to this post. Just like a typical packer blamer, he makes statements he can't back, gets proven wrong and ignores it, then wants everyone else to do his homework for him so he can come up with some other discrediting spin to support WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE. Just like Conman, Sandbag, and OT, you have nothing to support your position other than a need to blame and a need to be a part of the packer blamers support club.

Conman (to Sandbag): "Sandbag, check your messages".

Translation: "we need to maintain our packer blaming support group because we sure as hell don't have anything factual to support our position.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I am getting a little tired of you and Jason assuming because I don't answer one of your stupid little questions that I don't know the answer to it."

Hahaha! Then answer them you moron!

Conman: "Then you go around spouting it out that your conclusion is a fact."

As opposed to you who has never backed a position yet with supporting facts. What you think is fact is someone's opinion that happens to support what you want to believe and they have no supporting facts either. That's why you packer blamers got your heads handed to you in Pickett vs. ibp. NO SUPPORTING FACTS!

Conman: "You are such a fool, SH, that no one believes what you say anymore."

Keep telling yourself that Conman. You, Sandbag, and OT certainly need your little support group because your views cannot be supported by facts.

That's a pretty funny statement coming from someone who has no proof of "back door meetings", no proof of tapped phone lines, no proof of political favors, no proof of market manipulation, thinks demand has no affect on the market, doesn't know what cwt means, has no proof of controlled markets, and basically has nothing to support anything but empty theories. All you are is a LYING KING supporter of fellow packer blamers. VAPOR!

Conman: "You rely too heavily on name calling, incorrect assumptions, and facts not in evidence."

I suppose that would explain your inability to contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts wouldn't it? ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz! What a waste of cyberspace.

Conman: "Other people see how much of a fool you are when you post such nonsense as I am sure agman does."

Translation: Me and my packer blaming buddies need to tell SH he is a fool due to our inability to prove it. He doesn't tell us what we want to believe so we have no option but to discredit him.

Conman: "On the point that agman brought up, that some of the increase in prices was due to supply (most of his calculated figure) and the other part was in part due to an increase in substitutes (namely poultry and to a lessor extent pork in that particular example) which was calculated as an increase in demand for beef. The problem with that scenario is that Tyson is the largest producer of poultry Tyson with the other players have huge market concentration which allows them to calculate and increase the price of substitutes given the limited supply of beef."

Only an idiot like you would believe that Tyson would subsidize one industry with another.

Conman: "Thus, the demand for the proteins group as a whole is controlled by a handful of companies who exert their market power. An economist could hardly call an increase in beef "demand" as measured by price times quantity to be changes in consumer demand in a free market without acknowledging that the demand was manipultaed by those who control the substitutes."

Look at you! Repeating what Agman has taught you when you were the one that said "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" and now you are quoting him with "price times quantity"? Hahaha! You are such a phony!

Tyson does not subsidize one meat division with another. A loss in one industry is still a loss.

Conman: "This may be well over your head and because it is, you should stop talking about it. You look like a fool when you do."

The fool here is the idiot that refuses to identify himself because then everyone would know who the compulsive liar was.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Please let me know when you write something worth reading sh. I would hate to miss a good point in an argument.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "As opposed to you who has never backed a position yet with supporting facts. What you think is fact is someone's opinion that happens to support what you want to believe and they have no supporting facts either. That's why you packer blamers got your heads handed to you in Pickett vs. ibp. NO SUPPORTING FACTS! "

Don't you mean no supporting facts that you would accept? A prime example would be your statement that the Japanese never asked for testing.

SH, "Keep telling yourself that Conman. You, Sandbag, and OT certainly need your little support group because your views cannot be supported by facts. "

You donated $100 to R-CALF because your views could not be supported by facts and here you are accusing others? You're a real piece of work. Before you claim (again) that your ORIGINAL statement was correct, let me remind you I offered double or nothing if you could prove that, too. Either you're content with R-CALF having your money or you don't have the proof. Let me guess which one.....

SH, "Only an idiot like you would believe that Tyson would subsidize one industry with another. "

I provided an example that I was directly involved in where one line was sacrificed for the other. You either forgot or couldn't understand it. That's why you've "Never been refuted". You're not intelligent enough to know when you've been refuted or when evidence contrary to your position is presented. I do, however, enjoy your posts, they are very entertaining and always good for a good laugh.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I knew Rod wouldn't contribute a damn thing to this post. Just like a typical packer blamer, he makes statements he can't back, gets proven wrong and ignores it, then wants everyone else to do his homework for him so he can come up with some other discrediting spin to support WHAT HE WANTS TO BELIEVE.

:lol: :lol: I knew you couldn't do it. First you tell me you want three questions before you'll do it. So I answer the questions, then you decide not to.

Just admit it, you can't do it and I'll leave you alone.

Oh, by the way, the use of "to" in the above sentence is correct. :lol: :lol: Perhaps this will help you for next time: Jack went TO the hill, and Jane went TOO. I think I saved my daughter's 1st and 2nd grade Phonics books. Perhaps you'd like to borrow them?

Thanks SH, you made my weekend. Got my truck fixed, and you even provided some comic relief.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

All blow and no go.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "A prime example would be your statement that the Japanese never asked for testing."

This is a prime example of what an idiot you are. Japan is importing NON TESTED BEEF. Japan is negotiating AGE VERIFICATION. Nothing has been mentioned about testing in Japan's negotiations with the US yet you insist Japan wants testing. Hahaha! That's how stupid you are.

Sandbag: "You donated $100 to R-CALF because your views could not be supported by facts and here you are accusing others? You're a real piece of work. Before you claim (again) that your ORIGINAL statement was correct, let me remind you I offered double or nothing if you could prove that, too. Either you're content with R-CALF having your money or you don't have the proof. Let me guess which one....."

Oh listen to you little Sandcheska. Like the damn hypocrite you are, you thank Agman for his honesty when Agman said that I was wrong on calendar year 2004. Then you turn around and question Agman's data when the same data proves my original statement correct. Hahaha!

Nothing I can say will prove what a parasite you are more than that. You pick and choose what you want to believe and there is the proof in black and white.

The bottom line is this, if the data Agman and I provided was not good enough to prove my original statement right, then it wasn't good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 and you should have never accepted the money. But you did because you are nothing but a damn hypocrite just like your sidekick Conman. The end justifies the means and you will justify anything that supports your bias like the counterfeit you are even if it means lying to do it.

You won that bet on a technicality of my agreeing to calendar year 2004 for simplicity sake. You relied on Agman's data to prove me wrong and you relied on my honesty to admit I was wrong on calendar year 2004 and pay you $100. You didn't contribute a GAWD DAMN THING to the bet. Nothing. Typical of your slimy ways. Yet you have the nerve to claim my original statement was wrong when the same data proved my original statement right.

Being the weasel you are, you play both sides and pick and choose what you want to believe.

How can Agman's data be good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but not good enough to prove my original statement right? How does that work Sandbag? I'll tell you how it works, when someone is as brainwashed as you and as biased as you, they will justify anything. You and the "LYING KING" are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't piss on either of you if you were on fire.

Sandbag: "I provided an example that I was directly involved in where one line was sacrificed for the other."

Illusions are not proof! Illusions are illusions and that is all you deal in.

Sandbag: "That's why you've "Never been refuted". You're not intelligent enough to know when you've been refuted or when evidence contrary to your position is presented."

Hahaha! Aren't you the tomcat! Listen to you!

Keep telling yourself while you have $100 that proves my willingness to admit when I'm wrong based on my own research while you question that data when it proves me right. What a counterfeit SOB you are. The end justies the means. Your need to be part of the "good ol packer blamers club" is more important to you than truth. No wonder you have so much free time at work.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Rod,

I provided the carcass breakdown for you. I supplied you with a toll free number to get the retail values. You want me to do everything for you so you can sit on your critical throne of judgement and come up with some cheesy excuse not to believe it because you want to believe packers are screwing you and profitting excessively at your expense. That's what you want to believe and that is why you are not willing to lift a finger to prove otherwise.

You're not even smart enough to comprehend that at least 25% of a carcass is waste AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD AND ADMITTED TO MAKING THAT MISTAKE BEFORE.

I said I'll participate when I see you willing to contribute. Like a typical packer blamer, your contribution is your opinion based on what you want to believe.




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "A prime example would be your statement that the Japanese never asked for testing."

Scotty, "This is a prime example of what an idiot you are. Japan is importing NON TESTED BEEF. Japan is negotiating AGE VERIFICATION. Nothing has been mentioned about testing in Japan's negotiations with the US yet you insist Japan wants testing. Hahaha! That's how stupid you are."

Nice diversion. The topic is; "Did Japan ask for testing?" You said they didn't. The truth is they did.

Sandbag: "You donated $100 to R-CALF because your views could not be supported by facts and here you are accusing others? You're a real piece of work. Before you claim (again) that your ORIGINAL statement was correct, let me remind you I offered double or nothing if you could prove that, too. Either you're content with R-CALF having your money or you don't have the proof. Let me guess which one....."

SH, "h listen to you little Sandcheska. Like the damn hypocrite you are, you thank Agman for his honesty when Agman said that I was wrong on calendar year 2004. Then you turn around and question Agman's data when the same data proves my original statement correct. Hahaha!"

Agman provided no data. The archives are there for you do bring them up again.

SH, "The bottom line is this,.... my original statement was wrong when the same data proved my original statement right."

Once again, SH, bring the data you reference. It doesn't exist. You're full of it. Double or nothing, SH. You want your $100 back? Bring this data you keep talking about.

Sandbag: "I provided an example that I was directly involved in where one line was sacrificed for the other."

SH, "Illusions are not proof! Illusions are illusions and that is all you deal in."

Be an ignorant idiot if you choose, it serves my purposes all the more. You don't like reality, so you ignore it and call it an illusion. You're the loser here.

 

[Jason]

Rod, I posted my expenses from my retail beef for a comparison. I realize I don't have the same costs as a large packer, however the fact that the amount of retail beef the customer gets is different from what the carcass weight is, is a huge point.

Even the fact that spoiled or food service beef is not included in the Canfax numbers changes the real amount recieved for the carcass.

I agree my processor wants and deserves to make a profit, so do large packers. How much is reasonable? Can you legislate a profit per head? Should you? If they are garanteed a profit should ranchers be garanteed a profit?

As soon as you move away from a competative market driven system a whole new can of worms opens. Who can and can't own cattle? How many? Who draws the line?

Reality is if packers made the fortunes some think they do, there would be new packers opening everywhere there are a few cows. Everyone would buy cows if there was a huge fortune to be made there. Excess profits is a sure lure to new entrants to any business. Someone is always willing to do it slightly cheaper to get your customers.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The topic is; "Did Japan ask for testing?" You said they didn't. The truth is they did."

Nice diversion, the topic is, "Is Japan asking for testing?" You claim they are while their actions prove otherwise.

Sandbag: "Agman provided no data."

Then how could I have possibly been proven wrong on calendar year 2004 and why did you thank Agman for his honesty?

Dance around that you deceptive SOB!

Sandbag: " Once again, SH, bring the data you reference. It doesn't exist. You're full of it. Double or nothing, SH. You want your $100 back? Bring this data you keep talking about."

The data has already been provided. You refused to accept it to prove me right on my original statement but readily accepted it to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 proving what a counterfeit you really are.

Sandbag: "Be an ignorant idiot if you choose, it serves my purposes all the more. You don't like reality, so you ignore it and call it an illusion. You're the loser here."

Your purposes? Your only purpose is to lie and deceive in order to further your packer blaming agenda. That's your purpose.

You have no clue what reality even is. Your idea of reality is a QUOTE that says SOMEONE FROM JAPAN WANTED TESTED BEEF. That's your idea of reality while reality is what Japan is actually importing. You bet Sandweasel, tell me about reality.

You can't even win a bet without me proving myself wrong and my willingness to admit it. That's the extent of your ability to back your position.

Let me know when you finally say something intelligent.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The data has already been provided. You refused to accept it to prove me right on my original statement but readily accepted it to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 proving what a counterfeit you really are. "

I've offered you your $100 back to provide it. Why don't you do it? Isn't $100 worth anything to you?

I wouldn't keep bringing this up if you didn't insist on accusing others of not being able to back positions with facts. I can excuse ignorance or foolishness, but blatant hypocracy torks me off.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I've offered you your $100 back to provide it. Why don't you do it? Isn't $100 worth anything to you?"

Bottom line, if the data we provided was not good enough to prove me right on my original statement than it could not possibly be good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 yet you thanked Agman for his honesty in providing that data and willingly accepted the money?

Now you question that same data which proved my original statement right knowing what a hypocrite it makes you out to be? Why not? You've already accepted the money regarding calendar year 2004. LOL!

Why did you thank Agman for his honesty in providing the data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 but you are unwilling to accept that same data if it proves me right on my original statement? Because you are a blatant hypocrite, that's why. The end justifies the means.

The greater gain of creating an illusion that I was wrong on my original statement is worth being a hypocrite from the standpoint of thanking Agman for his honesty for the data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 and right on my original statement. That's the slime ball that you have become.

That, little Sandcheska, is blatant hypocrisy. Picking and choosing what you want to believe facts be damned. Boise and Pasco were both operating severely in the red during 2005 while cutting their shifts back to 33% due to a lack of Canadian cattle while Lakeside showed a loss during the same period due to the costs of SRM removal. I don't need a spread sheet to prove what's obvious and what was backed up by a Tyson representative that you refused to call. Oh but that's not good enough is it? Somehow it was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 wasn't it? You are such a phony. Anything for a win.

Sandbag: "I wouldn't keep bringing this up if you didn't insist on accusing others of not being able to back positions with facts. I can excuse ignorance or foolishness, but blatant hypocracy torks me off."

No little Sandcheska, the reason you keep bringing it up is it's all you have on me. The only thing you have on me is a bet that you contributed nothing to, where I willingly admitted to being wrong on calendar year 2004 based on my own research and willingly paid up. You contributed absolutely nothing but the challenge because you know absolutely nothing. You'll take anything you can get on me because I'm the one who introduces you to your factually void beliefs.

Tell me Sandcheska, what did you provide to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 or my original statement? Not a damn thing, that's what. Like the little ankle biter you are, all you can do is issue a challenge to anything that doesn't support what you want to believe. You rely on my research and my integrity to win a bet then claim victory like you made some great contribution. Hahaha! You're such a loser!

Blatant hypocrisy??? BLATANT HYPOCRISY???

Everyone knows who the hypocrite is here. It's little Sandcheska who accepts data that backs his beliefs and refuses data that doesn't back his beliefs even if it's the same data.

It's no mystery why you have so much free time at the bank. Some of your customers must not realize that there is other banks.

What positions you hold have you ever backed with facts?

1. Did you prove that Creekstone's test was legitimate? NO!
2. Did you prove that Ibp manipulated markets? NO!
3. Did you prove that Japan wants tested beef? NO!
4. Did you prove that NAFTA was bad for the cattle industry? NO!
5. Did you prove that Canadian beef was unsafe? NO!

Your organization has lost every court case they have been directly involved in. No wonder you are so sensitive about being challenged for the facts that back WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

Nah, creating illusions and diverting difficult questions is more your style.


~SH~