Checkoff, doctors, beef, & whatever!

[Econ101]

MRJ:

Certainly, there is USDA oversight, TO ASSURE ADHERENCE TO THE LAW! That does NOT mean there is anything WRONG being done with checkoff money!

I wish they could run their regulatory agencies (GIPSA) with that in mind.

 

[RobertMac]

fedup2, I'm sure this discussion to "deal with some challenges" didn't turn out like you wanted, but you did back your way into the underlying problem with the beef industry...producers simply don't give a damn about this!!!!

Econ, something I think that kind of illustrates the problem you and I have with the Tysons...

The fast food industry has been under attack from all sides for an "unhealthy" product. Tyson's solution...have them sell a chicken breast sandwich. And beef producers actually think these multi-species are their best option. I give up

 

[Econ101]

fedup2, I'm sure this discussion to "deal with some challenges" didn't turn out like you wanted, but you did back your way into the underlying problem with the beef industry...producers simply don't give a damn about this!!!!

Econ, something I think that kind of illustrates the problem you and I have with the Tysons...

The fast food industry has been under attack from all sides for an "unhealthy" product. Tyson's solution...have them sell a chicken breast sandwich. And beef producers actually think these multi-species are their best option. I give up

When you have the money, you set up the paradigm you want. Tyson has done that masterfully and cattle producers have not. Cattle producers need to get a lot smarter about what goes on behind closed doors and how to have their interests represented, who opposes them, and how much influence they have on events.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Whenever I start to read a thread on this forum, one way or another it always turns into a pissing contest between r-calf and ncba. It doesn't matter what the topic is. I would like to see a discussion without all this childish BS!

Earlier this year I had a stent put in because of blockage. One of the first things the doctor told me was to quit eating beef. He said that when we are young and growing we need lots of protein. As we age, we need less & less. He said when we are in our 50s this protein that we no longer have any use for starts to plug our arteries.
I am also being treated for a degenerative bone disease so I started to do some research. The first thing I find is that protein helps prevent bone loss & older people are not getting enough protein.
This morning in a supplement to our Sunday paper was a flyer from a hospital. Told about this young healthy woman who had a heart attack. The article stated that since she was already healthy and exercising, she had to cut out red beef and soda pop. (yes, it stated 'red beef '!)

I then Googled 'beef and blockage', 'arteries & protein, and several other searches. I'd be willing to bet 75% of the hits I got were from vegetarian or animal rights groups.
Without the check off, who would be countering this information? Who is funding studies to ward off these attacks? These attacks are against beef, not USA beef, Canadian beef, Mexican beef, etc. While we are in a pissing contest over who's beef should be promoted, all beef is under attack! At this same time, check off is also under attack!

There are times to stop picking apart the little things and look at the whole picture. There are no small unorganized groups that have the resources to counter these attacks on beef while educating consumers on the plus side. (yes, I'm talking about countering attacks & don't want to raise the beef vs. cattle issue as this affects all!) We need the checkoff!

You are being put in the same category as cigarette manufactures! Doctors are telling people that the product you raise is killing them!

With the aging population that we have now, I hope the ad about beef having the same protein as 8 chicken breasts (or whatever the amount was) is targeted at bone loss because if people continue to believe the blockage theory, they will also believe they can eat 7 chicken breasts safer than they can eat a piece of beef!
I will admit that I don't have a clue on this good cholesterol-bad cholesterol stuff.

I know these are a bunch of rambling thoughts but I believe we have to think a little farther than our own gates on this one. Any further 'civil' discussion on this will be greatly appreciated. (please, lets not turn this into a finger pointing, name calling, blaming contest! Lets talk about what we can do to deal with some challenges!)

Fedup2 as usual your post is full of common sense/logic for a perfect world.
Tell you what if you dont mind use your favorite search engine and study the "captive supply reform act" and "M COOL" then explain to some of us that have fought for fairness why we are asking too much to see these changes enacted................good luck PS I dont need any input from you godamn packer lovers,let some one like fedup2 tell me where this is asking too much.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The harm in the Pickett trial was estimated to be 2.46 billion + -. You chase the little rabbit, I will go after the bear. The bear threw out the little rabbit for you to chase so he could get away."

Another lie!

That was the damages assessed THAT WAS NOT THE DAMAGES PROVEN. Nobody could even explain how those damage figures were derived. The damage figures derived were higher than IBP's profits for that period of time which proves the damage figures were totally outrageous.


Kindergarten, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT IBP MANIPULATED THE MARKETS????

You can't answer that! You keep making the statement over and over and over but you can't back it. Typical of the packer blaming kind.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, You obviously can not read. Taylor estimated the damages to be 2.46 billion dollars + or -. The jury came back with a 1.28 billion dollar figure. Since you are calling me a liar, prove it.

Damages are often over the benefit partly because of deadweight losses. Your "outrageous" comment shows your lack of logic... and of economic principles.

"When someone calls someone a liar....."



Just because you disagree to a jury verdict doesn't mean it is not true. Go buy your judges and politicians. Truth is not in you.

I didn't and don't have the burden of proof. The plaintiffs did-- to the jury. They met that burden and the appellate judges just made up stuff so Tyson's wouldn't have to pay. Thank you, Arlen Specter and the Judiciary Committee (sarcasm) for your oversight in our judicial system.

If terrorism is bred from injustice, those seeds are being planted in our own country by our own politicians.

SH, you are just the waterboy.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Since you are calling me a liar, prove it."

Taylor came in with $2.46 while the jury came in with $1.28. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE "SO CALLED" CREDIBILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS? There was no proof of damages let alone damages that were greater than IBP's total profits. Neither Taylor or the jury could come up with a reasonable explanation for how they derived at these damage figures. More proof of how tainted the Pickett case was. Another reason why Judge Strom threw it out and why the 11th circuit upheld that decision. Even if there was proof of harm, WHICH THERE WASN'T, it is impossible for the "HARM" IN THIS CASE to be more than IBP's profits.

Kindergarten: "Truth is not in you."

You are the deceiver here, not me. You haven't proven me wrong on anything yet. You are the one who rants on and on about Tyson using illegal marketing tools THEN ADMITS THAT YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

Kindergarten: "I didn't and don't have the burden of proof."

That's right, you don't have any proof and neither did the plaintiffs or you would know what it was. Instead, because the truth is not in you, you just mindlessly support the verdict because it's what you want to believe.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

New postPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Kindergarten: "Since you are calling me a liar, prove it."


Taylor came in with $2.46 while the jury came in with $1.28. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE "SO CALLED" CREDIBILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS? There was no proof of damages let alone damages that were greater than IBP's total profits. Neither Taylor or the jury could come up with a reasonable explanation for how they derived at these damage figures. More proof of how tainted the Pickett case was. Another reason why Judge Strom threw it out and why the 11th circuit upheld that decision. Even if there was proof of harm, WHICH THERE WASN'T, it is impossible for the "HARM" IN THIS CASE to be more than IBP's profits.

Is it your contention that damages can't be higher than a company's profits? What new economic or other "theory" are you trying to develop here, SH? Prove it.

 

[Anonymous]

When the damages in question are packer blamers that think they should have received more money for their cattle than they did, the damages in that case would not exceed their profits.

Don't spin this by trying to "GENERALIZE" damages. We are talking about specific economic damages relating to cattle prices only.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

When the damages in question are packer blamers that think they should have received more money for their cattle than they did, the damages in that case would not exceed their profits.

Don't spin this by trying to "GENERALIZE" damages. We are talking about specific economic damages relating to cattle prices only.


~SH~

It is not your contention that the damages had to be less than the profits or the claim is "outrageous"?

 

[mrj]

From my point of view, we have to get the economics down correctly before some of the problems can be fixed.

If rkaiser, MRJ, Robert Mac, Calicrate, or any of the other ones are to succeed, we can not have predatory pricing, market participants being "punished" by one of the real big guys, or cheating of the current base of producers. All of these things drive the price down to unsustainable levels and then the beef cycle reacts to it and creates higher prices for beef. Pork and chicken can react to these changes rather quickly with their reproductive rates but cattle can not. When this happens, market share is lost and the balance free markets creates is not at its maximum utility. This produces gains for pork and chicken packers, not producers, and will allow those packers to have more resources to "buy" their additional market share like what just happened in Canada.

If we don't let free markets work with the rules (and laws) that have been enacted as a result of the last go round this market power thing happend, we are doomed to have the same results that we had back then.

Given what is happening to checkoff dollars or who is ultimately in control of those dollars, the checkoff should be more accurately defined as the ripoff.

What packer ever really paid the price of the BSE problem that they themselves created? If they don't really have to pay a price and the government bails them out, we are left with the same sorry management that caused the problems in the first place. Cattlemen are not the only ones who need to change as Jason proposes. Increased efficiency does not always lead to higher profitability. Sometimes it just leads to lower prices. Many times this comes at the expense of our environment, worker's health, costs passed on to producers, etc......

Someone once asked me why I wanted to get rid of Tysons. My question is why do we want to keep Tysons? Just look at how they operate. There is better management out there. The packing plants will still be there and the beef will still get processed by someone. There just might be a better balance in our economy with more opportunity for the people mentioned in my second paragraph.

How in the world did the packers "create the BSE problem"?

MRJ

 

[mrj]

fedup2, I'm sure this discussion to "deal with some challenges" didn't turn out like you wanted, but you did back your way into the underlying problem with the beef industry...producers simply don't give a damn about this!!!!

Econ, something I think that kind of illustrates the problem you and I have with the Tysons...

The fast food industry has been under attack from all sides for an "unhealthy" product. Tyson's solution...have them sell a chicken breast sandwich. And beef producers actually think these multi-species are their best option. I give up

When you have the money, you set up the paradigm you want. Tyson has done that masterfully and cattle producers have not. Cattle producers need to get a lot smarter about what goes on behind closed doors and how to have their interests represented, who opposes them, and how much influence they have on events.

Please tell us how you learned about all this conniving that "goes on behind closed doors". It should make very interesting reading!

MRJ

 

[mrj]

rancher, just think of all the organizations promoting vegetarianism, environmental extremists getting laws and rules that are making raising animals more costly, animal worship under the guise of rights, pseudo science/physician anti-meat activism.......and on and on. The money they con out of people, foundations and even government seems endless when compared to the checkoff income.

MRJ

MRJ, I agree with this point...my disagreement with the Checkoff is that this should be our primary, if not only, point of attack. R&D work on value added products should be paid for buy packers. If consumers are afraid to eat beef, the research will be of limited value.

Here is something to think about...

Animal protein and animal fats were major dietary components over thousands of years during the development of the human genome. Why and how have they changed to become harmful dietary components today?

Isn't it more likely that people have changed their living habits.......most are far more sedentary than when fewer machines for evey day work and living were available. Of course, we also eat far more refined (nutrient removed) sugars and flours today then ever before. Isn't it equally likely that well intentioned researchers believed it had to be the fat that was making people fatter and less healthy? Does it have to be some sort of evil corporate consipracy that brought about less healthful changes?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, SH can answer for himself.

SH, Is it your contention that the damages had to be less than the profits or the claim is "outrageous"?

 

[mrj]

MRJ, SH can answer for himself.

SH, Is it your contention that the damages had to be less than the profits or the claim is "outrageous"?

Econ, I have no idea what you are talking about in saying "SH can answer for himself". Of course he can! And far better than I most of the time.

However, when are you going to answer any of the questions I have asked of you, re the Beef Checkoff, Conspiracy theories, and so on?

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ,

Kindergarten Economics does not answer questions. He makes statements like the blamers he supports. He knows that answering questions that he cannot answer will make him look even more foolish. At least by making statements he can impress himself.


Case in point......


Kindergarten,

Explain how the damages in Pickett vs. ibp could be more than IBP's total profits?

How do you manipulate prices to a point of hurting producers more than you profit?

Explain it............


No, I don't want to hear your babble about unrelated cases. I am talking about how you can justify ibp paying the plaintiffs more money than they made in profits. I don't care about any other case.

You may enter the dance floor............



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

MRJ,

Kindergarten Economics does not answer questions. He makes statements like the blamers he supports. He knows that answering questions that he cannot answer will make him look even more foolish. At least by making statements he can impress himself.


Case in point......


Kindergarten,

Explain how the damages in Pickett vs. ibp could be more than IBP's total profits?

How do you manipulate prices to a point of hurting producers more than you profit?

Explain it............


No, I don't want to hear your babble about unrelated cases. I am talking about how you can justify ibp paying the plaintiffs more money than they made in profits. I don't care about any other case.

You may enter the dance floor............



~SH~

I take it you can not clarify your position. Your above post says everything to those who will listen. Please clarify your point,

SH:

Even if there was proof of harm, WHICH THERE WASN'T, it is impossible for the "HARM" IN THIS CASE to be more than IBP's profits.

My question before the diversion:

Is it your contention that damages can't be higher than a company's profits? What new economic or other "theory" are you trying to develop here, SH? Prove it.

Is this "theory" you are developing just for the cattle industry? Can you come up with one of your novel "theories" without calling people names? Do people have to "prove" your theory wrong for it to not be wrong?

 

[Anonymous]

Quit diverting and answer the questions kindergarten..........

Explain how the damages in Pickett vs. ibp could be more than IBP's total profits?

How do you manipulate prices to a point of hurting producers more than you profit?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Quit diverting and answer the questions kindergarten..........

Explain how the damages in Pickett vs. ibp could be more than IBP's total profits?

How do you manipulate prices to a point of hurting producers more than you profit?


~SH~

You made the assertion, I just want clarification. Too scared to back up your own "big talk"?

 

[Anonymous]

Keep dancing!


~SH~