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

Reply to thread

Message

MRJ,

If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected? It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer's door. Wouldn't this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar? In addition to the live cattle having this "advertising tax" you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising.

In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau. There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them. They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place. However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors. By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers. If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however).

Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don't know what is going on in this regard. The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions. Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening. This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent. They are just being used. They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few. I believe this is wrong. The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process. If you have enough money you can "spin" reality the way you want. Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth. We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on. Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were "sold" to us. As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects? (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues.

It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting. It allows for the coverup. There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences. I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views. That is how we find the common "truth" instead of it being forced on us.

That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury.

<blockquote data-quote="Econ101" data-source="post: 53482" data-attributes="member: 629">MRJ, If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected?&nbsp; It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer&#039;s door.&nbsp; Wouldn&#039;t this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar?&nbsp; In addition to the live cattle having this &quot;advertising tax&quot; you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising.&nbsp; In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau.&nbsp; There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them.&nbsp; They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place.&nbsp; However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA.&nbsp; The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors.&nbsp; By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers.&nbsp; If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however).&nbsp; &nbsp; Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don&#039;t know what is going on in this regard.&nbsp; The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions.&nbsp; Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening.&nbsp; This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent.&nbsp; They are just being used.&nbsp; They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few.&nbsp; I believe this is wrong.&nbsp; The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process.&nbsp; If you have enough money you can &quot;spin&quot; reality the way you want.&nbsp; Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth.&nbsp; We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on.&nbsp; Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were &quot;sold&quot; to us.&nbsp; As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects?&nbsp; (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues.&nbsp; It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting.&nbsp; It allows for the coverup.&nbsp; There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences.&nbsp; I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views.&nbsp; That is how we find the common &quot;truth&quot; instead of it being forced on us.&nbsp; That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Econ101, post: 53482, member: 629"] MRJ, If a calf gets sold 5 times are there 5 checkoff dollars collected? It seems to me that the boxed beef is only sold once from the packer's door. Wouldn't this be an easier way to get the checkoff dollar? In addition to the live cattle having this "advertising tax" you would catch foreign sources of beef that is benefitting from U.S. advertising. In answer to your question on the strategic level of policy I will use the example of the farm bureau. There are a lot of good people in the farm bureau and I know a lot of them. They do good work and their hearts and minds are in the right place. However, when talking about some of the current issues with the cheif economist at the national farm bureau in washington d.c., I was told directly that the national farm bureau does not support the producer protections of the PSA. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is an act that is meant to protect the producer surplus from market power of processors. By not supporting the efficient enforcement of this law, they are supporting a strategic goal of the packers and big corporations instead of the individual producers. If you were on any other level at the farm bureau, you would not know or see this happening (there has been some western state uprising to the national farm bureau, however). Even many of the state farm bureau organizations don't know what is going on in this regard. The national farm bureau has been able to sell policies down the line to people who do not understand the consequences of these strategic decisions. Not everyone thinks like an economist (I have the curse, as it is) and therefore is not aware of what is happening. This does not mean that any or all of the people at the lower levels of the farm bureau are stupid, bad, ore even incompetent. They are just being used. They are being used to support policies for a variety of little unstrategic reasons that ensure that the real money and power in the U.S. economy stays in the hands of the few. I believe this is wrong. The problem is that this money and power is very influential on our political process. If you have enough money you can "spin" reality the way you want. Most of us do not have the time to research and find the truth. We have to rely on other people to do this and tell us what is going on. Then we take positions that seem to be in our best interests because that is how they were "sold" to us. As an example, how many of you cattlemen have talked to the few industry policy makers about these issues I have mentioned in my posts on these subjects? (Johanns, Chuck Lambert, GIPSA officials, economists at the USDA, economists at the land grant universities, etc......) This is really a short list of all the people I have contacted regarding these issues. It is too bad that this forum is continually hijacked by some who go into calling names and ranting. It allows for the coverup. There is room for disagreement on every issue and we all have our viewpoints that come from our individual experiences. I respect other people who have a disagreement and can support their views. That is how we find the common "truth" instead of it being forced on us. That is also the process that jurors have to go through when sitting on a jury. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What animal is usually the product of a ranch?