Chicken Drives Tyson Earnings

[Sandhusker]

SH:

On one hand you say Tyson is manipulating markets to add to their profits which you claim as anticompetitive. On the other hand, you say they are running all the profits out to run out the competition.

AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION!

You can't have it both ways. Either Tyson is manipulating the markets to profit or they are reducing their profits to run out the competition. It can't be both.

SH, I have always said that you can turn earnings into money investors take home or reinvest and buy competitors. It is a whole lot cheaper to buy competitors who will not go with your game when you drive the profits down low in the industry. You get real bargains that way. The slide down the supply curve allowed them to do just that, and I did post the "proof" of that on this forum. You are the one who has continually equated market manipulation with higher profits, not I. There are lots of ways to turn market manipulation into gain. The obvious is a little harder to get away with with the regulators. I am appalled that someone who "knows" so much about this industry does not see what is happening to it--- or admitting to it.

Econ, do you realize you're trying to debate someone who believes a company making a direct statement about their product and labeling each individual package with disclosures is being deceptive? :???: :lol: :lol:

What does that say about his reasoning ability? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Econ101]

Your arguments are conflicting Elementary.

Either you are paying more money to get the cattle bought to undercut the competition or you are manipulating markets in order to lower the price you have to pay for cattle. You can't have it both ways. Your arguments are absolutely baseless and conflicting.

I am not responding for Agman on your false claim regarding the value of imports, I'm simply responding to this ignorance by stating the fact that imported lean trimmings add value to our surplus 50/50 trim. You were wrong again. Another of the many facts I have presented to you that you will not refute with anything OF SUBSTANCE to the contrary.

Why do you subject yourself to such humiliation? Why don't you stick to a topic you know something about? You're obviously in way over your head again.



~SH~

I never liked either ors. Sometimes the answer is a paradigm that the choices given don't encompass. Try them on the more feeble minded, SH.

For the question I brought up, however, the answer can be divided into 3 choices. The net benefit from importing cattle goes to a) the consumer, b) the packer, or c) the producer. Can you see how much you know about basic economics with this one, SH? I already answered the question for you. Here is the question again Mr. diversion:

2) WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN (or any other) BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Econ, do you realize you're trying to debate someone who believes a company making a direct statement about their product and labeling each individual package with disclosures is being deceptive?"

I'm so glad you blamers have eachother for moral support.

Back your statement Sandman. Show everyone where Creekstone claimed they were going to place a disclaimer on each label stating that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE".

Here's your chance to actually back something you have stated.

Watch the diversion folks.........

Elementary: "Sometimes the answer is a paradigm that the choices given don't encompass."

Sometimes the answer is total bullsh*t because the answerer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about so he makes it up as he goes.


The answer to your question is all of the above.

The producer benefits the most because now his 50/50 trim has more value.

Elementary Economics: "I already answered the question for you."

You answered the question for me? HAHAHAHA! You never answered nothing. You made the claim that the producers did not benefit from imports and you are flat wrong in the case of Australian and New Zealand lean trimmings.

NEXT!



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Super Hero

The producer benefits the most because now his 50/50 trim has more value.

Producer just pump that 50/50 trim through those auction barns don't they SH. Sometimes they even water it up before it goes through the ring to gain on the shrink. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

The answer to your question is all of the above.

The producer benefits the most because now his 50/50 trim has more value.


Quote:
Elementary Economics: "I already answered the question for you."


You answered the question for me? HAHAHAHA! You never answered nothing. You made the claim that the producers did not benefit from imports and you are flat wrong in the case of Australian and New Zealand lean trimmings.

NEXT!



~SH~

Do you go along with that answer, Agman?

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "Producer just pump that 50/50 trim through those auction barns don't they SH. Sometimes they even water it up before it goes through the ring to gain on the shrink."

What the hell do you think affects cattle prices if not the value of beef and beef by products?

If packers don't pass on the value of imported lean trimmings to our surplus 50/50 trim, WHY WOULD THEY PASS ON THE VALUE OF BOXED BEEF?

I suppose you are of the Callicrate mindset that believes cattle prices are totally arbitrary and have nothing to do with supply and demand huh?

Another backwards packer blaming position of yours that you can't support. There is little doubt that if you lived in the U.S. that you would be an R-CULTer. You have the same poor me victim mentality.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Pass on the value. :lol:

That's a good one SH.

Every time the packer makes a buck on imported lean they pass that on to the producers. :lol: But every time their is a cost to the packer it comes out of the producers pocket. :roll: :roll:

It seems that you can't answer Econo's question so you dive back into more of your asessment of Randy crap. Go for it RED CAPE man. Bolster your communist agenda with your POOR PACKER VICTIM MENTALITY. The top thinkers at Cargill must be embarassed to think that they have created a puppet like you so easily.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "Every time the packer makes a buck on imported lean they pass that on to the producers. But every time their is a cost to the packer it comes out of the producers pocket."

The fact that the Tyson and Cargill are margin operators in competition with eachother for the same cattle is just too much information for your small packer blaming mind to compute isn't it?

Any value added to the beef and beef by-products results in higher cattle prices.

Any costs added to the industry results in lower cattle prices.

WHY?

BECAUSE PACKERS ARE MARGIN OPERATORS WIZARD, THAT'S WHY!

I still can't believe you are involved in a packing venture with your limited knowledge of that industry. I feel sorry for any producer that invested in Big C with you at the wheel.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Ya SH we need a puppet like you at the wheel instead. :roll: Is the group you head up (USBP or whatever) setting up to hand over operations to Cargill soon. Your communist plot will be right on track when that happens.

Super Hero

Any value added to the beef and beef by-products results in higher cattle prices.

Good one SH. Good statement that is. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Come on Randy, say something intelligent.

I know you can with a little effort.


~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Ya SH we need a puppet like you at the wheel instead. :roll: Is the group you head up (USBP or whatever) setting up to hand over operations to Cargill soon. Your communist plot will be right on track when that happens.

Super Hero

Any value added to the beef and beef by-products results in higher cattle prices.

Good one SH. Good statement that is. :roll:

Randy doesn't your selling of Celtic beef to high end resturants return more money to your producers.

 

[Anonymous]

BMR: "Randy doesn't your selling of Celtic beef to high end resturants return more money to your producers."

Hahaha!

BUT, BUT, BUT.................

Can't you just hear it?



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Intelligent SH? Nothing I say is intelligent to you. Only ignorant and limited in knowledge.

You're the man SH. You're the one with all the intelligence. All the inside scoop. All the reality. All the facts.

And a job trappin gophers rather than taking part in the industry you know so much about.

Keep yappin SH. You got nothing. You cannot show how value is added to the producers cattle by importing beef any more than you can show how Tyson and Cargill lost more in the USA than they made in Canada DUE to the closed border.

I read your statements SH, just like you read mine. You have a nice little group of followers who like to think your statements are factual or whatever. Good for you. Rcalf has it's group of protectionists who like to beleive that they have the facts. Good for them.

The truth is, you have some industry kowledge but you choose not to use it in any sort of progressive way. What happened to your involvement with USBP? Could you see the writing on the wall. Could you see that the only way for USBP to make any money was to sell out to a mutinational some day. Because that is the way it will likely be for most small packers. Why? Because the rules are set and are continually being set by the mutinationals and the puppets like yourself, the USDA and our very own CCA.

Your BS about passing value down the chain to the producer is sickening SH. Of course the packer is a margin player. Of course prices are based on supply and demand (as long as their is no manipulation). Yet the producers of America and Canada can still not survive without a gopher trapping job on the side. All this added value that has been realised by the producers of our countries has gone -----where. Look back at your books from 10, 20 or maybe 30 years ago and see where your income was over expenses (gopher trapping excluded of course). Times have changed you'll say. Changed all right, but has it been for the better. Corporate welfare ranches, corporate welfare packers, and a whole bunch of ranchers with off farm jobs.

You have branded me the packer blamer SH. Call it what you want, I don't like the way things are and would like to see change. And I have come back with me own feable attempts to call you names. What's your game SH? You have no more proof or truth than anyone else, and you certainly have no proof of anything that you have shared through life experience.

Do you like the trend? Do you like the fact that small farms across this continent are slowly going extinct, while mutinational companies expand and expand? Or do you simply not see it?

Back your packer buddies SH. Back em to the hilt. They are ususally always within the law after all so you have that on your side. Funny thing how helping make laws keeps you within them.

 

[Anonymous]

Why do you continue to lie Randy? Are you really that small of a person?

I haven't trapped a gopher since I was a kid. I trap primarily coyotes and beaver. I didn't take this job because I couldn't make it in the cattle industry as you imply, I took this job because beef production was my second passion in life to hunting and trapping.

You can't debate me on a factual merit so you resort to the typical empty discrediting position that you have always taken.

What's sickening is that you are so blinded by your relentless blame of the packing industry that you can't even function. You are a typical doomsday prophet. THE SKY IS FALLING, POOR RANDY!

I avoid producers like you like the plague because all you do is bring other producers down with your constant negativity based on nothing more than empty conspiracy theories.

Randy Kaiser: "You cannot show how value is added to the producers cattle by importing beef any more than you can show how Tyson and Cargill lost more in the USA than they made in Canada DUE to the closed border."

I have shown both but you can't deal with the facts. It's not what you want to believe so you don't believe it. You could hear it from a small packer and you still wouldn't believe it yet you cannot offer one stitch of evidence to prove me wrong. You are armed with NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING more than what you want to believe. Poor Randy Kaiser.

Randy Kaiser: "The truth is, you have some industry kowledge but you choose not to use it in any sort of progressive way."

How the hell would you know how I utilize my knowledge of this industry? This is just one more example of you shooting from the hip. Make it up as you go. You live in a fantasyland Randy.

Randy's speculation: "you see that the only way for USBP to make any money was to sell out to a mutinational some day. Because that is the way it will likely be for most small packers. Why? Because the rules are set and are continually being set by the mutinationals and the puppets like yourself, the USDA and our very own CCA."

The facts in contrast: Initially producers owned 38% of USPB. Eventually they bought the entire National Beef company. Just the opposite of your doomsday prediction. Slam dunked again Randy! Just like a drunk that keeps staggering back into the bar to take yet another beating with the facts.

Randy: "Changed all right, but has it been for the better. Corporate welfare ranches, corporate welfare packers, and a whole bunch of ranchers with off farm jobs."

So you think an additional $10 per head from the packer to put them at breakeven levels would allow you to profit????

Hell, Harlan Hughe's data has revealed a $250 per head difference between the low cost producers and the high costs producers AND YOUR PISSING AND MOANING ABOUT THE PACKER'S $10 PER HEAD MARGIN????

SLAP!

Randy: "You have no more proof or truth than anyone else, and you certainly have no proof of anything that you have shared through life experience."

You have never contradicted a single thing I have ever posted with facts to the contrary. You and your parasitic buddy Sandman have to rely on my own integrity to prove myself wrong on a bet. What does that say about me vs. you?

Nobody else on this site has displayed a feeder calf feeding budget. You are so biased in your packer blame that you don't have any time to listen to anything anyone says if they are not blaming packers right along side you because that's what blamers like you do.

Randy: "Do you like the trend? Do you like the fact that small farms across this continent are slowly going extinct, while mutinational companies expand and expand? Or do you simply not see it?"

Better management and better business plans have constantly replaced poorer managemetn and poorer business plans. What's the alternative? Have the government step in and shore up poor management? Successful producers are not blaming packers, they're capturing more value from the consumer themselves and reducing their costs. Most of the blamers are chasing rodeos and brandings around the country while their fences are falling to the ground. Think the government should hire employees for them so they can chase rodeos and brandings?

You can't stop progress and all you have to offer is bitching about it.

Why don't you start a CATTLEBlAMERS.com web site where you can sit around the fire with your fellow blamers and tell eachother how bad you have it.

Highest cattle prices ever recorded in the U.S. and still some people have never been so angry about it. WHERE'S THE LOGIC?


~SH~

 

[agman]

Actually, Jake, grocers do it all the time. They use what they call "loss leaders" to get people in the store. The idea is they will lose 50 cents on the loss leader but make a dollar on other goods that customers pick up in the store while they're getting the featured item.

Yes, I wouldn't argue that point Sandhusker, but we are comparing beef and chicken which are both what they are in the business of selling. You maybe could argue that on a smaller item.

I think that a company would try to lose money from their main business is almost laughable. I am aware of the arguement that will be made of the low number of players in the game, but if they do not maximize profit, then another company will and they will be gone before you know it.

Hey, I didn't have a lot else to do but argue on a blustery day. :wink:

Jake, it is not about purposefully losing money. It is the ability to run out all of the profits out of an industry to run all of the competition out. They don't do it to lose money for no reason. It is the Wal-Mart model, just down the street from Tyson in Arkansas.

You have a major problem with your theory again. Wal-Mart makes money!!! Does that encourage new entrants or cause existing participants to become efficient or perish?

You are trying to protect the inefficient or those who fear change. There are also producers who do not recognize change that you choose to protect. Your phony theories have more holes than swiss cheese.

 

[rkaiser]

Yip SH highest prices ever. Is that all you got? Because the rest of your post is your usual cut and paste and pick the stuff that pisses you off. You avoid me like the plague alright. The only thing you have to do with this industry is to search out common sense ranchers like myself and try to create apathy so your mutinational packer buddies can operate with absolutely no reigns and full governement control.

When those prices reach the highest they ever have SH, let me know. I need to tell my banker that I am now in the elite group of ranchers in history who have no choice but to make money.

Funny how a gopher trapper like yourself (our gophers are abpout the same size as your beavers by the way) can only see the "highest prices in history." I guess tha't because the government is likely buying your pickup and your ammo, and your gas, and your medication, while paying you more for gopher hides every year.

 

[Econ101]

Jake, it is not about purposefully losing money. It is the ability to run out all of the profits out of an industry to run all of the competition out. They don't do it to lose money for no reason. It is the Wal-Mart model, just down the street from Tyson in Arkansas.

You have a major problem with your theory again. Wal-Mart makes money!!! Does that encourage new entrants or cause existing participants to become efficient or perish?

You are trying to protect the inefficient or those who fear change. There are also producers who do not recognize change that you choose to protect. Your phony theories have more holes than swiss cheese.

How is that a major problem with my theory? You are jumping to conclusions again, Agman. Better go back to your numbers and leave economics to economists.

It is a well-known fact that Walmart has set up small Walmarts in little communities (secondary locations) to drive the competition out and then close those Walmarts and open it in a primary location. Just because Wal-mart makes money does not mean that it is any worse a predatory and strategic economic moves that benefit themselves at the expense of the economy. Azzam has recently written something on Wal-Mart. You should read it.

Recognizing change is not the problem. We all see it. Allowing companies the free hand at using market power and their economic strength to squash competition at the expense of all of us in the economy is the problem. Pickett proved it.

 

[Jason]

Econ you said clearly big companies can lower profits to drive out competition.

Agman pointed out to you Wal-mart is profitable.

How did Wal-mart gain market share at the same time as being profitable?

Seems so simple why not answer it?

 

[Sandhusker]

Econ you said clearly big companies can lower profits to drive out competition.

Agman pointed out to you Wal-mart is profitable.

How did Wal-mart gain market share at the same time as being profitable?

Seems so simple why not answer it?

Did it ever occur to you that you can lower profits and still be profitable? Let me make it simple; I'm selling widgets and making $5/widget. I'm fairly well financed so my strategy at gaining market share is to undercut my competiton. I lower my prices (profits) so I'm only making $1/widget. Have I lowered profits? Yes. Am I still profitable? Yes. All I have to do now is bleed my competiton until they're out of business (or better yet, are forced to sell out to me at a bargain) and I'm now the Widget King. I can raise my prices back or be satisfied with higher sales - either way there's more money in my pocket.

 

[rkaiser]

Not only that Jason, but the Widget King takes advantage of the economy of scale.

Beg and plead with every small town in America for tax concessions when they come in and HELP the local economy and awayyyyy we go.

Come on Jason, widget houses, packing houses, whore houses. Is bigger always better?