RobertMac said:You Canadians seem to have a conundrum...you hate Dubya, but he is your free trade friend...you love Obama, but he wants to renegotiate NAFTA??????????????
Bernanke Endorses Obama/Democratic Stimulus Plan
After Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama Sunday, it looked like things couldn't get any worse for John McCain on the endorsement score. Well, they just did. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has endorsed the economic stimulus plan supported by Obama and the Democrats. Having the Fed chairman say that Obama and the Democrats have the right ideas on the economy will surely be helpful to Obama even if he wasn't named explicitly. President Bush and the Republicans generally oppose the Democratic plan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455027730552509.html
burnt said:If you thought I was suggesting that I don't like Dubya - well, I wasn't. I was simply saying that he has proven that he will send in the troops at whim. It's called bullying.
I will repeat what so many have said before - Canadian beef is labeled or branded when it leaves our borders. Would that not mean that it must be an American who is taking the label off?
Do you understand a rhetorical question?
If you do, it should follow that you also understand that any further re-labelling cost should be borne by that same American, NOT the Canadian producer.
So my complaint is not about labelling, it is about the fuss and undue cost caused by re-labelling on YOUR side of the border. It does not matter how you want to spin it, if it walks like a protectionist, if it quacks like a protectionist . . . . .
Kato said:Government of Canada
Comments on Interim Final Rule
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling
Embassy of Canada
501 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
Washington. D.C. 20001-2114
September 5, 2008
Mr. Lloyd Day
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Country of Origin Labeling Program
United States Department of Agriculture
STOP 0254, Room 2607-S
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-0254
Dear Mr. Day,
The Government of Canada appreciates the opportunity to comment on the August 1, 2008 Federal Register notice of the interim final rule on the mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) provisions of the Food Security and Energy Act 2008.
Fundamentally, Canada's comments stem from our concern that this program will impose unnecessary costs on affected North American industries. The substantial volume of two- way trade between Canada and the United States has been a testament to the integrated and cooperative nature of many of our industries. Indeed, trade with Canada supports more than 7.1 million jobs in the United States. Trade is also vital in the agricultural sector, and Canada is in fact the largest single-country export market for the United States with more than US$15 billion in sales last year. Focus on the size of the relationship, however, does not fully reveal how trade can be so mutually-beneficial. For example, Canadian inputs in terms of cattle, hogs and their meats facilitate the ability of the United States to export to third markets. The mandatory COOL provisions could, therefore, also upset North American competitiveness vis-à-vis other markets.
In the current economic context, I believe we agree that ensuring a safe, efficient supply chain and supporting the overall competitiveness on both sides of the border are key priorities. In this regard, our mutual interest is for COOL to be implemented in a manner that is the least disruptive to industry, is flexible enough to avoid unintended consequences, and does not add unnecessary costs or administrative burden. Our comments are submitted toward this end. However, should implementation of the subject mandatory COOL provisions result in an adverse impact on Canada, the Government is prepared to consider all of its options.
Specific comments and suggestions are outlined in the attached. I, and Embassy staff, remain available to meet with you, or your staff for further discussion. For any clarifications, please also feel free to contact Pamela Simpson at 202-682-7629.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Wilson
Ambassador
c.c.: Desk Office for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget
You want to talk legalities now on an agreement that is not legal under our Constitution?
That's up to the people who signed you on. Not us. If your people didn't follow your constitution that's up to you to fix it. Unlike some, we don't care to meddle in the internal politics of other countries.
Besides that, are you going to tell me that Canada's prices do not follow the US's?
No. They do follow the U.S. Just as the price of just about everything else in this country does. There is not much here, from cars to t shirts that is not tied to prices in your country, except maybe the supply managed livestock, and they are the only people in the livestock business right now that are making a living. Coincidentally, they are also under pressure 24 / 7 from U.S. interests that would love to dismantle them and take them over too.
As for that crappiest excuse? I heard it straight from the CFIA. As for our government growing a pair, there's nothing I'd like better. You really have no idea what the consequences of pissing your government off are though, do you? :roll: :roll: It isn't something to take lightly, but I sure wish they'd give it a whirl.
Kato said:This will be paid for not by the companies, but by their suppliers. Those suppliers are not only us, but you too.
As for the economics, in our personal experiences over the years we've found that there is really only one thing that ever brings down our input costs, and that is an economic downturn. Let the good times roll, and you see things like we've seen in the past couple of years where fuel, fertilizer, and machinery go through the roof, supported by maybe one or two good priced crops, after which the crops drop and the inputs don't. :shock: How many times has this happened? Too many times to count. It's been a constant for years and years. The only thing that brings our inputs back into line with our income is bad times, like it or not. Really, when you look at it, at least in this country, agricultural income, factoring out last years short spell of good grain prices, is stuck at the level of 20 years ago, while inputs have quadrupled.
I found an old receipt from a cattle sale from 1990 last week. THE PRICES WERE IDENTICAL TO TODAYS PRICES!!!! :shock: :shock:
The cost of raising those cattle was not. :!:
In the past three or four weeks, as the world came crashing down on Wall Street and the banks, we've had more good news than in the past five years. The dollar is down to 82 cents, a barrel of oil is half of what it was in the spring, and feed costs are down too.
Go figure... :roll: :roll:
Is the economic downturn is going to hurt beef demand? Yes. Is it going to hurt our bottom lines as much as a dollar over par, five dollar a gallon diesel, and fertilizer that costs $1500.00 a tonne? I guess that remains to be seen.
In the long run, whether Obama and his protectionist bunch get in or not, it could be that a cheap Canadian dollar could be the one thing that will help stop the bleeding in the Canadian cattle business. Knock 25% off the cost of Canadian cattle, and they will go south. Of that there is no doubt. Just as the Canadian beef will go south, wearing it's Maple Leaf label proudly.
Kato said:Exactly how much do we lower your prices? Give me a number.
Sandhusker said:Kato said:Exactly how much do we lower your prices? Give me a number.
There's no way of knowing that, but what's your point? It lowers your prices, shouldn't that be enough? If it lowers them only a buck, that's a $1 hit you don't need to take. Any businessman looks to cut unneccessary costs, and here you're demanding that you take a hit. I don't understand that. Shouldn't you be fighting for something that MAKES you money instead of COSTS you money? Do you like having US packers with one hand on your throat and the other on your sack?
Instead of taking the hit sending them South, you could of tested them, made a good chunk of change, and established yourself in a very lucrative market by sending them East! And, it would of come at a time when you desperately needed a boost! You've had your chances.
Kato said:Exactly how much do we lower your prices? Give me a number.
except maybe the supply managed livestock, and they are the only people in the livestock business right now that are making a living.Coincidentally, they are also under pressure 24 / 7 from U.S. interests that would love to dismantle them and take them over too.
Do you like having US packers with one hand on your throat and the other on your sack?
Instead of taking the hit sending them South, you could of tested them, made a good chunk of change, and established yourself in a very lucrative market by sending them East! And, it would of come at a time when you desperately needed a boost! You've had your chances.
HAY MAKER said:http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Risk_Management_Content.asp?contentid=246106
good luck[/quote
Thanks Haymaker, lots of good info there.
Kato said:The argument about Canadian cattle/beef lowering prices for American cattle/beef can also apply to the effect American beef has on our prices here. It's called trade. Typically a two way street.
Do you like having US packers with one hand on your throat and the other on your sack?
Now that's just plain rude.
Instead of taking the hit sending them South, you could of tested them, made a good chunk of change, and established yourself in a very lucrative market by sending them East! And, it would of come at a time when you desperately needed a boost! You've had your chances.
Where do you mean by east? Eastern Canada? Freight east is about the same as discount south. That's why American beef goes north in the eastern half of the continent, and Canadian beef goes south in the western half.
I will assume that by east you mean Asia, which is actually west. To which I say you could also have tested yours and made a good chunk of change, but I notice you didn't either. How come???
As for chances, we just may have some coming. The dollar is down to 78 cents today. :wink:
Kato said:The argument about Canadian cattle/beef lowering prices for American cattle/beef can also apply to the effect American beef has on our prices here. It's called trade. Typically a two way street.
Do you like having US packers with one hand on your throat and the other on your sack?
Now that's just plain rude.
Instead of taking the hit sending them South, you could of tested them, made a good chunk of change, and established yourself in a very lucrative market by sending them East! And, it would of come at a time when you desperately needed a boost! You've had your chances.
Where do you mean by east? Eastern Canada? Freight east is about the same as discount south. That's why American beef goes north in the eastern half of the continent, and Canadian beef goes south in the western half.
I will assume that by east you mean Asia, which is actually west. To which I say you could also have tested yours and made a good chunk of change, but I notice you didn't either. How come???
As for chances, we just may have some coming. The dollar is down to 78 cents today. :wink:
Bank sweeper: "Via the basic laws of supply/demand, every Canadian beef that comes down here and is mixed with ours increases supply and lowers prices. You can't argue against that. Another thing that you can't argue against is that our prices largely set your prices. Now, with that in mind, how is this current situtation of US packers selling Canadian beef as US benefitting you?"