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

Damned canuckle heads LOL

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
US push for more CAN beef



Congressmen Push For More Canada Access To U.S.

P. Scott Shearer, Washington, D.C.

FOREIGN TRADE

COW-CALF WEEKLY

A PRIMEDIA Property

November 4, 2005



Nine Congressmen asked USDA this week to expedite a rule to permit the

importation of cattle more than 30 months of age for slaughter and meat

from such cattle. The members say the continued border closure for this

type of cattle is having a negative impact on U.S. plants.



The letter said "border closure has led some beef processing plants to

significantly reduce hours or close indefinitely to absorb the

increasing pressure of the current situation, resulting in job loss,

reductions in workers' take home pay, and plant closures."



Representatives signing the letter included John Boehner (R-OH), Mike

Conaway (R-TX), Charles Dent (R-PA), Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), Mark Green

(R-WI), Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), John Peterson (R-PA), Paul Ryan (R-WI),

and Don Sherwood (R-PA).


PS Just kidding Miss Tam :D
 

jigs

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
8,439
Reaction score
0
Location
KANSAS
my neighbor has had canadian cattle just pouring into his feedlot this past month. I bet there were 25 or 30 loads trucked down from up there. seems to me that a guy could find closer cattle than Canada to feed in Kansas.
 

cowzilla

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Location
east of kato
Jigs; Why don't you ask your neighbour why he is buying Canadian cattlefor his feedlot? Most ranchers say there is enough cattle to meet demand in the U.S.A. It can't be because Canadian beef is cheaper with Can [email protected] high freight and extra border costs plus extra Vet costs before export permit. OH OH OH I Forgot :roll: Its that Quality issue Again :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
cowzilla said:
Jigs; Why don't you ask your neighbour why he is buying Canadian cattlefor his feedlot? Most ranchers say there is enough cattle to meet demand in the U.S.A. It can't be because Canadian beef is cheaper with Can [email protected] high freight and extra border costs plus extra Vet costs before export permit. OH OH OH I Forgot :roll: Its that Quality issue Again :wink:

Cowzilla, your picture is really funny. I bet if some of you Canadians would help the producer out with the industry concentration and price manipulation games that come with industry concentraion you would have less problems with R-CALF and U.S. producers. Instead, Canadians have subsidized the market abusers with taxpayer money. Hey--no big finger pointing from me-- the U.S. does the same thing. It is wrong and not in the best interests of producers on either side of the border.

To me it is interesting that most Canadians blame R-CALF on the BSE border closing when it was really the NCBA USDA that closed it and kept it closed longest in the first place. I guess if you pull strings behind the scenes and do more damage it is not as bad as screaming about it in the open and getting less done. The international games are for those with political power and the political power is in the hands of the packers through their large donations to their political interests (probably on both sides of the border).
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
econ101: To me it is interesting that most Canadians blame R-CALF on the BSE border closing when it was really the NCBA USDA that closed it and kept it closed longest in the first place.

exactly, canadians have been lied to/about by every american organization involved in the beef industry.

econ101: I bet if some of you Canadians would help the producer out with the industry concentration and price manipulation games that come with industry concentraion you would have less problems with R-CALF and U.S. producers

don't think so. the anti-trade, protectionist sentiment is one of the more appealing arguments bullard and mcdonnell can make to a lot of american cattlemen. my son was attending u. of lethbridge last year and he and a friend went down to a r-calf meeting. said it was a bunch of the most backwards businessmen he ever saw. it's easier to blame canadians for their problems than to try to fix their own industry. r-calf hasn't accomplished anything substantial and the leadership can deflect criticism by blaming canadians for the problem. the mood in america now is to blame the rest of the world for everything that's wrong and feel threatened by what's outside their borders.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
don said:
econ101: To me it is interesting that most Canadians blame R-CALF on the BSE border closing when it was really the NCBA USDA that closed it and kept it closed longest in the first place.

exactly, canadians have been lied to/about by every american organization involved in the beef industry.

econ101: I bet if some of you Canadians would help the producer out with the industry concentration and price manipulation games that come with industry concentraion you would have less problems with R-CALF and U.S. producers

don't think so. the anti-trade, protectionist sentiment is one of the more appealing arguments bullard and mcdonnell can make to a lot of american cattlemen. my son was attending u. of lethbridge last year and he and a friend went down to a r-calf meeting. said it was a bunch of the most backwards businessmen he ever saw. it's easier to blame canadians for their problems than to try to fix their own industry. r-calf hasn't accomplished anything substantial and the leadership can deflect criticism by blaming canadians for the problem. the mood in america now is to blame the rest of the world for everything that's wrong and feel threatened by what's outside their borders.

I think (and I am not an R-CALF member) that the reason rcalf is so protectionist is because the packers are swinging the U.S. beef market, setting up shop in other countries, and taking advantage of those swings to gain extra profits through imports. I totally believe in free and fair trade but on this argument, rcalf has a point.

Captive supplies can and Pickett proved it to a jury, does have an impact on the price of beef for everyone. Packers gain in this swinging of the markets, most notably in their substitutes, but also in their foriegn supply chains. Canadadian producers should see that these kind of manipulation games do nothing to help producer to producer relationships. The packers have split their producer pool once again an played one off another. They have strategy and producers do not get together well enough to have strategies like this. This is the difference between concentrated markets with market power on one side and no market power on the other. There is a place for Canadian imports of beef into the U.S. , but it must not be part of an overall strategic plan of more concentration, market manipulation, and acts against producers by packers.

Canadians caved into the packers in Canada with the tax subsidy. Why didn't they let Cargill and Tyson go under and let a producer group like rkaiser's or others buy the plants? When we have this kind of corporate welfare, we form aristocracies that are against the interests of democracy. R-Calf just wants to stop it wherever they can. Where is the Canadian R-Calf or are yall so bowed over that it isn't going to happen? Good luck to rkaiser and his producers trying to change the situation. At least they are trying and not crying about it.
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
econ101: I think (and I am not an R-CALF member) that the reason rcalf is so protectionist is because the packers are swinging the U.S. beef market, setting up shop in other countries, and taking advantage of those swings to gain extra profits through imports. I totally believe in free and fair trade but on this argument, rcalf has a point.

i would suggest you critically scrutinize r-calf's claims about canadian beef and subsidies because oecd numbers show the american and canadian cattle industries as being among the least subsidized agricultural sectors in the developed world. r-calf would have a lot of support up here except that they have a leadership that has repeatedly lied about canadian cattle. they have divided north american cattlemen in their drive for american support. just as canadians have to solve this problem on our side of the border the american cattlemen will haveto win their own battle. the american govt created the american situation and if anything it has been exported north. usda and ncba are owned by the packers and canada isn't to blame and canadian cattlemen can't fix the american situation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary: "I bet if some of you Canadians would help the producer out with the industry concentration and price manipulation games that come with industry concentraion you would have less problems with R-CALF and U.S. producers."

Elementary would rather see more, less efficient packers who needed a larger profit margin to keep their doors open bidding less on your cattle than the larger more efficient packing companies paying more for your cattle. That's how backwards and twisted his packer victim mentality of this industry is.


Elementary: "To me it is interesting that most Canadians blame R-CALF on the BSE border closing when it was really the NCBA USDA that closed it and kept it closed longest in the first place."

HOW THE HELL DID NCBA CLOSE THE DOOR??? USDA closed the door due to BSE. NCBA had nothing to do with it. NCBA was always smart enough to realize that any presidence we established with Canada would be used against us by our export markets as opposed to R-CULT's overstating the affects of Canadian imports which is obvious to anyone this year.

Another unsupported bullsh*t allegation from you!

WHO FILED THE INJUNCTION TO KEEP IT CLOSED AND IS STILL FIGHTING TO KEEP IT CLOSED???

ANSWER - R-CULT!


Elementary: "Captive supplies can and Pickett proved it to a jury, does have an impact on the price of beef for everyone."

There is absolutely no proof of that. NONE! For every time that the captive supply market is higher than the cash market, there is a time that the cash market is higher than the captive supply market.

Nothing more than a baseless packer blaming conspiracy theory unsupported by fact!


R-CALF has accomplished absolutely nothing for this industry. Their positions are based on lies and misinformation. They have lost every court battle they have been in. Their success depends on nobody reminding them of what they said yesterday. R-CALF is a total joke.

Once again, Elementary runs off at the mouth making all kinds of unsupported allegations about market manipulation and market power.

Typical of a left wing liberal with the desire to regulate prosperity with the help of his beloved government. A total socialist agenda.


~SH~
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
SH,I wonder how many ranchers believe "less packers" means more money?I will say one thing prarie dog you got brass,not much sense ,buts lots of brass.......................good luck

PS I can hardly wait till there is just one packer,always wanted to get rich in the cattle buisness :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
don said:
econ101: I think (and I am not an R-CALF member) that the reason rcalf is so protectionist is because the packers are swinging the U.S. beef market, setting up shop in other countries, and taking advantage of those swings to gain extra profits through imports. I totally believe in free and fair trade but on this argument, rcalf has a point.

i would suggest you critically scrutinize r-calf's claims about canadian beef and subsidies because oecd numbers show the american and canadian cattle industries as being among the least subsidized agricultural sectors in the developed world. r-calf would have a lot of support up here except that they have a leadership that has repeatedly lied about canadian cattle. they have divided north american cattlemen in their drive for american support. just as canadians have to solve this problem on our side of the border the american cattlemen will haveto win their own battle. the american govt created the american situation and if anything it has been exported north. usda and ncba are owned by the packers and canada isn't to blame and canadian cattlemen can't fix the american situation.

Don,

It depends on what figures those numbers on subsidies contain. The Bush administration just tried to change the meaning of subsidy so they could keep them within the WTO limits. I know the problem is not with the typical Canadian producer.

I know, despite what Sh says, that the NCBA is in the policy making positions of the USDA and that those policies are policies that are meant to break down the economic protections of the Packers and Stockyards Act. There have been too many examples and excuses by Jo Ann Waterfield, the Justice Dept., and the pllitical money influencing policy for this to be mere coincidence. I don't know how we are going to solve this problem. Canadians giving Tysons 30 some odd million due to a problem they helped create in the name of being "efficient" does not help while letting tysons reap the rewards of a closed border. The lack of support people gave to the workers of Canada in the Lakeside strike for self interests is part of the problem.

Let us think about this one and maybe come up with some solutions.

SH, I am glad you are back, but will you please stop the name calling? I was a little worried about you when you did not post for a while (although it helped the board out a lot) and almost called the ND sherif's dept. to make sure you did not go out in the boonies and accidentally trap yourself.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary,

At some point you are going to have to stand up and back your views with supporting facts. Anyone can rattle on and on about market power and market manipulation if they never have to provide hard evidence to support such allegations. The simplest and most obvious facts avoid you. Such as why cattle prices are where they are now with the same level of packer concentration and the same captive supply pricing arrangements. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW CAPTIVE SUPPLIES NEGATIVELY IMPACT CATTLE MARKETS LET ALONE WHY THIS SUPPOSED MARKET MANIPULATION ONLY HAPPENS PERIODICALLY. The fact that it doesn't happen all the time leaves you to explain WHY. Why would you explain WHY when you can make baseless allegations? Hell, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story. You tell packer blamers what they want to hear but the facts to support your position is a totally foreign concept to you.

You really have nothing to offer this forum other than your unsupported conspiracy theories.


Hayseed, I already know you don't have the understanding to discuss why larger more efficient packing companies can pay more for cattle than the smaller less efficient companies they replaced. It's obvious that larger more efficient packing companies were able to operate on a tighter margin than the less efficient companies they replaced but you'd have to have some business sense to understand that.


~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Maybe Haymaker can understand this example if I type real slow.

You bale hay right?

You have one newer style baler and tractor right?

Would you be able to make more money if you had two old beat to death units?

More is better right?

Can you sell the same quality hay for the same price as everyone else in your area? And show a profit?

Competion keeps the price down, efficiency keeps the profits up.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Elementary,

At some point you are going to have to stand up and back your views with supporting facts. Anyone can rattle on and on about market power and market manipulation if they never have to provide hard evidence to support such allegations. The simplest and most obvious facts avoid you. Such as why cattle prices are where they are now with the same level of packer concentration and the same captive supply pricing arrangements. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW CAPTIVE SUPPLIES NEGATIVELY IMPACT CATTLE MARKETS LET ALONE WHY THIS SUPPOSED MARKET MANIPULATION ONLY HAPPENS PERIODICALLY. The fact that it doesn't happen all the time leaves you to explain WHY. Why would you explain WHY when you can make baseless allegations? Hell, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story. You tell packer blamers what they want to hear but the facts to support your position is a totally foreign concept to you.

You really have nothing to offer this forum other than your unsupported conspiracy theories.


Hayseed, I already know you don't have the understanding to discuss why larger more efficient packing companies can pay more for cattle than the smaller less efficient companies they replaced. It's obvious that larger more efficient packing companies were able to operate on a tighter margin than the less efficient companies they replaced but you'd have to have some business sense to understand that.


~SH~

SH,

The plaintiffs did show that to a jury of 12. You should have learned something form the poll on your getting Sandhuskered. It is hard for 12 people to agree on anything. In the Pickett case they did. Wendy Gramm learned from the commodity trades that Hillary did that the trades needed to be time dated in order to match them up with Blair's Tyson trades. If there was no time date, then it would be hard to prove insider trading charges (Why didn't GIPSA's economist and lawyer brains figure that one out before hand? Duhhhhhh!!). Incompetence or corruption or both.

The similar data on the formula pricing for cattle so it could be compared to the cash market's price for essentially the same delivery date would have been helpful. GIPSA did not require that information (Why not, so called economists and legal beagles at the USDA?) Just because that information was not provided through reporting to GIPSA, did not mean that the fraud did not happen. It just means that the USDA's abiltity to collect pertinent data and justify their paycheck from taxpayers was a rathole. When evidence that this was presented in the trial and then Tyson was asked to provide that data, they refused. Pretty obvious to me, and was probably pretty obvious to the jury. The evidence was presented at the trial and accepted by 12 people who did not have a dog in that fight. They all agreed with the plaintiffs on the interpretation of that evidence.
Please stop crying "no evidence" defense, as it does not hold water, SH.

SH, you may not understand that the demand and supply curve elasticities are a function of the time period in question, but most economists that know anything are aware of these facts. I am sorry you just don't have enough schooling to understand the particulars of these economic frauds. If the trades by Hillary had not been timed with the trades by Tyson, she would not have made all of that money on the commodities market.
The ability of Hillary to make money on those trades was a function of the timing being in tune to Tyson trades. Same thing with the captive supply situation. Think about it SH, maybe you will have a revelation.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Jason said:
Maybe Haymaker can understand this example if I type real slow.

You bale hay right?

You have one newer style baler and tractor right?

Would you be able to make more money if you had two old beat to death units?

More is better right?

Can you sell the same quality hay for the same price as everyone else in your area? And show a profit?

Competion keeps the price down, efficiency keeps the profits up.

Jason you are a prime example ,money can be wasted on schooling,some how some of you packer employee's believe because you are educated you are smart,you have just dispelled that theory.
Competition keeps the price down efficiency keeps the profits up huh ?
OK I have no competion,and I am damned efficent,and guess what, I aint gonna give you a damned thing that I dont have to."take it or leave it"
Thats the real world boy you might be a fair packer employee,but a buissness man you aint....................good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,067
Reaction score
285
Location
Big Muddy valley
HAY MAKER said:
Jason said:
Maybe Haymaker can understand this example if I type real slow.

You bale hay right?

You have one newer style baler and tractor right?

Would you be able to make more money if you had two old beat to death units?

More is better right?

Can you sell the same quality hay for the same price as everyone else in your area? And show a profit?

Competion keeps the price down, efficiency keeps the profits up.

Jason you are a prime example ,money can be wasted on schooling,some how some of you packer employee's believe because you are educated you are smart,you have just dispelled that theory.
Competition keeps the price down efficiency keeps the profits up huh ?
OK I have no competion,and I am damned efficent,and guess what, I aint gonna give you a damned thing that I dont have to."take it or leave it"
Thats the real world boy you might be a fair packer employee,but a buissness man you aint....................good luck



Haymaker are you telling us that your the John Tyson of Sisterdale. Your the only haymaker and By GOD people are going to pay dearly for your hay. :cowboy:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
Jason said:
Maybe Haymaker can understand this example if I type real slow.

You bale hay right?

You have one newer style baler and tractor right?

Would you be able to make more money if you had two old beat to death units?

More is better right?

Can you sell the same quality hay for the same price as everyone else in your area? And show a profit?

Competion keeps the price down, efficiency keeps the profits up.

Jason you are a prime example ,money can be wasted on schooling,some how some of you packer employee's believe because you are educated you are smart,you have just dispelled that theory.
Competition keeps the price down efficiency keeps the profits up huh ?
OK I have no competion,and I am damned efficent,and guess what, I aint gonna give you a damned thing that I dont have to."take it or leave it"
Thats the real world boy you might be a fair packer employee,but a buissness man you aint....................good luck



Haymaker are you telling us that your the John Tyson of Sisterdale. Your the only haymaker and By GOD people are going to pay dearly for your hay. :cowboy:

Nope just gotta use a lil packer lingo,that seems to be all some of these folks can understand...............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary: "The jury did show that to a jury of 12. You should have learned something form the poll on your getting Sandhuskered. It is hard for 12 people to agree on anything."

The jury showed that to a jury? Was the jury responsible for producing evidence to itself? LOL! You're a dandy!

The Plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price as your needs are met is market manipulation. The judge and the 11th circuit knew better and acted accordingly. Why was this trial in Alabama rather than the feeding states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, or Texas? I'll tell you why because they wanted a jury that didn't understand cattle pricing mechanisms. Callicrate couldn't win his case in a feeding state so they had to find a jury they could snowball. They were lucky to even find a judge willing to hear this case let alone earn a conviction.

Until you can provide the evidence that justified the verdict, YOU GOT NOTHING!

Hillary's trading has nothing to do with Pickett.


Elemantary: "The similar data on the formula pricing for cattle so it could be compared to the cash market's price for essentially the same delivery date would have been helpful. GIPSA did not require that information (Why not, so called economists and legal beagles at the USDA?) Just because that information was not provided through reporting to GIPSA, did not mean that the fraud did not happen. It just means that the USDA's abiltity to collect pertinent data and justify their paycheck from taxpayers was a rathole. When evidence that this was presented in the trial and then Tyson was asked to provide that data, they refused. Pretty obvious to me, and was probably pretty obvious to the jury."

You're still holding on to this absolutely worthless argument when it has been explained to you a hundred times. You are so brainwashed with your packer blame that you cannot even comprehend what I'm telling you.

The only way that two prices would be the same within a week is:

1. Quality was similar WHICH CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED ONCE THE HIDE COMES OFF.

2. The comparison was cash to cash rather than cash to formula.

3. IBP'S NEEDS HADN'T CHANGED!


Quality differences, supply and demand factors playing on the market for two seperate weeks, and ibp's needs ARE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS IN COMPARING PRICES.

You will absolutely not be able to refute any one of these facts yet you hang on to the same stupid ridiculous argument that the price should be the same. YOU GOT NOTHING!


Elementary: "The evidence was presented at the trial and accepted by 12 people who did not have a dog in that fight. They all agreed with the plaintiffs on the interpretation of that evidence."

The 12 jurors obviously did not understand what constitutes market manipulation. Their lack of understanding was as obvious as the damages they awarded and their position that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs and their witnesses testified to the contrary.


Elementary: "Please stop crying "no evidence" defense, as it does not hold water, SH."

If the evidence existed, you would provide it. It doesn't exist therefore you prefer to create the "ILLUSION" that it does exist. Until you provide that evidence, YOU GOT NOTHING!


Elementary: "SH, you may not understand that the demand and supply curve elasticities are a function of the time period in question, but most economists that know anything are aware of these facts. I am sorry you just don't have enough schooling to understand the particulars of these economic frauds."

Spare me your arrogance!

I am well aware of the supply and demand factors that affect cattle prices which is exactly why your analysis is so flawed.


You might be able to bullsh*t your fellow packer blamers with your econ physchobabble but you won't bullsh*t someone who understands fat cattle marketing and all the options that are available WHICH YOU CANNOT REFUTE!

You are as factually void to defend your "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" today as you've always been!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH,

Demand in the time frame of two seperate weeks is inelastic. The shorter the time period, the less the elasticity. When the time difference approaches zero, the price difference should approach zero. Pickett proved that it didn't. Court had to lean on something totally different. They had to lean on "business justification". They even got the economics of that one wrong as evidenced by the RPA example. It was an elementary mistake. Did Agman call you up to get me to take the heat off of him? He has some posting to do. I am glad that phisically you are not hurt. Did you go trapping?
The 12 jurors obviously did not understand what constitutes market manipulation. Their lack of understanding was as obvious as the damages they awarded and their position that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs and their witnesses testified to the contrary.

Captive supplies were only the gun. Tyson pulled the trigger. I thought we already went over this. Did you fail the test?
 

Latest posts

Top