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

Do I correctly remember?

Brad S

Well-known member
It seems I remember RCALF seizing credit for the escalation in beef prices the last several years.

!) if so, was this because of the short term unilateral protectionism they advocated with respect to border closure?

2) If so, did RCALF allow the terrible decline of the last 6 weeks just to show what happens when they don't do anything?
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Perhsps protectionist is partly a matter of perspective, but I'd think protectionism retards trade to deny economic forces. I see what your getting at and its a good question; let me give anexample of what we can agree is protectionism: 15 or 20 years ago the US put a huge import duty on >500cc motorcycles to save a failing Harley Davidson. I suggest Japan's demand for testing <20 month beef is protectionist, and US embargo of Canadian border was mostly potectionism crouched in a specious claim of safety.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Perhsps protectionist is partly a matter of perspective, but I'd think protectionism retards trade to deny economic forces. I see what your getting at and its a good question; let me give anexample of what we can agree is protectionism: 15 or 20 years ago the US put a huge import duty on >500cc motorcycles to save a failing Harley Davidson. I suggest Japan's demand for testing <20 month beef is protectionist, and US embargo of Canadian border was mostly potectionism crouched in a specious claim of safety.

I get really tired of R-CALF being labeled protectionist when that is not the case. We are FOR trade - sensible FAIR trade where you get something in return for what you give. Some torked off Canuck labeled us protectionist in an effort to brand a scarlet letter on your chests and others are following suit without even thinking of what protectionist means.

I'll agree with the example you provided of Harley. Bush did the same recently with steel. I will disagree with you on the Canadian border deal. If that was protectionist, so was our efforts on the prior 22 countries that became BSE positive - and so were the efforts of the multitudes of nations that did the excact same thing - INCLUDING CANADA.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Can we agree that <20 month beef is not susceptible to BSE? I agree that Canada employed the same embargo rational when the shoe was on the other foot but that mostly proves all countries are guilty of protectionism.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Can we agree that <20 month beef is not susceptible to BSE? I agree that Canada employed the same embargo rational when the shoe was on the other foot but that mostly proves all countries are guilty of protectionism.

I don't think we know enough about BSE yet to say with any certainty that <20 cattle are not susceptible, especially when the idea is that they first contract it at a very early age. I kind of compare it to AIDS, one does not have to have the symptoms to have it and be able to pass it.

You say they are protectionist, I say they are cautious.
 

the chief

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
What about the countervail in 98? No BSE and we were not getting subsidies. R-CALF was being protectionist.

By "protectionist", do you mean protecting the American cattle producers' right to make a profit on his cattle? Cause that is what Rcalf is trying to do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
What about the countervail in 98? No BSE and we were not getting subsidies. R-CALF was being protectionist.

But Canada still had border restrictions on ALL US cattle going north- no matter if the cows ran side by side to Canadian cattle-- ALL US CATTLE WERE DISEASED according to Canadians...

Doesn't sound like a fair and free trade too me......Doesn't sound like Canadadians wanted to have FAIR TRADE....
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Ot- You sure like to turn things around dont ya..... :roll: I think the rules should be fair to Americans who want to send cattle up here. lets have two way trade.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Chief: "By "protectionist", do you mean protecting the American cattle producers' right to make a profit on his cattle? Cause that is what Rcalf is trying to do."

R-CALF hasn't done a damn thing to make American cattle producers more profitable.

Suing the packers results in someone else getting lower prices for their cattle to pay for what others gain. Anyone with any intelligence knows that packers are not going to process cattle at a loss indefinitely. The packer blamers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Some victory!

Stopping Canadian imports would have meant that Canada would have absorbed that same portion of our export markets. R-CALF can't see that far ahead.

The absolute dumbest political move I have ever seen was R-CALF's Washington Post adds and their court statements claiming that having BSE in your native herd means your beef is contaminated and high risk. What an idiotic thing to do. Then NCBA and USDA has to do damage control when we had our first native BSE case. How could anyone be so ignorant? Then again, when you can contradict what you said yesterday about BSE and keep a straight face, it's second nature to lie your way out of anything.

If R-CALF is tying to protect cattle prices, they sure got a strange way of going about it.

BSE "FEAR MONGERING"???? I'll bet consumers just run to the store to buy beef. What a bunch of fools.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Yeah, SH, we need to quit fining criminals and robbers, they only have to rob somebody else to pay the fine - we never gain a thing. :roll:

Anti-producer - pro packer AGAIN, I see.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Yeah, SH, we need to quit fining criminals and robbers, they only have to rob somebody else to pay the fine - we never gain a thing."

Presumption of guilt again I see!


Sandbag: "Anti-producer - pro packer AGAIN, I see."

Blamers do not represent the majority of producers, they only represent the blaming segment of our industry.

You can't get more anti producer than to remove $9.25 million in equity from the packing industry and give it to packer blamers who think packers should be held responsible for USDA's mistake. How can anyone call themselves "pro producer" when they support lower prices for some producers to pay for the lawsuits from the blaming segment of our industry?

The blaming segment of this industry has become parasitic.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Yeah, SH, we need to quit fining criminals and robbers, they only have to rob somebody else to pay the fine - we never gain a thing."

Presumption of guilt again I see!


Sandbag: "Anti-producer - pro packer AGAIN, I see."

Blamers do not represent the majority of producers, they only represent the blaming segment of our industry.

You can't get more anti producer than to remove $9.25 million in equity from the packing industry and give it to packer blamers who think packers should be held responsible for USDA's mistake. How can anyone call themselves "pro producer" when they support lower prices for some producers to pay for the lawsuits from the blaming segment of our industry?

The blaming segment of this industry has become parasitic.



~SH~

So fines should not be levied for criminal activity because the criminals will just have to rob from somebody else? Packers have no other means to pay their fines other than to lower prices? How can they lower prices in this competitive environment that you claim exists? You're a dandy.

I'm convinced you have the same mental problems as L. H. Oswald.

By the way, what are us blamers blaming the packers for? I've never figured that one out.
 

pknoeber

Well-known member
the chief said:
By "protectionist", do you mean protecting the American cattle producers' right to make a profit on his cattle? Cause that is what Rcalf is trying to do.

I don't want to pick on anybody, but it seems to me that much of this debate has evolved b/c of this type of belief. We don't have a "right" to anything, other than the chance to make it work. If others can do it cheaper than we can, due to a myriad of reasons, then they have the right to compete with us. We should also have the right to move our operations to those locations to take advantage of the economic conditions that make it possible for them to operate that way, much the same as many North American farmers moved to Brazil in the 90s.
Having said that, I realize that it would be difficult to move operations, but the sentiment is the same. We're not entitled to anything but a chance to compete, be it with your neighbor or internationally.
Phil
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
pknoeber said:
the chief said:
By "protectionist", do you mean protecting the American cattle producers' right to make a profit on his cattle? Cause that is what Rcalf is trying to do.

I don't want to pick on anybody, but it seems to me that much of this debate has evolved b/c of this type of belief. We don't have a "right" to anything, other than the chance to make it work. If others can do it cheaper than we can, due to a myriad of reasons, then they have the right to compete with us. We should also have the right to move our operations to those locations to take advantage of the economic conditions that make it possible for them to operate that way, much the same as many North American farmers moved to Brazil in the 90s.
Having said that, I realize that it would be difficult to move operations, but the sentiment is the same. We're not entitled to anything but a chance to compete, be it with your neighbor or internationally.
Phil

Phil thats just it. Your government goes to other countries and promotes the free world market and makes trade agreements. Then these protectionest lobby groups use congress? or other legal ways that basically make your President look like a liar. I dont mean that in an offensive way either. But to the average Joe Six Pack from another country America comes off as saying one thing and then going home and doing another. I think this tends to give you guys a bad name internationaly.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
pknoeber said:
the chief said:
By "protectionist", do you mean protecting the American cattle producers' right to make a profit on his cattle? Cause that is what Rcalf is trying to do.

I don't want to pick on anybody, but it seems to me that much of this debate has evolved b/c of this type of belief. We don't have a "right" to anything, other than the chance to make it work. If others can do it cheaper than we can, due to a myriad of reasons, then they have the right to compete with us. We should also have the right to move our operations to those locations to take advantage of the economic conditions that make it possible for them to operate that way, much the same as many North American farmers moved to Brazil in the 90s.
Having said that, I realize that it would be difficult to move operations, but the sentiment is the same. We're not entitled to anything but a chance to compete, be it with your neighbor or internationally.
Phil

Phil, I see you are into the Chicago school of economic thought. We had that bout with the chicago school in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Thank goodness we did turn away from it. It produced the greatest economic powerhouse on the globe. Look at any oligarchal social system or any totalitarian system and you will know what you have made a mistake.

The rules are there for there to be fairness in the system. Without fairness, the efficiency of the system declines. How would you like a world where those with the power make the rules and enforce them on others? Our founding fathers were very leary of this type of system and tried to make some checks and balances so this would not happen. Those checks and balances are being broken down.

We have a very good free trade agreement in the United States. It is called interstate commerce and all states operate with the same rules. We don't have that anywhere else in the world. Canada probably comes closest. Outside of that, everything is negotiated. Our trade negotiators are doing a poor job of protecting our fair markets because they are not imposing the costs of a fair system on those we trade with. Cheapest isn't always the best. Sometimes it is the worst. The cheap comes with a cost. It might be unfair labor laws or non existant labor laws and rules, or it might be some other social cost like lack of security, stability, or freedom. Those are the details that our trade negotiators are supposed to look into. The fast track agreements have been terrible because they have not allowed the public and political vetting of these type of issues so they could be hashed out. Instead, our Representatives in Congress have conceded much of that power to the President, and to the WTO.

I am all for competition, but it needs be fair. Cattlemen can't even get the laws that protect them from some of the abuses in the market in our own country, let alone any international agreements. We have a system that is ripe for manipulation and it is being manipulated. It isn't very hard to see at all. One of the worst things that has been done in regards to the PSA is that the questions of fact are not being given to jury's to decide, they are being taken over by activist judges. These judges have been appointed by a party that has reaped huge rewards from the industries they are protecting. In short, they are picking the winners and losers in the free market. It isn't supposed to work that way and it creates inefficiencies in the market as well as political corruption. No wonder Congress has such a low rating by the public right now. They are gaming the system for their own benefit and the benefit of their supporters. Just look at what just happened in Delay's office. If yoy think his office is the only one, you would have to be pretty wet behind the ears.

I am not writing this to "get down" on you. I think we all need to think more about trade than getting the lowest price. Many times those "lowest prices" have other costs that are not calculated in their cost. Those kind of things usually come back to bite you if you are not careful. They already are.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ wasnt your country founded because of trade<Columbus>.
Wasnt America built on trade<cotton, tobbacco, furs>?
You never would have won your independence from England if it wasnt for Trade with France. Yeh I dont like France either but if it wasnt for them you would never have won the Revolutionary war.
What was one of the first things your founding fathers did? They eliminated trade barriers.
I dont mean to sound disrespectful so dont take this the wrong way but you remind me of Pat Buchanon. I just dont understand how your economy would ever work?
There is no way that you could ever meet your requirements of natural resources without trade with other Nations.
When you guys go to war with somebody whats the first thing you do? You cut them off so they cant trade with other nations. Why do you want to do this to yourself?
BTW Im not anti American. If anything im just the opposite. Whats good for you guys is good for us to. If your economy tanks its going to hurt us as well.
Like I agree with you about some things. But Canada is not your enemy.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Econ wasnt your country founded because of trade<Columbus>.
Wasnt America built on trade<cotton, tobbacco, furs>?
You never would have won your independence from England if it wasnt for Trade with France. Yeh I dont like France either but if it wasnt for them you would never have won the Revolutionary war.
What was one of the first things your founding fathers did? They eliminated trade barriers.
I dont mean to sound disrespectful so dont take this the wrong way but you remind me of Pat Buchanon. I just dont understand how your economy would ever work?
There is no way that you could ever meet your requirements of natural resources without trade with other Nations.
When you guys go to war with somebody whats the first thing you do? You cut them off so they cant trade with other nations. Why do you want to do this to yourself?
BTW Im not anti American. If anything im just the opposite. Whats good for you guys is good for us to. If your economy tanks its going to hurt us as well.
Like I agree with you about some things. But Canada is not your enemy.

Roper, as I said, Canada has much more in common with the USA than any other place. I am not anti-trade. I just think there should be trade negotiators that keep our country's producers and the country's values (not just walmart values either) in mind and not just the corporations.

If we had unlimited and free trade with anyone, it should be Canada.

Trade with other countries should have with it a lot of things in mind. Most of those things we have nothing to worry about with Canada.

I even think we should trade with countries like China, even though they are totalitarian, but we should not get too dependant on countries like that for our trade and they should come with strings attached to encourage better behavior.

As I said, the problem with our trade agreements is that they have not been well thought out and have not accomplished some of the goals that trade should encourage. A better social wealth policy for Mexico, for example. Mexicans are going to keep coming north to work in our powerhouse economy as long as theirs is poor comparatively. Mexican govt. should have more of a share the wealth policy with its populace but instead they are oligarchical. When wealth is captured by a small minority at the top, opportunities are reduced by the general population. Trade with Mexico should help address some of these problems so that the Mexican economy is better. Just like a good economy reduces crime in the U.S., a good economy in Mexico would reduce the illegal aliens coming to the USA.

I am not looking for a lot of new trade barriers. I think we have dropped the ball when it comes to just thinking about the cheapest producer, however. Sometimes the cheapest producer is not too good to the people producing the goods and our trade policy should help change those situations.

I don't like oligarchs in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. They all interfere in politics too much and decrease the production in the economy to a sub optimum level.

These trade issues are large and complex. It would be hard for you to be able to pick up the nuances I talk about because they can be blown way out of proportion with such a limited media as this forum.

One thing I can say is that Canada should have an enforcable PSA, but we don't seem to have that in the United States at this time. If we have open borders to Canada via trade, we should have laws that protect producers from companies that break the rules of fairness just because they have market power and are just over the border. We will all be driven down by those with market power if we do not realize the tricks and address them appropriately.

Our welfare system just has to end (corporate welfare) for our economies to thrive at their optimum level. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future tax liability just to allow corporations to get off the hook from paying their fair share and for our govt. to continue to operate as inefficiently as it is. It is sucking up the benefits of our economy.

I think you mistook some of what I said as anti-Canadian or anti-trade. It wasn't meant that way.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
I guess I was taking you the wrong way. I get reading all this RCALF $hit on the other threads and after a while it starts to seem like people on this forum are looking at Canada as the enemy.
What is PSA?
 
Top