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

Enough of the 3 dollar an 88 cent joke already

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
How long do we have to endure this pathetic number. Do those of you who have actually started to believe this number also believe that those who don't post but simply observe are being brainwashed by reading it over and over again.

Like a mantra for crying out loud, the bn's (now that I know that bn pees you off MRJ, I'll use it quite a bit; but not quite as much as SH uses pb's on this site) recite this silly number over and over again like it's the reason that they live.

Give it a rest already. It is so silly that it is not even funny anymore. To say that one of the largest corporate companies in the world has not only survived but thrived on $3.88 on each and every carcass that passes through their hands is udderly ridiculous. Just think what would have happened to Exxon if they only made 30 cents on each and every barrel of oil?

Where ever this number first came from is beyond me. If it has some kind of meaning, this meaning has been lost by the bn's who have taken that meaning away and tried to use it to defend their Packer Gods.

I truly hope that those who read this site from a distance can see through this silliness and are not getting caught up in this repetitive propaganda campaign.

$3.88 - quit already. Come up with another number for the bn followers to use. One that even has a shred of reality involved.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser, your point is well taken. I only used the number so I could use a packer backer number in the arguments instead of fighting over details. They still argued over their own number!!!!! Same with the $26.00 per head they quote.
 

blackjack

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Location
west central Alberta
...i don't know what it is like for you guys that have feeders down there...but i do find it ironic how the fat price here in canada has come down to exactly the amount of profit margin i would have made from cheaper feed costs... has the price for beef in the store went down that much... i am with you on this one randyk... the 88 cent fat market does seem to be suspicious... i would like to add that is the price for top quality... this justs adds to the problem as producers will put on more carcass weight to hopefully make a buck and end up with discounts for heavies... and who says the packer have no control...
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
The $3.88 number was an average per head profit for all the major packers in the US during the 90's. I don't know how much clearer it can be stated.

The $26 number comes from the Pickett vs IBP trial where it was IBP's profit per head for a 4 year period 99-03 or 00-04.

Blackjack, who feeds cattle until they are heavier than the target weight? The feeder right? Do the targets magically shift? No the feeders know what they are. What does extra carcass weight do to the total volume of beef?

Just because the facts aren't always comfortable, doesn't mean they aren't facts.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Jason said:
The $3.88 number was an average per head profit for all the major packers in the US during the 90's. I don't know how much clearer it can be stated.

And what the rest of us keep arguing is that 3.88 was a net profit AFTER EXPANSION expenses. Heck, even Ford and Chevy report their profit margins BEFORE capitalization.

Rod
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
New capital expenditures are not 100% deductable in the same year are they Rod?

Capital expenditures are usually made with after tax dollars and depreciated or more likely made with borrowed funds. The interest would be tax deductable in the year it was borrowed.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Let me help you out Jason.

Repetition is the best way to train the mind.

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88

3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88 - 3.88
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Jason said:
New capital expenditures are not 100% deductable in the same year are they Rod?

Capital expenditures are usually made with after tax dollars and depreciated or more likely made with borrowed funds. The interest would be tax deductable in the year it was borrowed.

Capital expenditures are not 100% deductible in the same year. Depending on what it is, it may take 20 years to fully depreciate the expense.

You just made my point though. The capital expenses that would be written off and appear in that $3.88 number were expenses from previous years. Any new expansion would be fueled from the current years after tax dollars, and if they're only making $3.88/hd, where'd the money come from?

Rod
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rkaiser said:
How long do we have to endure this pathetic number. Do those of you who have actually started to believe this number also believe that those who don't post but simply observe are being brainwashed by reading it over and over again.

Like a mantra for crying out loud, the bn's (now that I know that bn pees you off MRJ, I'll use it quite a bit; but not quite as much as SH uses pb's on this site) recite this silly number over and over again like it's the reason that they live.

Give it a rest already. It is so silly that it is not even funny anymore. To say that one of the largest corporate companies in the world has not only survived but thrived on $3.88 on each and every carcass that passes through their hands is udderly ridiculous. Just think what would have happened to Exxon if they only made 30 cents on each and every barrel of oil?

Where ever this number first came from is beyond me. If it has some kind of meaning, this meaning has been lost by the bn's who have taken that meaning away and tried to use it to defend their Packer Gods.

I truly hope that those who read this site from a distance can see through this silliness and are not getting caught up in this repetitive propaganda campaign.

$3.88 - quit already. Come up with another number for the bn followers to use. One that even has a shred of reality involved.

I'm sorry you are so delusional as to believe your use of your favorite term to demean people who post information with which you disagree, "pees me off" as your usual crude terminology allows to you state. Your childish fixation with bodily functions as your favorite sources for names to call people says much about you, and nothing about those whom you choose to bestow your wisdom upon.

Maybe you should go undercover at a packing plant and find the evidence with which to hang them if you are so certain they are deliberately harming cattle producers and providing false information on their finances.

MRJ
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Okay MRJ, take the bn's out of the above post and put in a name that fits.

Then go on and tell me how this $3.88 number works.

Facts only please.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You're right Randy. Now that Tyson is closing plants in the U.S. and recently lost $60 Million in their beef division, the $3.88 per head figure is obviously too high.

Point taken!

Hey, wait a minute, where is your facts to prove what per head packer profits really are??

If you don't believe GIPSA's data or Tyson's own financial statements which must be meant to discourage potential investors (HAHAHA), where's your data?????

I KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY! All you can do is attempt to discredit the numbers that don't agree with your packer blaming thumb sucking bias.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I'm glad you're here SH.

Now you can show us all the truth.

Tell us all how $3.88 has allowed these giants of the industry to not only survive but to thrive. Closing two plants while expanding ten doesn't count.

Come now Scott, wipe of your brown nose for a momnet and tell us how this economic model of yours works.

It's not about auditors, it's not about press releases from Tyson. It's about common sense for once. Do the math that I asked Jason to do on the other thread.

Is the $3.88 a percentage of the price Tyson pays producers or gets from the retailer. Your choice. Now show us the percentage of profit. And then tell us how any business in the world could survive months let alone years of this absolutly ridiculous number.

You can't Scott, so you will continue with your emotional rants to try to make sense of nonsense.

Once again, as always, not so much blaming any packer fo anything, simply seeing the sadness in minds that can't think for themselves.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
You're right Randy. Now that Tyson is closing plants in the U.S. and recently lost $60 Million in their beef division, the $3.88 per head figure is obviously too high.

Point taken!

Hey, wait a minute, where is your facts to prove what per head packer profits really are??

If you don't believe GIPSA's data or Tyson's own financial statements which must be meant to discourage potential investors (HAHAHA), where's your data?????

I KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY! All you can do is attempt to discredit the numbers that don't agree with your packer blaming thumb sucking bias.


~SH~

SH, isn't the 3.88 supposed to be for the 90s? Better update your calander!!!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
How about a different Joke,,,, this $3.88 one is getting older and older.

A bakery owner hires a young female clerk who likes to wear very
>> short skirts and thong panties.
>>
>>
>>
>> One day a young man enters the store, glances at the clerk and
>> glances at the loaves of bread behind the counter. Noticing the
>> length of her skirt (or lack thereof) and the location of the raisin
>> bread, he has a brilliant idea. "I'd like some raisin bread please"
>> the man says politely.
>>
>>
>>
>> The female clerk nods and climbs up a ladder to reach the raisin
>> bread, which is located on the very top shelf. The young man standing
>> almost directly beneath her is provided with an excellent view, just
>> as he surmised he would. Once she descends the ladder he muses that
>> he really should get two loaves, as he is having company for dinner.
>>
>>
>>
>> As the clerk retrieves the second loaf of bread, one of the other
>> male customers notices what was going on. Thinking quickly, he
>> requests his own loaf of raisin bread so he can continue to enjoy
>> the view.
>>
>>
>>
>> With each trip up the ladder, the young lady seems to catch the eye
>> of another male customer. Pretty soon, each male customer is asking
>> for raisin bread, just to see the clerk climb up and down. After many
>> trips she is tired, irritated and thinking that she is really going
>> to have to try the bread herself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, once again atop the ladder, she stops and fumes, glaring at
>> the men standing below. She notices an Oldtimer standing amongst
>> the crowd, staring up at her. Thinking to save herself a trip, she
>> yells at the elderly man, "Is it raisin for you, too?"
>>
>>
>>
>> "No," stammers Oldtimer, "but it's a-quiverin'"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rkaiser said:
How about a different Joke,,,, this $3.88 one is getting older and older.

A bakery owner hires a young female clerk who likes to wear very
>> short skirts and thong panties.
>>
>>
>>
>> One day a young man enters the store, glances at the clerk and
>> glances at the loaves of bread behind the counter. Noticing the
>> length of her skirt (or lack thereof) and the location of the raisin
>> bread, he has a brilliant idea. "I'd like some raisin bread please"
>> the man says politely.
>>
>>
>>
>> The female clerk nods and climbs up a ladder to reach the raisin
>> bread, which is located on the very top shelf. The young man standing
>> almost directly beneath her is provided with an excellent view, just
>> as he surmised he would. Once she descends the ladder he muses that
>> he really should get two loaves, as he is having company for dinner.
>>
>>
>>
>> As the clerk retrieves the second loaf of bread, one of the other
>> male customers notices what was going on. Thinking quickly, he
>> requests his own loaf of raisin bread so he can continue to enjoy
>> the view.
>>
>>
>>
>> With each trip up the ladder, the young lady seems to catch the eye
>> of another male customer. Pretty soon, each male customer is asking
>> for raisin bread, just to see the clerk climb up and down. After many
>> trips she is tired, irritated and thinking that she is really going
>> to have to try the bread herself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, once again atop the ladder, she stops and fumes, glaring at
>> the men standing below. She notices an Oldtimer standing amongst
>> the crowd, staring up at her. Thinking to save herself a trip, she
>> yells at the elderly man, "Is it raisin for you, too?"
>>
>>
>>
>> "No," stammers Oldtimer, "but it's a-quiverin'"

"And hopefully as long as I'm breathin, it keeps quiverin" :wink:
 

SDSteve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
At the risk of getting blasted. At 3.88 a head profit the packer owns these cattle what a week? Multiply 3.88 times fifty two and you get a dang nice return on investment. If I could own cattle for one week and make 3.88 a head on them it would be a no-brainer. I have owned cattle a heck of a lot longer and made less on them.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
SD Steve - Probably the most common sense arguement I've heard yet. Might not even own them for a week in some cases. I guess we still need to know if this $3.88 is between producer and the box, or between producer and retailer.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SDSteve said:
At the risk of getting blasted. At 3.88 a head profit the packer owns these cattle what a week? Multiply 3.88 times fifty two and you get a dang nice return on investment. If I could own cattle for one week and make 3.88 a head on them it would be a no-brainer. I have owned cattle a heck of a lot longer and made less on them.

Exactly. It's called the time value of money. A money figure alone means nothing if you can't put a time frame on it as well.
 

Latest posts

Top