Randy: "Tell us all how $3.88 has allowed these giants of the industry to not only survive but to thrive."
VOLUME AND TURN OVER!
What they lack on a per head basis they make it up on volume.
If you don't like the $3.88 per head figure, use the $26 high reported for Tyson during the Pickett era of packer profitability.
Either way, $26 per head is a hell of a long ways from the $400 per head lies stated by Mike Callicrate.
Randy: "Closing two plants while expanding ten doesn't count."
What 10 plants are expanding Randy?
Name them or make another stupid remark to divert having to back your empty statement.
Observe the dance.............
Randy: "Come now Scott, wipe of your brown nose for a momnet and tell us how this economic model of yours works."
I just did!
There's no such thing as truth with you is there? It's either packer defense or packer blame. It just can't be what the facts support can it?
Until you can present some hard data to prove these figures incorrect, you got nothing.
Randy: "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."
Neither! The $3.88 per head FOR THE 90's FOR THE 5 MAJOR PACKERS, was what packers made as profit on a per head basis after taxes. The profitability figures are reported to GIPSA, Agman calculated the per head profit figures from their slaughter numbers.
Tyson figures their profits as what they received for beef and beef by products minus what they paid for the cattle - minus their slaughter costs.
What does your reasearch show Randy?? WHAT RESEARCH????? LOL!
~SH~