Farm gate prices flat

[Jason]

In every commodity based industry demand measured at the consumer level is the real driver, not phony supply issues. Yes with lots of demand, a reduction in supply can cause a price spike, but there is always a limit as to how high the consumer will pay for anything. Try to lower production too far and see if you can survive.

OPEC is a prime example of this. With West Texas between $50-$60 why don't they reduce production to drive the price higher? Are they just being generous? No they know if they artificially drive the price higher they will lose consumer demand. Alternate fuel sources will accelerate development. Oil is a finite resource and easier to regulate than cattle which anybody with an acre can have one.

Again we go back to producers need real information to make real descisions on rather than poor me poor me Tyson controls the world.

Producers control the industry until they sell the cattle. Then they pass the control with the cattle. Want to keep control? Keep the cattle.

 

[Econ101]

In every commodity based industry demand measured at the consumer level is the real driver, not phony supply issues. Yes with lots of demand, a reduction in supply can cause a price spike, but there is always a limit as to how high the consumer will pay for anything. Try to lower production too far and see if you can survive.

OPEC is a prime example of this. With West Texas between $50-$60 why don't they reduce production to drive the price higher? Are they just being generous? No they know if they artificially drive the price higher they will lose consumer demand. Alternate fuel sources will accelerate development. Oil is a finite resource and easier to regulate than cattle which anybody with an acre can have one.

Again we go back to producers need real information to make real descisions on rather than poor me poor me Tyson controls the world.

Producers control the industry until they sell the cattle. Then they pass the control with the cattle. Want to keep control? Keep the cattle.

Jason, with inelastic commodities, the percentage change in supply always affects the price more in percentage terms. The effect is multiplied when substitutes are managed strategically. Your ignorance of this fact is shown every time you post on this subject.

Where did you say you recieved your education? Cargill packer school?

I hope you get your operation reversed.

 

[Jason]

How can packers reduce supply when producers own the cattle?

They can't.

They lower their bids as demand drops, and raise them as it climbs.

A successful producer will learn how to time those changes by asking for help from experts in the field like Agman. He has proven his understanding of the beef industry by citing exact numbers and trends. His advice can help a producer minimize his risk.

Your phony claims about the packer control of the industry have helped no one.

 

[Econ101]

How can packers reduce supply when producers own the cattle?

They can't.

They lower their bids as demand drops, and raise them as it climbs.

A successful producer will learn how to time those changes by asking for help from experts in the field like Agman. He has proven his understanding of the beef industry by citing exact numbers and trends. His advice can help a producer minimize his risk.

Your phony claims about the packer control of the industry have helped no one.

His numbers show no more than the extent of "play" in demand and prices packers have with the market power tools they are allowed.

You are nothing more than a brown noser.

 

[pknoeber]

Jason, with inelastic commodities, the percentage change in supply always affects the price more in percentage terms. The effect is multiplied when substitutes are managed strategically. Your ignorance of this fact is shown every time you post on this subject.

Where did you say you recieved your education? Cargill packer school?

I hope you get your operation reversed.

The same could be said for a % reduction in demand. Watch what happens to prices then with that inelastic curve.
These numbers roads go both ways, it just depends upon your philosophy which lane you're in. End result is the same: The producers bicker among themselves & the rest of the supply chain & the lawyers & others that have made an industry out of the bickering skim the cream off the top.

Phil

 

[Soapweed]

:lol: :cowboy:

:nod: :nod: :cowboy:

:lol: :lol: :lol2:

:cowboy: :cboy: :wink:

 

[agman]

How can packers reduce supply when producers own the cattle?

They can't.

They lower their bids as demand drops, and raise them as it climbs.

A successful producer will learn how to time those changes by asking for help from experts in the field like Agman. He has proven his understanding of the beef industry by citing exact numbers and trends. His advice can help a producer minimize his risk.

Your phony claims about the packer control of the industry have helped no one.

His numbers show no more than the extent of "play" in demand and prices packers have with the market power tools they are allowed.

You are nothing more than a brown noser.

You are not smart enough to know what my numbers show or for that matter any one else's would show. You don't even know the basics of supply/demand analysis. Your comments are a total joke-a laugh a day. You live in your phony world of baseless and made-up allegations which only a fool such as yourself would believe exist.

 

[Econ101]

How can packers reduce supply when producers own the cattle?

They can't.

They lower their bids as demand drops, and raise them as it climbs.

A successful producer will learn how to time those changes by asking for help from experts in the field like Agman. He has proven his understanding of the beef industry by citing exact numbers and trends. His advice can help a producer minimize his risk.

Your phony claims about the packer control of the industry have helped no one.

His numbers show no more than the extent of "play" in demand and prices packers have with the market power tools they are allowed.

You are nothing more than a brown noser.

You are not smart enough to know what my numbers show or for that matter any one else's would show. You don't even know the basics of supply/demand analysis. Your comments are a total joke-a laugh a day. You live in your phony world of baseless and made-up allegations which only a fool such as yourself would believe exist.

Agman, you can not recognize market power or the deadweight losses it puts on the economy. Your little analysis is self serving. You are smart enough to know the market frauds being placed on this industry but you are not man enough to speak up against them because of your own self interest. You are an accessory to the moves of fascism in our country. As long as it suits your needs, right?

 

[RobertMac]

:nod: :nod: :cowboy:

:lol: :lol: :lol2:

:cowboy: :cboy: :wink:

Producers control the industry until they sell the cattle. Then they pass the control with the cattle. Want to keep control? Keep the cattle.

And they pass control with their cattle! :???: :?

 

[Jason]

Who controls the cattle Robert? Whoever owns them. Sell them to Tyson or Cargill, they control those cattle.

 

[RobertMac]

Question: The U.S. consumer spends the least amount of their disposable income for food which is correct. Is that due to low food costs or a very high level of disposable income? Do you know the correct answer?

Both!

Just for you RM.....Which is the most dominate cause - cheap food or a high level of disposable income?

I see you like that kind of answer as well as my wife does...lucky for me, you can't put me on the couch!

The 'percentage' has dropped some...I assume from an increase in disposable income due to tax breaks and the robust economy the main stream media is ignoring. But wouldn't an increase in disposable income mean the consumer could pay more for their food? Oh, that's right, they do for my beef...I guess it's a matter of providing the right consumer with the right product...got to love those niche markets the big boys can't get into!!! :wink: How do our food prices compare to other developed countries?
Take care, Robert

 

[RobertMac]

Who controls the cattle Robert? Whoever owns them. Sell them to Tyson or Cargill, they control those cattle.

Precisely...and who controls the industry?

 

[agman]

His numbers show no more than the extent of "play" in demand and prices packers have with the market power tools they are allowed.

You are nothing more than a brown noser.

You are not smart enough to know what my numbers show or for that matter any one else's would show. You don't even know the basics of supply/demand analysis. Your comments are a total joke-a laugh a day. You live in your phony world of baseless and made-up allegations which only a fool such as yourself would believe exist.

Agman, you can not recognize market power or the deadweight losses it puts on the economy. Your little analysis is self serving. You are smart enough to know the market frauds being placed on this industry but you are not man enough to speak up against them because of your own self interest. You are an accessory to the moves of fascism in our country. As long as it suits your needs, right?

Keep on talking fool. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding of economics and analytical ability each day. You are the only fool remaining who who might believe your garbage analysis and assumptions.

Have you figured out yet that prices can, do and have moved up without a decline in supply - basic economic knowledge? Have you explained to yourself how Tyson manipulated the beef business before they owned Tyson? Did they trade chicken versus chicken!!? Do you still believe that multi-national packers manipulate the cattle cycle world world wide? How then do you explain the many cattle cycles prior to multi-national packers?

The shallowness of your baseless claims and accusations is only exceeded by your total ignorance. You would like to be intelligent and knowledgeable but you are neither as demonstrated daily by your posts. BTW...is your phone still tapped or has that voice in your head stopped talking to you temporarily?

 

[Econ101]

You are not smart enough to know what my numbers show or for that matter any one else's would show. You don't even know the basics of supply/demand analysis. Your comments are a total joke-a laugh a day. You live in your phony world of baseless and made-up allegations which only a fool such as yourself would believe exist.

Agman, you can not recognize market power or the deadweight losses it puts on the economy. Your little analysis is self serving. You are smart enough to know the market frauds being placed on this industry but you are not man enough to speak up against them because of your own self interest. You are an accessory to the moves of fascism in our country. As long as it suits your needs, right?

Keep on talking fool. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding of economics and analytical ability each day. You are the only fool remaining who who might believe your garbage analysis and assumptions.

Have you figured out yet that prices can, do and have moved up without a decline in supply - basic economic knowledge? Have you explained to yourself how Tyson manipulated the beef business before they owned Tyson? Did they trade chicken versus chicken!!? Do you still believe that multi-national packers manipulate the cattle cycle world world wide? How then do you explain the many cattle cycles prior to multi-national packers?

The shallowness of your baseless claims and accusations is only exceeded by your total ignorance. You would like to be intelligent and knowledgeable but you are neither as demonstrated daily by your posts. BTW...is your phone still tapped or has that voice in your head stopped talking to you temporarily?

Poor little Agman, he has to resort to his own arguments so he can win.

Your allegations are your allegations. Don't try to put them off as something I have said. It shows how weak your points are. I see your tell showing again, agman. Every liar knows a little truth with the story can make it sound more real. You have that tactic down, agman.

 

[agman]

Agman, you can not recognize market power or the deadweight losses it puts on the economy. Your little analysis is self serving. You are smart enough to know the market frauds being placed on this industry but you are not man enough to speak up against them because of your own self interest. You are an accessory to the moves of fascism in our country. As long as it suits your needs, right?

Keep on talking fool. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding of economics and analytical ability each day. You are the only fool remaining who who might believe your garbage analysis and assumptions.

Have you figured out yet that prices can, do and have moved up without a decline in supply - basic economic knowledge? Have you explained to yourself how Tyson manipulated the beef business before they owned Tyson? Did they trade chicken versus chicken!!? Do you still believe that multi-national packers manipulate the cattle cycle world world wide? How then do you explain the many cattle cycles prior to multi-national packers?

The shallowness of your baseless claims and accusations is only exceeded by your total ignorance. You would like to be intelligent and knowledgeable but you are neither as demonstrated daily by your posts. BTW...is your phone still tapped or has that voice in your head stopped talking to you temporarily?

Poor little Agman, he has to resort to his own arguments so he can win.

Your allegations are your allegations. Don't try to put them off as something I have said. It shows how weak your points are. I see your tell showing again, agman. Every liar knows a little truth with the story can make it sound more real. You have that tactic down, agman.

You have not backed one allegation. You are simply too ignorant to realize your own foolishness. I can back and have backed my positions. Where have you backed even one of your phony allegations. You evidently believe your stream of unending lies and false accusations.

You would last in an open debate with me only as long as I choose to allow you to last. You cannot even answer basic questions that are posed as your intellect and knowledge level is so inadequate. You only continue to fool yourself-all talk no facts; everyone else has figured out your con-game. If you think I have misstated some facts under discussion then bring it on hero. Expose your foolishness for all to see once again.

 

[Econ101]

You took credit for the Schroeder article I posted. I then challenged you on the substitution numbers. You backed away and then said you did not write the article, agman. If your input was so valuable, then why did you not argue against those numbers? You know that those numbers were rigged to give an impression of a conclusion you like, agman. Everything to you is a shift in demand, as if demand shifts explain everything. Your little demand index is comparable only to parity in relevance to the economic realities of the industry.

It wasn't enough for you to know these frauds, you even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government. I have posted the examples that were not refuted that have proven that point(Clinton, Public Citizen's report).

Go back and claim you know everything, Agman. You are the fraud. I would rather be as poor as MRJ feigns than to have sold my soul as you have.

 

[agman]

You took credit for the Schroeder article I posted. I then challenged you on the substitution numbers. You backed away and then said you did not write the article, agman. If your input was so valuable, then why did you not argue against those numbers? You know that those numbers were rigged to give an impression of a conclusion you like, agman. Everything to you is a shift in demand, as if demand shifts explain everything. Your little demand index is comparable only to parity in relevance to the economic realities of the industry.

It wasn't enough for you to know these frauds, you even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government. I have posted the examples that were not refuted that have proven that point(Clinton, Public Citizen's report).

Go back and claim you know everything, Agman. You are the fraud. I would rather be as poor as MRJ feigns than to have sold my soul as you have.

Show eveyone where I took credit for the article you cite. Please proceed with haste-liar. I took credit for moving the industry toward a demand index which was used in the study and nothing more. I provided a complete cronology of the circumstances of meeting from which the index was devised. Show the readers where I said otherwise.

Your lack of comprehension of the article itself is revealing of how shallow your understanding is of economic analysis. Why would I argue against those numbers. If your read the entire article you would realize the essence of the demand shifts that occurred which I outlined already in a previous post. The chronology, cause and magnitude of those shifts you remain totally unaware of today. You are a total illiterate concerning those factors. Once again you are long on opinion and short on fact as always.

How do you support your claim that the numbers in the Schroeder report you cite were rigged. You don't even know the numbers. Once again you have made a baseless claim tantamount to another outright lie on your part-par for the course for you.

Of course, a self anoited genius such as yourself who did not even know the level and trend in per capita consumption can allude yourself about your conclusion regarding demand and how prices are manipulated. Oh, I might also add that you are the one who claims "prices cannot advance unless accompaied by a supply cut". How much do you care to bet in support of your statement Conman? You are the only fool on earth who would believe such a phony and stupid proclamation.

Show the readers your claim that I "even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government." Where did you dream that one up space-cadet. You have the comprehension problem that you accuse others of. Which one of the multitude of voices in your head conceived that false notion. Did you forget to take your Valium that day? Do a copy and paste to support your claim of my supposed comment.

I don't claim to know everything, I just know one hell of alot more than you about this industry and supply/demand analysis. Your ignorance of the beef industry is beyond belief. You are a legend in your own mind and nowhere else; a complete fraud who gets exposed with every post you make and are too ignorant to recognize that undeniable fact. Tap..Tap..someone is listening to your phone calls-another grandiose fabrication of yours!!! Give the world a break from all your nonsense.

 

[Econ101]

You took credit for the Schroeder article I posted. I then challenged you on the substitution numbers. You backed away and then said you did not write the article, agman. If your input was so valuable, then why did you not argue against those numbers? You know that those numbers were rigged to give an impression of a conclusion you like, agman. Everything to you is a shift in demand, as if demand shifts explain everything. Your little demand index is comparable only to parity in relevance to the economic realities of the industry.

It wasn't enough for you to know these frauds, you even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government. I have posted the examples that were not refuted that have proven that point(Clinton, Public Citizen's report).

Go back and claim you know everything, Agman. You are the fraud. I would rather be as poor as MRJ feigns than to have sold my soul as you have.

 

[mwj]

You took credit for the Schroeder article I posted. I then challenged you on the substitution numbers. You backed away and then said you did not write the article, agman. If your input was so valuable, then why did you not argue against those numbers? You know that those numbers were rigged to give an impression of a conclusion you like, agman. Everything to you is a shift in demand, as if demand shifts explain everything. Your little demand index is comparable only to parity in relevance to the economic realities of the industry.

It wasn't enough for you to know these frauds, you even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government. I have posted the examples that were not refuted that have proven that point(Clinton, Public Citizen's report).

Go back and claim you know everything, Agman. You are the fraud. I would rather be as poor as MRJ feigns than to have sold my soul as you have.

Please post your proof on this or shut up about it. You make the claim, you bring the proof. Not a hard concept to understand is it?

 

[Econ101]

You took credit for the Schroeder article I posted. I then challenged you on the substitution numbers. You backed away and then said you did not write the article, agman. If your input was so valuable, then why did you not argue against those numbers? You know that those numbers were rigged to give an impression of a conclusion you like, agman. Everything to you is a shift in demand, as if demand shifts explain everything. Your little demand index is comparable only to parity in relevance to the economic realities of the industry.

It wasn't enough for you to know these frauds, you even bragged to Robert Mac on how the packers line both sides of the street to get their way in government. I have posted the examples that were not refuted that have proven that point(Clinton, Public Citizen's report).

Go back and claim you know everything, Agman. You are the fraud. I would rather be as poor as MRJ feigns than to have sold my soul as you have.

Please post your proof on this or shut up about it. You make the claim, you bring the proof. Not a hard concept to understand is it?

Go read the old posts. Not a hard concept for you to do your own research.