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

Farm gate prices flat

Help Support Ranchers.net:

MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
Charlie1948 said:
You guys don't seem to get the picture Parity Parity the Hell with all this blame one thinks the other is wright the other thinks he is.
I want to see us the American Farmer Rancher get the cost of production + a resonable profit .The Dam government set this Parity up in 1910 -1914 years and went on for years and then they let it go no on knows why.
But I will argue with you all day and nite about the price we getand we can't price our products like every other business in this great nation.
Some of you have been brain washed into thinking we cant and have to let supply and demand rule that does't work.Been there done that.They manupilate the markets.If we don't get our head out of our asses we will not be able to farm in the future.Let't here some more bull s*** on why we can't get a fare price come on boys new year sulealy you guys have more blame BS .
Now I hope every one had a good NewYears and hope you all have a good year ahead.

Charlie, I understand your argument on parity. I agree with it. The reason you can't make a living in agriculture is because instead of having policies that decrease supply, the government has policies of increasing the supply. It leads to a lower cost product for the people who hire the lobbiests and give the political donations. It is a cheap food policy.

Secretary Johannes has had to go out on a fact finding and listening tour for the next farm bill. The secretary of Agriculture for the state of Lousiana got up and told him that the reason we are not going to have enough farmers in the future is because agriculture doesn't pay. He was right.

I thought it was so hypocritical of the Secretary of Agriculture to get on RFDTV in front of an audience of mostly FFA students and talk about the future of farming and the next farm bill. The current cheap food policies of this government is cheating farmers out of their value of their assets and their labor. He is the leader and main enforcer of this policy.

Tyson found a way of reducing the supply of beef----at the expense of the beef market----- and profited greatly from that contraction through their poultry business. At the same time, they are cheating the poultry farmers. Supply management will happen---when the packers have the tools that give them the profits from that supply management. They have them in poultry. They will get them in the beef markets unless they are stopped. Pickett was the best chance of that happening amiacably through the system of justice we have in this country.

The 11th circuit just peed on that process.


IF, and it is a big IF, there is an orchestrated "cheap food policy", isn't it more likely to be about voters than about keeping lobbyists happy?

What do we have more of, consumers or lobbyists? Bingo! Politicians want the VOTERS (consumers of food, one and all!) happy! Farm Programs and subsidies are not about farmers. They are to enable farmers to produce food and keep food costs low FOR VOTERS!

MRJ

MRJ, voters don't like to pay taxes but they do. They don't like to pay for their gas bills, their auto loans, or the electric bill. They still do it.

We have a cheap food policy not because of voters, but because we have some really wimpy politicians that are cow towing to those who are paying for their campaigns. We have politicians that are willing to pay for what they spend today with the children of tomorrow's paychecks and earning power. Put it on the country's credit card. Give out corporate welfare. Pay the minimum payment of interest only and pay the principle back with the future children of this country's earning power.

Today we have plenty of politicians and not enough statesmen.
 
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
Charlie, I understand your argument on parity. I agree with it. The reason you can't make a living in agriculture is because instead of having policies that decrease supply, the government has policies of increasing the supply. It leads to a lower cost product for the people who hire the lobbiests and give the political donations. It is a cheap food policy.

Secretary Johannes has had to go out on a fact finding and listening tour for the next farm bill. The secretary of Agriculture for the state of Lousiana got up and told him that the reason we are not going to have enough farmers in the future is because agriculture doesn't pay. He was right.

I thought it was so hypocritical of the Secretary of Agriculture to get on RFDTV in front of an audience of mostly FFA students and talk about the future of farming and the next farm bill. The current cheap food policies of this government is cheating farmers out of their value of their assets and their labor. He is the leader and main enforcer of this policy.

Tyson found a way of reducing the supply of beef----at the expense of the beef market----- and profited greatly from that contraction through their poultry business. At the same time, they are cheating the poultry farmers. Supply management will happen---when the packers have the tools that give them the profits from that supply management. They have them in poultry. They will get them in the beef markets unless they are stopped. Pickett was the best chance of that happening amiacably through the system of justice we have in this country.

The 11th circuit just peed on that process.


IF, and it is a big IF, there is an orchestrated "cheap food policy", isn't it more likely to be about voters than about keeping lobbyists happy?

What do we have more of, consumers or lobbyists? Bingo! Politicians want the VOTERS (consumers of food, one and all!) happy! Farm Programs and subsidies are not about farmers. They are to enable farmers to produce food and keep food costs low FOR VOTERS!

MRJ

MRJ, voters don't like to pay taxes but they do. They don't like to pay for their gas bills, their auto loans, or the electric bill. They still do it.

We have a cheap food policy not because of voters, but because we have some really wimpy politicians that are cow towing to those who are paying for their campaigns. We have politicians that are willing to pay for what they spend today with the children of tomorrow's paychecks and earning power. Put it on the country's credit card. Give out corporate welfare. Pay the minimum payment of interest only and pay the principle back with the future children of this country's earning power.

Today we have plenty of politicians and not enough statesmen.


Econ, you ignore the fact that much as people dislike paying taxes, fuel bills, etc., they must to stay out of jail and live their lives as they want to, HOWEVER, they CANNOT live without food. There simply is no choice in that matter.

Clearly campaign "reform" is an absolute failure of what we were lead to believe it was intended to accomplish......and most likely did exactly as the politicians promoting it intended.......leaves individuals with LESS influence, and "sugar daddies" with far MORE influence, while keeping the "treasure chests" filled for the career politicians and empty for challengers.

Haven't we ALWAYS had far more politicians and far fewer statesmen than we need?????

A different take on lobbyists is that they provide information, however slanted in favor of their particular "cause" or "interest". With the avalanche of demands for largesse and/or protection from government, it is impossible for Congressmen and their quasi-bureaucratic and entrenched staffs to learn on their own all that they need to know to make informed decisions. Lobbyists for cattle organizations and business and "others" can provide that information.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
IF, and it is a big IF, there is an orchestrated "cheap food policy", isn't it more likely to be about voters than about keeping lobbyists happy?

What do we have more of, consumers or lobbyists? Bingo! Politicians want the VOTERS (consumers of food, one and all!) happy! Farm Programs and subsidies are not about farmers. They are to enable farmers to produce food and keep food costs low FOR VOTERS!

MRJ

MRJ, voters don't like to pay taxes but they do. They don't like to pay for their gas bills, their auto loans, or the electric bill. They still do it.

We have a cheap food policy not because of voters, but because we have some really wimpy politicians that are cow towing to those who are paying for their campaigns. We have politicians that are willing to pay for what they spend today with the children of tomorrow's paychecks and earning power. Put it on the country's credit card. Give out corporate welfare. Pay the minimum payment of interest only and pay the principle back with the future children of this country's earning power.

Today we have plenty of politicians and not enough statesmen.


Econ, you ignore the fact that much as people dislike paying taxes, fuel bills, etc., they must to stay out of jail and live their lives as they want to, HOWEVER, they CANNOT live without food. There simply is no choice in that matter.

Clearly campaign "reform" is an absolute failure of what we were lead to believe it was intended to accomplish......and most likely did exactly as the politicians promoting it intended.......leaves individuals with LESS influence, and "sugar daddies" with far MORE influence, while keeping the "treasure chests" filled for the career politicians and empty for challengers.

Haven't we ALWAYS had far more politicians and far fewer statesmen than we need?????

A different take on lobbyists is that they provide information, however slanted in favor of their particular "cause" or "interest". With the avalanche of demands for largesse and/or protection from government, it is impossible for Congressmen and their quasi-bureaucratic and entrenched staffs to learn on their own all that they need to know to make informed decisions. Lobbyists for cattle organizations and business and "others" can provide that information.

MRJ

MRJ,
If you don't want to work on some of the problems in either politics or the cattle industry, then that is okay with me. Stand aside and let those that do want to fix things do their thing. You don't need to criticize others for doing what you do with the NCBA.

Just look at the mess with lobbyists going on in D.C. Do you support it? Maybe you could be a cheerleader for lobbyists

Here is the article:

Go Back
top jobs
HOUSEKEEPER/ JANITORIAL Voyager RV... AKER KVAERNER a leading International Engineering... DRIVERS WANTED. Must have min 1 yr semi driving... CAFE BONITA Wait Staff, Rita Ranch location...
Washington
Indian-lobby scandal prompts new legislation
By Jonathan D. Salant
Bloomberg News
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.16.2005
advertisement
<a href="http://banners.tucson.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/news.azstarnet.com/stories/nationworld/246221758/300x250_1/Martinizing/martinizing.html/64386165333430383433626263643330?http://www.martinizing.com/includes/templates/index.asp?VirtualDir=tuaz"><IMG SRC="http://banners.tucson.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/Martinizing/martinizing_backup.jpg" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></a>
Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold, who led the drive to ban unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties, will make the first bipartisan effort in a decade to strengthen lobbying laws. Their legislation comes as a scandal threatens to ensnare some colleagues.
McCain, an Arizona Republican, said he was spurred to act after hearings by his Indian Affairs Committee showed that lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, had charged Indian clients more than $80 million and directed the tribes to donate money to politicians and pet projects.
"It's obvious why it's needed," McCain told reporters at the Capitol on Friday. "One word: Abramoff."
Abramoff is at the center of a Justice Department-led investigation. Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty on Nov. 21 to conspiring to corrupt public officials and defraud clients and agreed to cooperate in the probe. Separately, Abramoff has been indicted in Florida on wire-fraud charges while buying a casino-ship company.
McCain joined with Wisconsin Democrat Feingold in championing a 2002 law banning unlimited "soft money" donations to parties. This latest legislation seeks to overhaul a 1995 measure that required more lobbyists to register and provide more information about issues they were discussing and agencies they were contacting.
It may stand a good chance of passing as an election year approaches, amid revelations about Abramoff's lobbying activity. Abramoff, Scanlon and their tribal clients contributed $1.4 million to members of Congress between 2001 and 2004, a review of Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records shows. Republican Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana received the most money, at least $136,500.
Rep. Robert Ney, an Ohio Republican, received $54,500. His lawyer, Mark Tuohey, said last month that Ney was the unnamed "Representative No. 1" mentioned in the plea agreement that Scanlon reached with the Justice Department.
The agreement charged that Ney was offered "a stream of things of value," such as a 2002 trip to Scotland, and that he provided assistance in return, such as inserting statements into the Congressional Record. Ney has denied wrongdoing.
The Abramoff-linked donations spread to Democrats as well. Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, got $67,000. Dorgan said this week he was returning the donations.
Dorgan, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Interior subcommittee, signed onto legislation in October 2003 that provided $3 million for one of Abramoff's clients, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, one of the wealthiest in the country because of its casino business. Congress acted after the Interior Department rejected the tribe's grant request.
Companies, industry leaders and other interest groups spent a record $2.14 billion to influence legislation and federal policy in 2004, $670 million more than five years earlier, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Washington-based company that tracks lobbying spending.
"There's a very close nexus between lobbying activity and the money officeholders need for election," said Craig Holman, a campaign-finance lobbyist for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a watchdog group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
 
Conman has never proven market manipulation, it doesn't exist.

If an industry is consolidated into 1 or 2 players and efficiency is lost an new player will be able to start up and lower margins and beat the old players at their own game.

This is exactly how Cargill and Lakeside started in Alberta. Canada packers controled 60% of the kill and never had the foresight to update their plants. The big plants today control 40% each. Less concentration than we had 30 years ago.
 
Jason said:
Conman has never proven market manipulation, it doesn't exist.

If an industry is consolidated into 1 or 2 players and efficiency is lost an new player will be able to start up and lower margins and beat the old players at their own game.

This is exactly how Cargill and Lakeside started in Alberta. Canada packers controled 60% of the kill and never had the foresight to update their plants. The big plants today control 40% each. Less concentration than we had 30 years ago.

Jason, you are really funny. I think you really believe the stuff you put out. It is an oligopoly. Did you google the term yet?
 
Jason said:
Can you refute the facts I posted conman, or are you just diverting again?

Jason, I really don't have to, they are so absurd.

Here is one: The packing industry in Canada and the United States is oligopolistic. Do you disagree?
 
Hey some of you finally can see the light.We have to price our products like every other business in the USA. Has any one looked at some of the stories on the net.Wto they are selling the US farmer and the Europe farmers down the drain.In 2007 it ready no more supports for the two countries but all the poor nations get all the breaks send anything and any amount of products to us.Thats real smart close the rest of our companies.We don't have many left now.
Its a good idea free trade and poor countries have buying power But we don't have big enough pockets to finance the hole world.
The American farmer rancher just has to get together and price our products as any other business for a proffit.I'm done Thanks
 

Latest posts

Top