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

GIPSA rule

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Damn reading some of these posts are a real eye opener,some of us are obviously wrong when we accuse the meat packers of collusion and price fixin,it seems to be an accepted practise to some cattlemen ?
Government has been persecuting these poor packers all these years for nothing,seems a shame all that wasted effort/tax payer money only to find out packers wear a white hat.
Packers are fighting with all their might to keep "Business as usual" gonna be interestin to see where it all goes.
If the version of "cool" we have now needs some adjusting to let the American housewife know what she feeds her family,that can happen too.
Funny thing about this so called government intervention when it is good for "You" you cheer it on when it aint Goverment intervention aint worth a damn,always thought that was strange ?
All the wasted effort governmental interference chasin those poor poverty stricken packers,something sure needs to be done to make sure the government dont persecute anyone else in that manner,I say the hell with the government,let the markets work.
We got too much government now and to many laws,too much military,they are just a government branch right?
I think we oughta disband them,lets get back to the old days where every man took care of himself,arguements were settled by a winchester.
That would be something no government and no laws,just a fast gun :wink:
good luck
 
High Plains said:
The new GIPSA rules are a bad idea with regard to beef cattle trade. Perhaps the structure of the poultry business needs some serious overhauling and certainly the hog business may be next in line.
Aren't the same companies major players in all three protein markets?
Why would you think the "beef cattle trade" won't go down the same road as pork and poultry?

As Glenn Beck would say..."watch the other hand".
Whose lobbyist do you think are writing these rules? Well, we know who doesn't have lobbyist, don't we!!!
 
RobertMac said:
High Plains said:
The new GIPSA rules are a bad idea with regard to beef cattle trade. Perhaps the structure of the poultry business needs some serious overhauling and certainly the hog business may be next in line.
Aren't the same companies major players in all three protein markets?
Why would you think the "beef cattle trade" won't go down the same road as pork and poultry?

As Glenn Beck would say..."watch the other hand".
Whose lobbyist do you think are writing these rules? Well, we know who doesn't have lobbyist, don't we!!!

Valid point. They don't have control of all of the production, yet...
 
High Plains said:
RobertMac said:
High Plains said:
The new GIPSA rules are a bad idea with regard to beef cattle trade. Perhaps the structure of the poultry business needs some serious overhauling and certainly the hog business may be next in line.
Aren't the same companies major players in all three protein markets?
Why would you think the "beef cattle trade" won't go down the same road as pork and poultry?

As Glenn Beck would say..."watch the other hand".
Whose lobbyist do you think are writing these rules? Well, we know who doesn't have lobbyist, don't we!!!

Valid point. They don't have control of all of the production, yet...
When they control market access, they control production.
 
RobertMac said:
High Plains said:
RobertMac said:
Aren't the same companies major players in all three protein markets?
Why would you think the "beef cattle trade" won't go down the same road as pork and poultry?

As Glenn Beck would say..."watch the other hand".
Whose lobbyist do you think are writing these rules? Well, we know who doesn't have lobbyist, don't we!!!

Valid point. They don't have control of all of the production, yet...
When they control market access, they control production.

Are they controlling market access? How so?
 
High Plains said:
RobertMac said:
High Plains said:
Valid point. They don't have control of all of the production, yet...
When they control market access, they control production.

Are they controlling market access? How so?
Got to have processing to access the market. Processor and inspectors telling me regulations are making it were they can't compete.

Read through some new regulation today...one page of definitions...one page telling me the equipment I had to own to transport meat...and two pages telling me what they were going to do to me if I didn't do what they said!!!
It's obvious there are a bunch of lawyers up there writing this stuff to give more lawyers more work.
 
I'm not familiar with any of that. Doesn't sound like a good way to get more business conducted. Hope you find a good resolution or a better outcome.

:cboy:
 
RobertMac, is that state, or federal regulations on you hauling meat?

Don't all laws get written by lawyers, in the end? Our state and national elected officials may put the points they want down, but someone has to craft the laws in legal language.

Yes, it does seem as though most laws are written to make more work/money for other lawyers.

And that is very similar to that former plaintiffs attorney, J. Dudley Baker, writing his proposed GIPSA rule changes so that his cronies, and probably himself as well, will prosper after he leaves his stint of self proclaimed "public service" with USDA.

Maybe we are fortunate that ALL laws don't end up in endless litigation.

Definitely, the fewer, and better, laws written and passed, the better off we all will be.

mrj
 
Hayseed: "Damn reading some of these posts are a real eye opener,some of us are obviously wrong when we accuse the meat packers of collusion and price fixin,it seems to be an accepted practise to some cattlemen ?"

Can you imagine how full our prisons would be if an accusation was grounds for a conviction?

A concept that escapes Hayseed is a judicial cornerstone concept called the "presumption of innocense". You have to prove collusion and price fixing, not just make the allegation.

A lot of producers believe there is price fixing and collusion going on simply because other producers believe it. Presumption of guilt won't win the day in court as was proven in Pickett vs. ibp.


~SH~
 
Sandhusker: "What was the jury's findings in that case?"

The jury's finding in that case was that if AN INDIVIDUAL PACKER (an important point) dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their previous purchases by other means, this drop in cash market price would constitute market manipulation.

The judge overruled that ridiculous decision.

The appeals court upheld the Judge's decision.

The Supreme court upheld the appeals court's decision.

WHY?

Because had the jury's decision been allowed to stand, any feeder that dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases through other means would also constitute market manipulation taking normal supply and demand functions out of the cattle market. The result would have been the same "socialized cattle markets" you are now trying to obtain through GISPA rules which will be ruled unconstitutional if allowed to stand. Write it down.

You supported the jury's decision because you believe in socialized cattle markets where there is no incentive for better quality cattle or volumes of cattle.

I support the Judge's decision because I support the free market system where supply and demand determine price. If the feeders didn't like the cash price they were offered from ibp, they had other options.

If I have to buy 500 feeder calves and I pay more money than I would have liked to for 300 feeder calves and drop the price I am willing to pay for the remaining 200, does that constitute market manipulation?

Hmmmmm???? Well, why not? Seperate procurement rules for packers?

Hello? Sandhusker?

I think he hung up.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Hayseed: "Damn reading some of these posts are a real eye opener,some of us are obviously wrong when we accuse the meat packers of collusion and price fixin,it seems to be an accepted practise to some cattlemen ?"

Can you imagine how full our prisons would be if an accusation was grounds for a conviction?

A concept that escapes Hayseed is a judicial cornerstone concept called the "presumption of innocense". You have to prove collusion and price fixing, not just make the allegation.

A lot of producers believe there is price fixing and collusion going on simply because other producers believe it. Presumption of guilt won't win the day in court as was proven in Pickett vs. ibp.


~SH~


horse sheist,you dont hafta prove or disprove nuthin........oj simpson proved that to the world,all it takes is money.
good luck
 
Hayseed: "horse sheist,you dont hafta prove or disprove nuthin........oj simpson proved that to the world,all it takes is money."

So every court decision that supports your beliefs is justice and every court decision that doesn't support your beliefs were bought off or corrupt in one way or another. That doesn't surprise me. One conspiracy leads to another.

I hope you don't ever sit on a jury Hayseed. "Well, by golly, I think he's guilty because, well because that's what I think".


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top