Good question

[Econ101]

New postPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:15 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Porker
Quote:
Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. We just need to breed more domestic beef for our own table.


OH I agee you wouldn't need to import any if you were producing more in the US but the problem with that is you aren't producing enough. If you cut imports today you wouldn't have to worry about demand for your short supply either as beef would only be eaten by the very rich. The US's problem is you don't produce enough beef at a price your consumers will pay so you import to keep the prices at a level that the average housewife will pay. Which keeps demand for all beef high including yours. So go ahead Porker cut imports if you want to live in a two level society those that can afford to eat meat and those that can't. If it was just as eazy as you seem to think it is, why did you all of a sudden become a beef importing nation? In other words why are you importing 2.3 billion lbs of beef to cover your domestic needs if you could just produce it in the US at the drop of a hat?

Econ
Quote:
I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher.


Another blame the packer comment How could I guess. Does the weather IE drought have anything to do with why ranchers downsize their herds? Or could it's be because the next generation have seen first hand how hard it is to make a good living in Agriculture and have decide the big money in the oil patch is more attractive, so the aging father has to down size because he can't handle the work load by himself. Could the lost of good agriculture land to urban development have something to do with the size of the US herd? How many cattle do you think could be raise on the golf courses in the US? How much less land will be raising cattle and crops in the US if the development of new golf courses and city sub divisions stay at the pace they have been in the past decade? How much good Ag. land has been eaten up by Big City Fat Cats looking to build a fancy summer cottage so he can get away from the rat race for two weeks out of a year? Come on Econ let me how the packers are the ones eating up the Ag lands that once produced ag products. If ranchers don't have the land, grass and water on that land and the help to do the hard labor to raise cattle they are forced to down size which has nothing to do with PACKERS.

Tam, Lower prices leads to lower supplies. Higher prices produces higher supplies. The marketing trick the packers pulled on the market with captive supplies was a slide down the supply curve. A slide down the supply curve means less supply. That lower supply catches up with you after a while when prices can no longer be held down. That was the economic fraud in the Pickett case that the NCBA wants to ignore at the expense of the cattle producers. The lower prices were just sold as reduction in demand. The "x" factor, as Agman says.

The U.S. doesn't need any cattle from other countries to supply ALL its needs. THE U.S. COULD SUPPLY ALL OF ITS NEEDS AND CANADA'S NEEDS ALSO. This thing about the average housewife not having enough money is a bunch of crock unless you are talking about housewives who have jobs like the ones at the Lakeside plant.

The fact is that we have a cheap food policy in the U.S. and politicians who want to look at the situation and subsidize farmers out of their problems. That only creates more problems. It essentially provides cheap products for manufactorors and is corporate welfare.

Don't say anything about Canada on this issue because that is exactly what they did on the BSE help.

Farmers need to get paid for what they produce and let the markets work instead of the govt. coming up with all these subsidies to "help them out". They don't help them out, they just distort markets.

Tyson lowered the prices of the cattle market with a deceptive device. It was well thought out by the likes of Wendy Gramm(of course she learned the mechanics of it from Tyson and the Clinton commodity trades) who sat on the board of IBP. It even deceived Judge Strom. It has nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. "NEEDS" Canadian or foreign cattle for the housewives of America. It has everything to do with a well thought out economic fraud.

 

[Tam]

Farmers need to get paid for what they produce and let the markets work instead of the govt. coming up with all these subsidies to "help them out". They don't help them out, they just distort markets.

Ok Econ just how many years of world farm subsidies has caused this problem? Just what do you think the farmers in US will do if their government just decided to cut the funds and let them go it alone? Just how many producers will be left standing in the US if they have to compete with countries that haven't cut the government handouts? Or did you forget the US producers want to compete in the global market not a isolated US market?

The U.S. doesn't need any cattle from other countries to supply ALL its needs. THE U.S. COULD SUPPLY ALL OF ITS NEEDS AND CANADA'S NEEDS ALSO. This thing about the average housewife not having enough money is a bunch of crock unless you are talking about housewives who have jobs like the ones at the Lakeside plant.

No thanks Econ haven't you heard we CAN supply our own needs we also have enough to supply an export market the size of the US's now and then some, so why buy yours. :wink:

I have a question for you ECON does the US have the Agriculture land base left to carry out your claim? :?

And I suppose you don't think there are jobs in the US that pay less than the Unionized Lakeside plant. Minimum wage covers alot of people in the work force Econ and if you don't think so then ask some of the students you are teaching economy 101 to. I'd said some of them are probably working their way through school flipping burgers and waitressing for minimum wage. Just how many of them will be buying expensive beef when they get out and can't find a job in they chosen field and have to go back to the only thing they know which is flipping burger for minimum wage? But now they have to pay back all that money that they spent on you teaching them Economy 101, because their mothers were also trying to provide a healthy beef meal on a minimum wage job and couldn't afford to help them out with their debt as her own were piling up. They would have been better off just saving the debt and learning about the economy the way ranchers do living in the real world, facing reality everyday of our lives. :wink:

 

[Tam]

I do have a question to all of you that think you can supply the Japanese, Korean and any other markets that should open in say early 2006 with beef that is afordable.

If you start retaining heifer this fall to build up your cattle herds for the future, what is that going to do to your beef supplies next spring? Just a thought but if you retain even half of your heifer won't that decrease the actual amount of cattle being sent to slaughter? And by doing so also make your supply of BEEF even tighter than it is now? So where will the extra beef come from to cover the newly opened export markets (in early 2006 if it happens that soon) and the decrease in beef supplies that retaining your heifers will caused for your domestic needs that you already have to import to cover? If you sell your heifer to cover the short fall in beef supplies to cover the newly opened export markets how will you increase your herd size? The US is in a catch 22 and it will not be solved by the time the export markets reopen. It is going to take years to build back your herd size and that is with the help of imports to cover you short supplies and keep up demand.

 

[Bro]

With the big proposed changes coming in grain subsidies and the possible removal of a lot of land from CRP, I think you will be seeing an increase in cattle production if prices remain decent...Anyway around here- much of that land is not good enough to sustain unsubsidized crops but would be good grazing land....

This will have major economic ramifications on the canadian producer in the near future when these overwhelming grain subsidies are made less lucrative and the growers are faced with a dose of reality. Not much else these croppers can do but raise cows, or go bankrupt. Same thing happened on the canadian prairies in the early/mid 90's when the crow benefit was eliminated, forcing farmers to pay upwards of $40/tonne to move their wheat. Comparing this situation to the Canadian situation, it is safe to say the american herd IS going to get a lot bigger when this comes to pass and it won't take too many years either. It will be interesting to see the effect on the Canadian cattle producer when this comes to pass.

 

[Murgen]

Wouldn't Equilibrium be grand?

The closest we ever were was about 2003! (correct me if wrong)

Being able to market our supply, demand growing? Weren't those the days!?

 

[Econ101]

Farmers need to get paid for what they produce and let the markets work instead of the govt. coming up with all these subsidies to "help them out". They don't help them out, they just distort markets.

Ok Econ just how many years of world farm subsidies has caused this problem? Just what do you think the farmers in US will do if their government just decided to cut the funds and let them go it alone? Just how many producers will be left standing in the US if they have to compete with countries that haven't cut the government handouts? Or did you forget the US producers want to compete in the global market not a isolated US market?

The U.S. doesn't need any cattle from other countries to supply ALL its needs. THE U.S. COULD SUPPLY ALL OF ITS NEEDS AND CANADA'S NEEDS ALSO. This thing about the average housewife not having enough money is a bunch of crock unless you are talking about housewives who have jobs like the ones at the Lakeside plant.

No thanks Econ haven't you heard we CAN supply our own needs we also have enough to supply an export market the size of the US's now and then some, so why buy yours. :wink:

I have a question for you ECON does the US have the Agriculture land base left to carry out your claim? :?

And I suppose you don't think there are jobs in the US that pay less than the Unionized Lakeside plant. Minimum wage covers alot of people in the work force Econ and if you don't think so then ask some of the students you are teaching economy 101 to. I'd said some of them are probably working their way through school flipping burgers and waitressing for minimum wage. Just how many of them will be buying expensive beef when they get out and can't find a job in they chosen field and have to go back to the only thing they know which is flipping burger for minimum wage? But now they have to pay back all that money that they spent on you teaching them Economy 101, because their mothers were also trying to provide a healthy beef meal on a minimum wage job and couldn't afford to help them out with their debt as her own were piling up. They would have been better off just saving the debt and learning about the economy the way ranchers do living in the real world, facing reality everyday of our lives. :wink:

Tam, The U.S. has the land base to do just that. Economics is about scarce resources finding their highest calling. Centralized planning does not allow this to happen. Free (fair) and competitive markets allow this to happen, concentrated ones often do not. Agricultural policies that subsidize production lead to an oversupply. Over supply leads to lower farm gate prices.

People are not going to eat more than 3 meals a day even if you lower the price. They are still going to eat those 3 meals if you raise it a little. That whole argument is bogus. I think every country has an interest in making sure that the citizens of the country have the ability to produce at least a high percentage of their own food. The rest can be traded. Food is that important. Just see what happened to New Orleans when it wasn't available. Since the demand for food in the short run is very inelastic, it should be a homeland security issue for every country.

When you talked about the worker who couldn't afford meat it was interesting that your example had him working at a place flipping burgers. If he worked there he could probably make himself a hamburger. If you think that I have had a charmed life, you are mistaken. People in New Orleans eat a lot of beans and rice. It is really pretty good. Beans and rice is not an expensive food to make.

I am very conscious of how much a meal costs. I play a little mental game (part of the curse) of calculating the cost of almost every meal I cook for the family and then dividing it the number of people eating it, add in the wasted items that were left on the plate or not used in the preparation but needed to make the meal, doing a little mental calculation of the nutritional benefits of the meal and calculating the value of the leftovers as well as making a value for the likability of the meal in comparison to substitutes. I know how much every item in the shopping cart is when I buy items at the store and make sure the cashier has the same value on the register when she rings it up. I do the same thing when we go out to eat and have leftovers. I also observe other people when they eat and how they make those economic choices.

It isn't always about the money or we would all probably be eating beans and rice. Being the low cost producer isn't always the most profitable. It can lead to more market power and its exertion has its own rewards, as John Tyson can tell you. Those rewards always come at the expense of someone else and they create deadweight losses to the economy.

 

[mrj]

This is the effect of "swinging" the cattle cycle with the price manipulation argued in the Pickett case. These swings lose market share to more stable poultry and pork that can quicker react to the markets than cattle.

Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher. I personally think trade with Canada is a good thing, but that issue should not detract from the economic scams that the packers are playing on all producers, Canadian producers included. The cattle producers are hitting each other with the crossfire on these little rabbits that are being tossed out so the big game can get away. You are one of the biggest shooters, Tam.[/quot

You finally answered a question I posed to you some time ago. You don't understand the cattle cycle.

Packers are in no way responsible for controlling the heifer retention rates or cull down of herds.

Drought first and foremost is the factor that shapes the national cowherd. Without water and pasture producers cannot increase production no matter what the price of calves is doing.

Second to say poultry and pork are easier to adjust production levels. That is true. Again is it packer manipulation that makes a cow have 1 calf and a sow have 13 piglets? Or are the packers responsible that it takes a few short weeks to get a chicken to slaughter but a calf can be 14-30 months?

Just the biological factors of cows make it harder to have a steady supply of beef than of chicken and pork. Those same factors allow us to turn cheaper non arible land acres into high quality protien.

When calf prices climb and there is feed, producers tend to keep more heifers. This shorts the beef supply and tends prices higher in the short term. Then when prices fall many sell all their heifers to pay the bills, again affecting the supply but flooding it for a period of time.

This simple fact, shows that an arbitrary support on calf prices would not work. It would lead to a non demanded increase in supply. Then the price would have to fall unless you propose the government just pays ranchers for being ranchers. Sounds like wellfare to me.

Jason,

You did not understand a thing I said in my post. Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. If you want to say something then go ahead but don't attribute it to me.

Your little geographic problems of weather are just that. Beef is a national market and those weather variences are limited to geography. High prices and low prices, ie. larger swings in the cattle market, are what drives supply. There are peculiarities in any particular circumstance, location, or time period. Those are factors of production and in the aggregate make up the supply of beef, but do not get those factors of production mixed up with the supply curve.

If the high prices in cattle stay high, there will eventually be more supply produced, and it does not necessarily have to come from foreign sources.

You are correct in the fact that supply of pork and poultry is more elastic becuase of the biological production characteristics of those products, and that is part of the case I make. (elastic means that the supply reacts to price quicker for this discussion). Because there are lower lows and higher highs in the beef market due to the deceptive device of captive supply, these substitutes will fill in more when the highs are in.

In case you don't know it, the packers (Swift and Tyson as well as Cargill) are all substitute players. They have higher profit margins in those businesses per lb. and increases in prices of those items goes directly in their pocket instead of the farmer's. When prices of poultry went up 25 cents per lb. due to lower supply of beef and higher prices of beef, Tyson made 25 cents more per lb in profit. Go look at the lbs. Tyson produced and add it up. It comes out a lot higher than the play on the beef market.

Let me do a little math for you: Tyson was making money at a wholesale price of 52 cents per lb. for poultry. By swinging the beef market they increased that to close to 90 cents and it settled down to somewher in the mid 70s. I am going to take a conservative average of 25 cents per lb. increase in the price of chicken. There is no competition for the farmer's in chicken and Tyson made ALL of that money per lb. for themselves. GIPSA has not enforced the Packers and Stockyards Act in respect to poultry in the economic sense. Tyson has contract production where they do not have to share ANY of those increases in price with the farmers.

Let us say that a beef is on the rail at 700 lbs. Tyson margin on processing that beef is let us say, $50.00. For the same amount of poultry the extra money on that amount ends up being 700 X .25 = $175.00.

Now where in the heck do you think Tyson is going to advertise? With the way the Beef Checkoff works, the beef people can not even execute a good campaign on beef vs. chicken.


If you follow the money trail you will see the answers you need to seek. You need to stop chasing rabbits, or in your case, lemmings.

Econ, why do you think the checkoff ads telling consumers they can get far better nutrients by eating three ounces (and that is not saying that ONLY three ounces should be eaten, BTW) of beef than they can by eating something like eleven chicken breasts is not a "good campaign on beef vs. chicken"?

MRJ

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

You're trying to tell us we need Canadian beef to meet our markets and I'm not buying it. That is short sighted. Tam, our herd is at 50 year lows. We will add cows, we are already starting. If we get our herd to the same size it was in the 70s, we're going to need all the export markets we can get.

Could you get us some figures on heifer retention? From the few guys I have talked to none of the ranches he's prg checking on are retaining any. Maybe Oldtimer could tell us what he is seeing while brand inspecting.

Some who have not saved much for heifers for a couple years( because of the record prices) are saving them this year- altho a couple have said they probably shouldn't with the price they're worth....Also with the feed we have available locally, several are shipping the steers and holding and feeding the heifers thru the winter.....
Lots of hay and grain available this year to feed thru the winter- altho I heard the rumor of a low protein wheat buyup coming the first of the year, which may take up some of the cheap cheap grain.....

Oldtimer that rumor of a low protien wheat buy up. That wouldn't be another government "PROGRAM" would it. That might be considered a "SUBSIDY" by some . Gee I thought you guy didn't like those. Again government messing with the market place. Would they then have a "CAPTIVE SUPPLY" Will be able to check you out on the web site to see how much you got this time?

 

[Econ101]

Jason,

You did not understand a thing I said in my post. Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. If you want to say something then go ahead but don't attribute it to me.

Your little geographic problems of weather are just that. Beef is a national market and those weather variences are limited to geography. High prices and low prices, ie. larger swings in the cattle market, are what drives supply. There are peculiarities in any particular circumstance, location, or time period. Those are factors of production and in the aggregate make up the supply of beef, but do not get those factors of production mixed up with the supply curve.

If the high prices in cattle stay high, there will eventually be more supply produced, and it does not necessarily have to come from foreign sources.

You are correct in the fact that supply of pork and poultry is more elastic becuase of the biological production characteristics of those products, and that is part of the case I make. (elastic means that the supply reacts to price quicker for this discussion). Because there are lower lows and higher highs in the beef market due to the deceptive device of captive supply, these substitutes will fill in more when the highs are in.

In case you don't know it, the packers (Swift and Tyson as well as Cargill) are all substitute players. They have higher profit margins in those businesses per lb. and increases in prices of those items goes directly in their pocket instead of the farmer's. When prices of poultry went up 25 cents per lb. due to lower supply of beef and higher prices of beef, Tyson made 25 cents more per lb in profit. Go look at the lbs. Tyson produced and add it up. It comes out a lot higher than the play on the beef market.

Let me do a little math for you: Tyson was making money at a wholesale price of 52 cents per lb. for poultry. By swinging the beef market they increased that to close to 90 cents and it settled down to somewher in the mid 70s. I am going to take a conservative average of 25 cents per lb. increase in the price of chicken. There is no competition for the farmer's in chicken and Tyson made ALL of that money per lb. for themselves. GIPSA has not enforced the Packers and Stockyards Act in respect to poultry in the economic sense. Tyson has contract production where they do not have to share ANY of those increases in price with the farmers.

Let us say that a beef is on the rail at 700 lbs. Tyson margin on processing that beef is let us say, $50.00. For the same amount of poultry the extra money on that amount ends up being 700 X .25 = $175.00.

Now where in the heck do you think Tyson is going to advertise? With the way the Beef Checkoff works, the beef people can not even execute a good campaign on beef vs. chicken.


If you follow the money trail you will see the answers you need to seek. You need to stop chasing rabbits, or in your case, lemmings.

Econ, why do you think the checkoff ads telling consumers they can get far better nutrients by eating three ounces (and that is not saying that ONLY three ounces should be eaten, BTW) of beef than they can by eating something like eleven chicken breasts is not a "good campaign on beef vs. chicken"?

MRJ

MRJ, My interests are in economics, raw power, and strategic analysis of economic decisions. Although I have dabbled in adverstising, it is not my forte'. It depends on the add. Some people may want the 11 chicken breasts thinking they can get full on chicken but just have a tease on beef. Depends on the details. Everything is always in the details. This, of course, is only an opinion.

 

[agman]

You're trying to tell us we need Canadian beef to meet our markets and I'm not buying it. That is short sighted. Tam, our herd is at 50 year lows. We will add cows, we are already starting. If we get our herd to the same size it was in the 70s, we're going to need all the export markets we can get.

This is the effect of "swinging" the cattle cycle with the price manipulation argued in the Pickett case. These swings lose market share to more stable poultry and pork that can quicker react to the markets than cattle.

Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher. I personally think trade with Canada is a good thing, but that issue should not detract from the economic scams that the packers are playing on all producers, Canadian producers included. The cattle producers are hitting each other with the crossfire on these little rabbits that are being tossed out so the big game can get away. You are one of the biggest shooters, Tam.

How do you explain all the cattle cycles pre-marketing agreements. Who manipulated what during those times? Marketing agreements did not exist until 1988.

Also, if consumer demand for beef had not declined for a period of nineteen years prices would be higher and more stable. The added value derived from imports added how many dollars to the U.S beef industry? Do you even know?

 

[Econ101]

You're trying to tell us we need Canadian beef to meet our markets and I'm not buying it. That is short sighted. Tam, our herd is at 50 year lows. We will add cows, we are already starting. If we get our herd to the same size it was in the 70s, we're going to need all the export markets we can get.

This is the effect of "swinging" the cattle cycle with the price manipulation argued in the Pickett case. These swings lose market share to more stable poultry and pork that can quicker react to the markets than cattle.

Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher. I personally think trade with Canada is a good thing, but that issue should not detract from the economic scams that the packers are playing on all producers, Canadian producers included. The cattle producers are hitting each other with the crossfire on these little rabbits that are being tossed out so the big game can get away. You are one of the biggest shooters, Tam.

How do you explain all the cattle cycles pre-marketing agreements. Who manipulated what during those times? Marketing agreements did not exist until 1988.

Also, if consumer demand for beef had not declined for a period of nineteen years prices would be higher and more stable. The added value derived from imports added how many dollars to the U.S beef industry? Do you even know?

Agman, I don't argue that these things make the cattle cycle. They influence it. Please don't jump to that conclusion.

I will answer to your second trivia question with a question: How many dollars were added to the producers via imports? Do you even know?

 

[agman]

This is the effect of "swinging" the cattle cycle with the price manipulation argued in the Pickett case. These swings lose market share to more stable poultry and pork that can quicker react to the markets than cattle.

Tam, I have stated before, the U.S. does not need to import any beef from Canada. The importation of cattle is the packer's game. If prices were more stable and profitable, the domestic supplies would be higher. I personally think trade with Canada is a good thing, but that issue should not detract from the economic scams that the packers are playing on all producers, Canadian producers included. The cattle producers are hitting each other with the crossfire on these little rabbits that are being tossed out so the big game can get away. You are one of the biggest shooters, Tam.

How do you explain all the cattle cycles pre-marketing agreements. Who manipulated what during those times? Marketing agreements did not exist until 1988.

Also, if consumer demand for beef had not declined for a period of nineteen years prices would be higher and more stable. The added value derived from imports added how many dollars to the U.S beef industry? Do you even know?

Agman, I don't argue that these things make the cattle cycle. They influence it. Please don't jump to that conclusion.

I will answer to your second trivia question with a question: How many dollars were added to the producers via imports? Do you even know?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that "these things" influence the cattle cycle? List those things prior to marketing agreements.

Why should I answer a question that I posed to you that you cannot anwswer. You made the comments regarding imports-back your comments up with some emperical eveidece, not misguided classroom theory.

 

[Econ101]

How do you explain all the cattle cycles pre-marketing agreements. Who manipulated what during those times? Marketing agreements did not exist until 1988.

Also, if consumer demand for beef had not declined for a period of nineteen years prices would be higher and more stable. The added value derived from imports added how many dollars to the U.S beef industry? Do you even know?

Agman, I don't argue that these things make the cattle cycle. They influence it. Please don't jump to that conclusion.

I will answer to your second trivia question with a question: How many dollars were added to the producers via imports? Do you even know?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that "these things" influence the cattle cycle? List those things prior to marketing agreements.

Why should I answer a question that I posed to you that you cannot anwswer. You made the comments regarding imports-back your comments up with some emperical eveidece, not misguided classroom theory.

Agman, I could make up the formulas for the mathematical model of the cattle industry and show you these things but if you are really good at math and possibly game theory, you might understand, but probably no one else on this forum would. I doubt you would admit to it however. On this forum I chose to stay with the story of the events and people that made price manipulation possible.

Your insistence of emperical evidence belies the fact that it was not properly collected by GIPSA during the periods of the Pickett case in question. Not having that emperical data does not prove that the manipulation did not occur, it just means that your avenue of "truth-finding" was either consciously or incompetently not collected. It sure would be nice if GIPSA was as efficient as the industry requires producers to be in order to make money in this business. Wouldn't it be nice if all transactions and their terms were reported by firms that had over a 20% market concentration?

In response to your last question, my question and then your demand that I answer your question I will give you a hint: the number is a negative number. Do you want to have a substantive economic discussion on the PSA and the appellate court's RPA example or do you call "uncle"?

 

[katrina]

We are saving half of our hiefiers and maybe buying some...

 

[Tam]

We are saving half of our hiefiers and maybe buying some...

Good for you Katrina but what is holding your heifers and buying more to hold, going to do to the already short BEEF supplies? I heard the other day and I do hope that it is true, that once Japan opens, the rest of the Asian countries will soon follow. As the rest of them look to Japan to lead them and they are waiting to see what Japan's agreement looks like. So if Japan and the rest of the Asian markets open by next spring and you retain your heifers which will only put your beef supplies even tighter in the short term, Where will the extra beef that the US will need to cover your domestic and foreign markets come from? Yes you may have a larger supply of beef once your retained heifers start to produce but just how long does it take for a heifer to have her first calf and that calf be ready for slaughter. That is the problem with retaining heifer now for a market that you will have to supply by this coming Spring.

 

[katrina]

Will worry about that when the time comes. I guess I'm not into the chicken little thing( the sky is falling). There are always options available.

 

[agman]

Agman, I don't argue that these things make the cattle cycle. They influence it. Please don't jump to that conclusion.

I will answer to your second trivia question with a question: How many dollars were added to the producers via imports? Do you even know?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that "these things" influence the cattle cycle? List those things prior to marketing agreements.

Why should I answer a question that I posed to you that you cannot anwswer. You made the comments regarding imports-back your comments up with some emperical eveidece, not misguided classroom theory.

Agman, I could make up the formulas for the mathematical model of the cattle industry and show you these things but if you are really good at math and possibly game theory, you might understand, but probably no one else on this forum would. I doubt you would admit to it however. On this forum I chose to stay with the story of the events and people that made price manipulation possible.

Your insistence of emperical evidence belies the fact that it was not properly collected by GIPSA during the periods of the Pickett case in question. Not having that emperical data does not prove that the manipulation did not occur, it just means that your avenue of "truth-finding" was either consciously or incompetently not collected. It sure would be nice if GIPSA was as efficient as the industry requires producers to be in order to make money in this business. Wouldn't it be nice if all transactions and their terms were reported by firms that had over a 20% market concentration?

In response to your last question, my question and then your demand that I answer your question I will give you a hint: the number is a negative number. Do you want to have a substantive economic discussion on the PSA and the appellate court's RPA example or do you call "uncle"?

Would have , could have, from someone who has yet to provide any evidence of his many claims. The fact is you are wrong regarding imports. There are many positive benefits but none that you can see in your world of statements without evidence. The empirical evidence shows it to be positive by XX dollars. I would not expect you to know that since you have very little if any real knowledge of this industry.

Regarding Pickett, Hausman from MIT disproved Taylor's claims. That is what Judge Strom saw and thus the famous footnote on page thirteen of the Appellate Courts opinion which you conveniently don't want readers of this forum to know. BTW, have your legal contacts informed you that not even one judge in the entire 11th district voted to call a vote for an en banc hearing of the Pickett case. Slam dunk, buried, and you have not figured that out yet. You are still trying to defend Taylor, his untested theories and your version of the RPA.

Why ever call "uncle" to one who never supports his accusations with any facts. Have you figured out that Hudson Foods and Glickman is different from Glickman vs IBP, a legal case, which was won by IBP under the RPA which you profess to know so much about. Or is your knowledge as limited as it was concerning the level and trend of per capita beef consumption which is the X variable in analyzing beef demand which you suggested you could school me on. How do you profess to do that without even knowing the X variable? Show me your mathematical formula for that claim!!! Give readers a break from your intellectual grandstanding. You make my day; I don't believe you have fooled too many, if any, people on this forum.

 

[Econ101]

1) Agman, what benefit to producers in the USA were these imports? Please do not make a mistake with your negative sign.

2) Hauseman's proffered testimony was to be judged by the jury. Why could he not convince any of the 12? Conspiracy, I guess. You seemed to know a lot about the en banc judges. Is that your inside (and behind closed doors) information? The fact is that none of Hauseman's arguments made it into the appellate brief. If they were so convincing, why not? On the RPA, I am waiting for you to take the dare.

3) You mentioned before that Glickman vs. IBP had some RPA excuses that were applicable. What are they since I do not have the power to read your mind? Maybe we will see another misapplication of economic principles by a court that were learned so long ago. On your "x" variable: Variables can be any letter. The economists doing some of these studies that Waterfield and McBride have given grants to like the Greek letters a whole lot more. I guess they scare some people. I am glad you chose to stick to a plain old "x".

I have known all along that Hudson was a different case (case not necessarily meaning legal, but it could) than Glickman vs. IBP. It is, again, your jumping that brought you to the conclusion that I did not know the difference. I think the article puts into context some of the problems that emperical studies have: If the USDA is HELPING Tyson there will be no competent data from GIPSA to be had. JoAnn Waterfield and Wendy Gramm both were smart enough and intelligent enough to know what type of data would be useful. Same on the BSE.

The question remains: Was it incompetence or was it corruption?

 

[Tam]

Will worry about that when the time comes. I guess I'm not into the chicken little thing( the sky is falling). There are always options available.

So I take it you only look at what you have to deal with today and not what the future is going to bring. You are right though there are always options available the US's option is to IMPORT just like they do now to cover your shortfalls :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Will worry about that when the time comes. I guess I'm not into the chicken little thing( the sky is falling). There are always options available.

So I take it you only look at what you have to deal with today and not what the future is going to bring. You are right though there are always options available the US's option is to IMPORT just like they do now to cover your shortfalls :wink:

Tam, As Canadian producers are finding out, producing for world markets is not the way to get out of low prices or have stable markets. They are erratic and full of political pitfalls.