How do you packer blamers explain this?

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Do you also want government to dictate who may or may not own all businesses?

2) Are we going to demand no cattle producer may also produce pigs? chickens? sheep? Where does this sort of thing end?

3) I want to see some proof of market manipulation or details of lack of enforcement of the PSA. All we have seen presented here is accusations.

4) Why do you, Econ, claim I'm supporting packers when all I'm asking for is details and proof of your allegations against them? You castigate me as "people like you who don't know a thing about market power or market frauds", yet you do not tell us by providing actual examples of your alleged abuses. You simply say, and expect me to believe, that they happen. Not knowing who you are doesn't add anything to my ability to trust you, either.

1) Its odd how when I say that I want government to enforce existing anti-competition laws that it always gets twisted around to this statement. I do NOT advocate restricting business, UNLESS ITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR. Allowing a single company with large market power (and yes, 25% of a market is large market power) to have interests in multiple COMPETING industries is anti-competitive.

2) Apples and oranges. An individual producer has almost zero market power. And before anyone gets on their "everyone must be treated the same" high horse, don't bother. Governments and stock markets long ago recognized the need to regulate large players. All I ask now is that they enforce the laws that were set into place decades ago.

3) Links to proof in both cases have been provided literally dozens of times. Whether you choose to believe the proof is completely up to you, but links have been provided.

4) By the same token, people like me have given perfectly valid examples of how market power can be abused, yet NO-ONE has offered any plausible examples of how massive concentration can help our industry when its done nothing but hurt other industries. I'm not saying that there has been manipulation, however I am saying that allowing a company to have access to multiple competing markets eliminates any reason for the company to promote a market that may be on the downturn. A real example of this? A few years back, due to "medical evidence", red meat was considered to be bad for your health. An "eat beef" advertising campaign was launched by cattle groups and small packers. Do you have any idea how many dollars were contributed to this campaign by the large players in Canada? The ones who were able to ride the pork and chicken market highs? ZERO dollars. None. Why were small packers all over the campaign? They needed to be to ensure the survival of their businesses. Perhaps if Tyson or Swift had to rely on beef for their survival, they would have contributed to the campaign.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "Allowing a single company with large market power (and yes, 25% of a market is large market power) to have interests in multiple COMPETING industries is anti-competitive."

THEN HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT TYSON IS CLOSING PLANTS DUE TO A LACK OF PROFITABILITY??????

You're absolutely brainwashed! You can't even reason!

Rod: " 4) By the same token, people like me have given perfectly valid examples of how market power can be abused, yet NO-ONE has offered any plausible examples of how massive concentration can help our industry when its done nothing but hurt other industries."

I have given you examples but you can't comprehend them. Concentration surrounds you in virtually every industry yet you still can't understand that MOST businesses have to get larger to be more efficient and compete.

In a free economy, if one company is making a profit THAT INVITES COMPETITION.

In a free economy, if three or four large efficient companies are making money on volume as opposed to making money on a per head basis, that creates barriers to entry.

Either you have lots of packing companies with varying levels of profitability or you have a few packing companies with equal levels of efficiency and slim per head profit margins. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH in most situations. The only exception is niche markets that add value because they can't compete from strictly a slaughter efficiency standpoint.


Who do you think is going to pay you more for your fat cattle Rod, 12 packers that need a $50 per head profit margin to keep their doors open or 3 packing companies that can survive at a $10 per head profit margin????

Answer the question Rod because you just don't seem to get it.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I see the circus chicken is back.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) We know their profits have dwindled to losses unless you think they are lying to their investers. Now that would really take a stretch of the imagination.

2) We know that closing plants means taking jobs away from people. That is never easy for any company.

3) We know this is a move to increase efficiency and cut costs? WHAT DRIVES THAT DECISION????? COMPETITION!

4) Hell, one of those plants was BEEF AMERICA that shut down due to an ecoli outbreak. DID YOU THINK IBP/TYSON BOUGHT BEEF AMERICA PLANNING TO SOMEDAY SHUT IT DOWN?????

5) PROFITABLE PLANTS DO NOT CLOSE DOWN ROD, THEY EXPAND!!!!!!!

6) Do you think it's easy for Tyson to tell those workers they are out of a job???? What company does that unless they are forced to BECAUSE OF COMPETITION. If those plants were profitable, they would not be closing. If they are closing THERE HAS TO BE COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY.

7) You can't explain it any other way. If efficiency was the only reason to close these plants, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT A LONG TIME AGO.

8) Some of the cattle from the feedlots that were close to the plants that are closing will now go to Tyson's competition (Excel and Swift) due to transportation costs. Did you think of that? NO!

9) Do you see how hypocritical your arguments are???? On one hand you believe the industry needs more competition and you mistakenly believe more plants means more competition without considering plant efficiency and economies of scale. On the other hand you understand that companies consolidate to be more efficient. IF THERE WAS NO COMPETITION, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO CONSOLIDATE!

10) A LACK OF PACKER PROFITABILITY IS CREATING THAT SITUATION ROD!!!!

I probably should have split some of this out into another message, but oh well.

1) What I honestly believe is happening with the profits is that they are being moved to other business concerns. Where did the money come from for Tyson to start its trucking concern? It had to come from one of their other concerns. Internal transfers of capital happen daily, and will affect the bottom line of the concern that the money was shifted from. Since the company is not currently offering new shares, the stock market value of the company has ZERO bearing on their day to day operations.

2) Large companies do NOT care about the individual worker. If you honestly believe that the welfare of 1200 emplyees had even the remotest influence on their decision, you're giving the corporation too much credit.

3) No, PROFIT MAXIMIZATION drives it!

4) I won't speculate why they bought it, however the packing plant in Saskatoon was purchased and then shut down almost immediately. Several other plants in Canada that were already shut down were purchased, then tore down when smaller concerns showed an interest in purchasing them.

5) As was already illustrated, they ARE EXPANDING!

6) Yes I do. The board of directors would not have had any qualms about it as they are not the ones in the field breaking the news to the workers. If Tyson really had concerns about the workers, they would have spent the money on modernizing the plants so they could operate efficiently.

7) Perhaps a year ago it was more efficient or cost beneficial to allow the plants to operate. Maybe there were some smaller plants in the area that now folded up their tents, as such, there was no need to keep these plants open. Or maybe the company simply didn't have the money a year ago to expand the other facility. There are a dozen other reasons those plants may have remained open.

8) As a matter of fact I did. Thats why I found it interesting they were willing to do so. There was not enough competition from other packers, so they felt safe in shutting down the plants. They feel that they will still get a sufficient percentage of the animals that profitability will not be affected.

9) Again, you are attributing every move the packers make to competition. I'm not. I'm attributing every move they make to profit maximization, which a company will always chase, whether competition forces them there or not.

10) Disgree. Small packer profitability is being hampered by concentration. I once asked how a packer can use economies of scale to significantly increase profitability over several plants. I never did get answer to this, and I would like to hear some thoughts.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) THEN HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT TYSON IS CLOSING PLANTS DUE TO A LACK OF PROFITABILITY??????

2) Who do you think is going to pay you more for your fat cattle Rod, 12 packers that need a $50 per head profit margin to keep their doors open or 3 packing companies that can survive at a $10 per head profit margin????

1) Tyson is closing the plants because its MORE PROFITABLE to consolidate. I didn't see any mention of those specific plants losing money.

2) Use some real world numbers, SH. The profit differential between between a small packing plant and a large one is not that great. Otherwise, small butcher shops would NEVER stay afloat.

Rod

 

[feeder]

Tam, I'm sorry but I don't believe R-Calf lied to protect my pocket book. Think about it, as a feeder my breakeven increased 10-12+ dollars per cwt post bse due to increased cost for calves. The margin between my sale price and breakeven didn't increase percentage wise as much. But I was glad our ranchers were finally receiving a fair price.

 

[Tam]

Tam, I'm sorry but I don't believe R-Calf lied to protect my pocket book. Think about it, as a feeder my breakeven increased 10-12+ dollars per cwt post bse due to increased cost for calves. The margin between my sale price and breakeven didn't increase percentage wise as much. But I was glad our ranchers were finally receiving a fair price.

So you don't think they lied what about "all beef from a country affected by BSE is tainted and unsafe for human consumption" which changes to "but we have these firewalls" when BSE was found in the US? Feeder were those not lies to protect US cattle prices. As one was used to try keep the border closed to Canadian fat cattle and the other was used to stop demand for US beef from taking a dive after BSE was found in the US. Which both affected the price you got for your fat cattle.

 

[Sandhusker]

1) THEN HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT TYSON IS CLOSING PLANTS DUE TO A LACK OF PROFITABILITY??????

2) Who do you think is going to pay you more for your fat cattle Rod, 12 packers that need a $50 per head profit margin to keep their doors open or 3 packing companies that can survive at a $10 per head profit margin????

1) Tyson is closing the plants because its MORE PROFITABLE to consolidate. I didn't see any mention of those specific plants losing money.

2) Use some real world numbers, SH. The profit differential between between a small packing plant and a large one is not that great. Otherwise, small butcher shops would NEVER stay afloat.

Rod

He's all yours, Rod. However, I'll give you the same warning several gave me when I first starting tangling with him; "Debating" SH is like wrestling a pig, you just get dirty and the pig likes it.

 

[Anonymous]

1) What I honestly believe is happening with the profits is that they are being moved to other business concerns.

What you believe is irrelevant Rod, what's relevant is what you can prove.

Can't you read?

Read it with me Rod..........

Tyson said Jan. 30 that firstquarter earnings fell 19 percent to $ 39 million, or 11 cents a share, and the beef unit reported a $ 64 million loss in profits. "Our beef business has undoubtedly been facing difficult market conditions," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said.

What part of the $64 million loss are you not getting????

So much for the so called "SALMON RUN".

2) Large companies do NOT care about the individual worker. If you honestly believe that the welfare of 1200 emplyees had even the remotest influence on their decision, you're giving the corporation too much credit.

You are absolutely wrong. The welfare of the workers has a huge bearing on these decisions. A company that does not take care of it's workers is not long for this world. To suggest otherwise plays right into the anti corporate mentality.

3) No, PROFIT MAXIMIZATION drives it!

Wrong! Had profit maximization been the reason, it would have already happened. This isn't some revelation that came to them, this was forced on them by reduced profitability and fierce competition among packers for the available cattle. You just read it. $64 million loss! Why can't you comprehend it?

4) I won't speculate why they bought it, however the packing plant in Saskatoon was purchased and then shut down almost immediately. Several other plants in Canada that were already shut down were purchased, then tore down when smaller concerns showed an interest in purchasing them.

Beef America was bought to be profitable. When it wasn't, they closed it down. It's that simple.

5) As was already illustrated, they ARE EXPANDING!

They are expanding one plant but that will not compensate for the two plants that shut down. THOSE PLANTS DIDN'T EXPAND, THEY SHUT DOWN.

6) Yes I do. The board of directors would not have had any qualms about it as they are not the ones in the field breaking the news to the workers. If Tyson really had concerns about the workers, they would have spent the money on modernizing the plants so they could operate efficiently.

You are wrong on so many accounts.

When Boise and Pasco shut down due to a lack of Canadian cattle, THEY STILL PAID THEIR WORKERS FOR A 32 HOUR WORK WEEK.

Faced with that COLD HARD FACT do you still want to argue your "expendable employees" theory????

This didn't have a damn thing to do with plant modernization. How would you know how modern these plants are??? This was about a lack of cattle for the available slaughter space resulting in financial losses.

7) Perhaps a year ago it was more efficient or cost beneficial to allow the plants to operate. Maybe there were some smaller plants in the area that now folded up their tents, as such, there was no need to keep these plants open. Or maybe the company simply didn't have the money a year ago to expand the other facility. There are a dozen other reasons those plants may have remained open.

Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe .....hell you don't know! Above you said you weren't going to speculate and now that's exactly what you are doing.

A year ago those plants WERE PROFITABLE today they are not. That's all there is to it.

Didn't have the money to expand the other plant???? THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE PROFITABLE, TODAY THEY ARE NOT.

The only thing that drove this decision was a lack of profitability due to the competition for a reduced supply of cattle. What a shame that you are so misled about the packing industry.

As a matter of fact I did. Thats why I found it interesting they were willing to do so. There was not enough competition from other packers, so they felt safe in shutting down the plants. They feel that they will still get a sufficient percentage of the animals that profitability will not be affected.

Hahaha! Not enough competition from the other packers SO THEY SHUT THESE PLANTS DOWN??????

You're crazy man!

If there was not enough competition from the other packers, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LOST $64 MILLION IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION. Good grief!

9) Again, you are attributing every move the packers make to competition. I'm not. I'm attributing every move they make to profit maximization, which a company will always chase, whether competition forces them there or not.

This case was forced by a lack of profitability WHICH IS A DIRECT RESULT OF COMPETITION. If there was no competition for the available cattle, these planst would not be running red ink. If this move was about efficiency only, THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

10) Disgree. Small packer profitability is being hampered by concentration. I once asked how a packer can use economies of scale to significantly increase profitability over several plants. I never did get answer to this, and I would like to hear some thoughts.

CONCENTRATION IS A RESULT OF COMPETITION.

The only way smaller less efficient packing companies can compete with the larger more efficient packing companies is to consolidate WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY TYSON IS CLOSING TWO PLANTS AND EXPANDING ONE.

Packers maximize their profitability by two methods.

1. Reducing their per head slaughter costs.
2. Maximizing their beef and beef by product values RELATIVE TO THEIR COMPETITION.

A packing plant that has the chrome hide market captured will do better than a packing plant that doesn't.

A packing plant that has a good dog and catfood market cornered will do better than one who doesn't.

A packing plant that has more access to the Japanese market and other markets for the high dollar middle meats will do better than one who doesn't.

A packing plant that has workers willing to work for $12 an hour that work their asses off will do better than one who doesn't.

A packing plant that offers case ready trimmed beef will do better than one who is still selling commodity beef.

There is many factors but they can only add so much value and they can only cut so many costs. At some point they either have to pay less for the cattle or go broke.

The very reason there used to be so many more packing companies than there is today is because these less efficient packing companies could not compete. The smaller plants that are left have niche markets for specialty products because they cannot compete with Tyson and Excel from a kill cost per head basis.

You couldn't be more wrong on this Rod.

It is a direct contradiction when some suggest that smaller packing companies cannot compete after saying that there is no competition.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

What you believe is irrelevant Rod, what's relevant is what you can prove.

Right back at ya SH. You're guessing and speculating on their profits/losses and how much money they had available for expansion. How much money did it take them to start up their trucking concern? Where did that money come from? Thin air? Of course it came from the profits of another area of the business. So they did an internal transfer to support a start up venture, which makes the beef side look even worse than it is. It isn't rocket science.

What part of the $64 million loss are you not getting????

Already explained above.

2) Large companies do NOT care about the individual worker. If you honestly believe that the welfare of 1200 emplyees had even the remotest influence on their decision, you're giving the corporation too much credit.

You are absolutely wrong. The welfare of the workers has a huge bearing on these decisions. A company that does not take care of it's workers is not long for this world. To suggest otherwise plays right into the anti corporate mentality.

SH, you haven't worked for enough large corporations. In my career I did contract work for over 100 large corporations. I saw evidence of true worker concern in about 10% of those companies. Those companies that had flex time, gyms, family days and so on. The vast majority had NOTHING and would not hesitate to lay off workers if they thought it would help their bottom line.

If you believe that corporate America truly gives a damn about their employees, besides paying lip service to rhetoric, I've got a couple bridges I can sell you in the land and pink and polka dotted skies.

5) As was already illustrated, they ARE EXPANDING!

They are expanding one plant but that will not compensate for the two plants that shut down. THOSE PLANTS DIDN'T EXPAND, THEY SHUT DOWN.

How do you know that SH? No where in the article did it state that the new expansion wouldn't equal current capacity. If the company is reducing capacity then that means they didn't need it in the first place, and the original purchase of the plants is now suspect. Why buy excess capacity? To eliminate competition.

When Boise and Pasco shut down due to a lack of Canadian cattle, THEY STILL PAID THEIR WORKERS FOR A 32 HOUR WORK WEEK.

For how long, SH? And you're illustrating ONE example. For every one example you can give, I'll fire off a dozen examples of worker abuse. You haven't been in the workplace long enough to argue the corporate mentality.

This didn't have a damn thing to do with plant modernization. How would you know how modern these plants are??? This was about a lack of cattle for the available slaughter space resulting in financial losses.

Really? And how do you know that?

Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe .....hell you don't know! Above you said you weren't going to speculate and now that's exactly what you are doing.

As are you! What you lay out for facts is simple speculation as well. None of your statements is supported by Tyson's press release.

A year ago those plants WERE PROFITABLE today they are not. That's all there is to it.

Speculation. Maybe they are still profitable, but not as much as a consolidated plant would be.

Didn't have the money to expand the other plant???? THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE PROFITABLE, TODAY THEY ARE NOT.

I shouldn't have to explain this. A company only has SO MUCH MONEY. So even if they were profitable a year ago, perhaps that money was already ear marked for other expenditures. A company just can't snap its fingers one year and fix EVERYTHING.

And once again, during that diatribe, you still weren't able to answer my question. How is a company who owns MULTIPLE plants able to use economies of scale to operate more efficiently than a single plant of equal size?

Rod

 

[Econ101]

SH, you continually have problems with reading comprehension and basic understanding that you try to cover up with your long idiotic posts. Here is an example:

SH: Quote:
Tyson said Jan. 30 that firstquarter earnings fell 19 percent to $ 39 million, or 11 cents a share, and the beef unit reported a $ 64 million loss in profits. "Our beef business has undoubtedly been facing difficult market conditions," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said.


What part of the $64 million loss are you not getting????

So much for the so called "SALMON RUN".

Do you break out Canada from the U.S.? NO.

Do you even realize that the "salmon run" pertained only to operations in Canada? Your counterpoint shows that you obviously do not. Does your $64 million pertain to the time period of the "salmon run"? Does it pertain to operations only in Canada? People arguing with you eventually get tired of your circus chicken act and stop answering.

Stop answering points with mindless dribble. Everyone gets tired of arguing with a circus chicken as it is just a waste of time.

Now you are obviously intelligent enough to know what you are writing (I hope) so that only leaves you as being a bonefide propagandist that has uses "truth" only so far as it is useful and then uses misinformation and stupidity to fill in the blanks.

Is everyone from your state this way? Do you recieve extra govt. money in the state for this condition? Are taxpayers subsidizing you and your kind in any way (they are Tysons).

 

[RoperAB]

Monopolys will kill an economy. Look at the Maritimes. You basically have two families<Irvings and MaCaines> that own everything.
You know im pretty right wing. I think Preston Manning and Theodore Roosefelt were two of the all time best political leaders.
But it seems to me that the three biggest responsibilities of good government is #1 defend the border #2 issue currency #3 PROTECT THE MARKET FROM MONOPOLIES
I would be interested to know how much money these packers kickback to our polititions?

 

[Jason]

Monopolys will kill an economy. Look at the Maritimes. You basically have two families<Irvings and MaCaines> that own everything.
You know im pretty right wing. I think Preston Manning and Theodore Roosefelt were two of the all time best political leaders.
But it seems to me that the three biggest responsibilities of good government is #1 defend the border #2 issue currency #3 PROTECT THE MARKET FROM MONOPOLIES
I would be interested to know how much money these packers kickback to our polititions?

Although those 2 families are very wealthy, would the maritimes be better or worse off if they just left?

Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

 

[Econ101]

Monopolys will kill an economy. Look at the Maritimes. You basically have two families<Irvings and MaCaines> that own everything.
You know im pretty right wing. I think Preston Manning and Theodore Roosefelt were two of the all time best political leaders.
But it seems to me that the three biggest responsibilities of good government is #1 defend the border #2 issue currency #3 PROTECT THE MARKET FROM MONOPOLIES
I would be interested to know how much money these packers kickback to our polititions?

Although those 2 families are very wealthy, would the maritimes be better or worse off if they just left?

Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

You seem to be of the view that aristocracy is a good thing, Jason. It figures, coming from someone who inherited his operation. Some of us believe in the rules against the abuse of the forces wealth in society and of the enforcement of laws against/for everyone, regardless of their wealth.

Keep defending your status quo. It shows who you stand with.

 

[RoperAB]

Monopolys will kill an economy. Look at the Maritimes. You basically have two families<Irvings and MaCaines> that own everything.
You know im pretty right wing. I think Preston Manning and Theodore Roosefelt were two of the all time best political leaders.
But it seems to me that the three biggest responsibilities of good government is #1 defend the border #2 issue currency #3 PROTECT THE MARKET FROM MONOPOLIES
I would be interested to know how much money these packers kickback to our polititions?

Although those 2 families are very wealthy, would the maritimes be better or worse off if they just left?

Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

The maritimes would be better off if those families never would have gained the market share that they did.
Yes they dont seem to compete with each others monopolys. Sort of like how the mob respects other gangsters turf.

 

[RoperAB]

[
Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

Reply
Jason they only compete with other companies for the most part when they expand outside of the maritimes.

 

[Econ101]

I saw on the BBC NPR station where a U.S. Congressman was talking about the earmarks that were rampant in the government. Congressman Cooper, I believe, said that companies are finding that their return on investment is a lot better with their political donations and subsequent goodies from lawmakers than from the market. That is when you know things are really messed up. When you have to have taxpayers subsidizing businesses to locate here or there in order for them to come in, you know that the business will probably not pass the profitability for the risk test. Despite what Jason says about free markets, we don't have them anymore.

 

[Jason]

[
Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

Reply
Jason they only compete with other companies for the most part when they expand outside of the maritimes.

Your trying to tell me no one has any potato interests except McCain?

There are no other oil companies working in the East except Irvings?


Lets see some facts.

 

[mrj]

Monopolys will kill an economy. Look at the Maritimes. You basically have two families<Irvings and MaCaines> that own everything.
You know im pretty right wing. I think Preston Manning and Theodore Roosefelt were two of the all time best political leaders.
But it seems to me that the three biggest responsibilities of good government is #1 defend the border #2 issue currency #3 PROTECT THE MARKET FROM MONOPOLIES
I would be interested to know how much money these packers kickback to our polititions?

Although those 2 families are very wealthy, would the maritimes be better or worse off if they just left?

Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

You seem to be of the view that aristocracy is a good thing, Jason. It figures, coming from someone who inherited his operation. Some of us believe in the rules against the abuse of the forces wealth in society and of the enforcement of laws against/for everyone, regardless of their wealth.

Keep defending your status quo. It shows who you stand with.

Econ, do you know Jason well enough to KNOW that he inherited his operation?

Do you know enough about his operation to KNOW that it was inherited free and clear of debt or obligation? Or that he has or has not managed it well enough to add value to it by his own effort and knowledge?

If you did KNOW enough about that situation to make your allegation accurately and honestly, why, from a decency standpoint, would you attempt to denigrate him for the 'crime' of inheriting something?

Do you have real knowledge that those families you accuse of "abuse of the forces of wealth", or do you automatically that anyone who has wealth abuses it?

Do you believe that no person can become wealthy except "on the backs of others"?

What do you think of the policy of Jubilee?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Although those 2 families are very wealthy, would the maritimes be better or worse off if they just left?

Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.

You seem to be of the view that aristocracy is a good thing, Jason. It figures, coming from someone who inherited his operation. Some of us believe in the rules against the abuse of the forces wealth in society and of the enforcement of laws against/for everyone, regardless of their wealth.

Keep defending your status quo. It shows who you stand with.

Econ, do you know Jason well enough to KNOW that he inherited his operation?

Do you know enough about his operation to KNOW that it was inherited free and clear of debt or obligation? Or that he has or has not managed it well enough to add value to it by his own effort and knowledge?

If you did KNOW enough about that situation to make your allegation accurately and honestly, why, from a decency standpoint, would you attempt to denigrate him for the 'crime' of inheriting something?

Do you have real knowledge that those families you accuse of "abuse of the forces of wealth", or do you automatically that anyone who has wealth abuses it?

Do you believe that no person can become wealthy except "on the backs of others"?

What do you think of the policy of Jubilee?

MRJ

MRJ, Jason said he inherited his operation and on that I take him at his word.

I don't think every family is abusing the forces of wealth. Some are, some are not. You know that. You can also tell that there is a different standard for most people and those in power or who have wealth. That is one of the things that sparked the Los Angeles riots.

Jason seems to be touting the virtues of the free market but he does not want any of the laws against the abuse of wealth to be enforced. He argues against the reality of what is happening with the consolidation of the beef industry and other industries. He doesn't know the "hundred dollar words" that are being used to explain the industry conditions because it seems he wants to ignore the reality. He wants to protect the rights of the wealthy and I have yet to hear him do so for the producers. Instead of seeing what is happening in our industries, he wants to excuse every move. He seems to support the golden rule, and not the one Jesus spoke of.

No, I do not think that every wealthy person got wealthy by abusing power or other people. Some have, some have not. I do not think that every person who inherits something is bad or has done these things. In Jason's case, the answer to these questions and his character is being shown with his posts. I think they speak for themselves.