How many Canuck producers would support this?

[DiamondSCattleCo]

That is exactly what you wanted Randy when you stated:

Randy Kaiser: "Or even to own the cattle in large enough numbers to cause a situation of better offers for live cattle from the said packers."

My point is that packer blamers like you criticize the packers for prefenential treatment than ask for that very thing. Meet yourself Randy!

In order for producers to bring about change, we first have to level the playing field. The packers sure aren't going to downsize for us, so we have to upsize, then beat them at their own game.

That is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act that is totally outdated. Buyers of any commodity should be able to give preferential treatment to volume suppliers. As you pointed out, preferential treatment is part of the business climate but it sure as hell should never have been considered illegal.

Thats an unfortunate viewpoint. It only allows the bigger to get even bigger. There is a point where company size becomes optimal, and economies of scale no longer have an effect. We're well past that point with the packing industry, as such its even more important to ensure that preferential treatment isn't given to the big players.

Because Safeway is a large successful corporation, you automatically assume that Safeway was responsible for Future Beef's demise because someone from Future Beef needed someone to blame since they couldn't blame the packer anymore. If they were honest, they would blame the consumer for not paying more.

The other side of this story is that Future Beef wanted Safeway, BECAUSE OF SAFEWAY'S SIZE, to take the financial fall for Future Beef spending too much money on yearlings. Bullcrap! Safeway agreed to market their product, not to shore them up if retail beef prices slid.

I think you need to re-read my posts on the topic. I said it was one of the major reasons for the downfall, not the only one. FB should never have locked themselves into 1 retailer.

As far as Safeway shoring them up, Safeway DID agree to do that. Re-read the original post. Safeway signed a contract agreement in which they agreed to shore up losses, and they did not honor the agreement. Perhaps if FB hadn't had this agreement, they would have looked at alternative ways to weather financial losses. Yes, they should have done that anyway, but by the same token, if a business has signed an agreement, I don't think its unreasonable to expect that business to honor the agreement. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way in real life, and FB should have realized that.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "We already know you are a packer backer that does not believe in any enforcement of the law against market power abuses and discriminatory conduct against anyone who does not do what they want or act the way they want. You just want a packer controlled industry and not a market controlled industry."

Another lie! IMAGINE THAT!

I believe in the enforcement of LEGITIMATE cases of market manipulation. I do not believe in "PERCEIVED" cases of market manipulation ("GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT") by anti corporate packer blamers who need someone or something to blame so they fabricate market manipulation conspiracy theories.

We are currently experiencing the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the highest level of packer concentration ever recorded.

How does a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you ignore the obvious?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "We already know you are a packer backer that does not believe in any enforcement of the law against market power abuses and discriminatory conduct against anyone who does not do what they want or act the way they want. You just want a packer controlled industry and not a market controlled industry."

Another lie! IMAGINE THAT!

I believe in the enforcement of LEGITIMATE cases of market manipulation. I do not believe in "PERCEIVED" cases of market manipulation ("GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT") by anti corporate packer blamers who need someone or something to blame so they fabricate market manipulation conspiracy theories.

We are currently experiencing the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the highest level of packer concentration ever recorded.

How does a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you ignore the obvious?


~SH~

Would you like to make a statement as to why that is true? I already have.

 

[Anonymous]

SH: "We are currently experiencing the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the highest level of packer concentration ever recorded."

Conman (in response): "Would you like to make a statement as to why that is true? I already have."

What was your statement as to why this is true?

I can only imagine what you came up with.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH: "We are currently experiencing the highest cattle prices ever recorded with the highest level of packer concentration ever recorded."

Conman (in response): "Would you like to make a statement as to why that is true? I already have."

What was your statement as to why this is true?

I can only imagine what you came up with.



~SH~

Think of what I have posted before, SH. What are the arguments I have had with Agman on reasons for price increase in the cattle markets? Think hard and you might not need the wizard to give you a brain. Think. You can do it. Don't imagine. Think!

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Think of what I have posted before, SH. What are the arguments I have had with Agman on reasons for price increase in the cattle markets?"

I don't need to think back to anything you have posted because most of it is pure bullsh*t. You're the idiot that said "prices couldn't go up unless the supplies come down". Why would I think back to anything you have stated?

Congratulations, you just diverted having to back your position again.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Think of what I have posted before, SH. What are the arguments I have had with Agman on reasons for price increase in the cattle markets?"

I don't need to think back to anything you have posted because most of it is pure bullsh*t. You're the idiot that said "prices couldn't go up unless the supplies come down". Why would I think back to anything you have stated?

Congratulations, you just diverted having to back your position again.


~SH~

By Agman's own calculated figures, SH, what had the biggest effect on the recent run up in cattle prices, tighter supplies or higher demand? Please don't include tighter supplies of pork and poultry as part of the demand figure.

Tyson exec. is pretty clear on that one.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "By Agman's own calculated figures, SH, what had the biggest effect on the recent run up in cattle prices, tighter supplies or higher demand?"

Why are you quoting Agman now when you have questioned his information before?

You're unbelievable.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "By Agman's own calculated figures, SH, what had the biggest effect on the recent run up in cattle prices, tighter supplies or higher demand?"

Why are you quoting Agman now when you have questioned his information before?

You're unbelievable.


~SH~

Even his calculated values (which I have not certified in any way----Agman will not post his work so we really don't know a lot about the numbers he posted other than they are just a supposed calculated value) supported my intitial claim that supply was driving the price increases in the cattle markets. Of course you know this discussion is a little more academic than what you can handle, so why chime in?

You're unbelievable.