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

More Canadian slaughter capacity coming online

Help Support Ranchers.net:

[
quote="~SH~"]$5000 to Haymaker if he can prove that I own packer stock?


Watch this..............



~SH~
[/quote]


Watch what you proving yourself a liar? #1 if you had $5000 you would be dangerous,#2 with your hawking packers like you do its a reasonable assumption ,YOU HAVE PACKER STOCK .#3 $ 10000 to prarie dog if you can prove I have a black dog,grow up damn prarie dog.........good luck PS that packer stock will grow without you promoting manipulations of markets.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
SH,we all know that shipping costs are minimal compared to the money we have lost due to market manipulations,I think ILL do like you and some of the packer backers,IM gonna sell most of my cattle ,buy packer stock then what ever the packers beat me out of by manipulating markets I will make up with my packer stock.Hell I might like this packer buisness,get rid of these boots and jeans get me some western cut suits and ostrich skin boots make a living with my mouth instead of my back.gettin tired of cow dung on my boots anyway.......................good luck

Oh haymaker one of little wisdom, It costs $1,400 to get a load of cattle from our place to Alberta. That's $14 dollars a head for calves and $28 dollars a head for fat cattle. How many feeders would be happy making $28 dollars a head. Isn't that $2 more then the packers were said to be making. Maybe you should become a truck hater as well.
Oh yea I thiught you wore canvas running shoes not boots as the boots "chafed your thighs".

Cost me $35 a head to send calves to the feedyard last year. No telling what it is now that fuel has almost doubled.
 
Mike said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
SH,we all know that shipping costs are minimal compared to the money we have lost due to market manipulations,I think ILL do like you and some of the packer backers,IM gonna sell most of my cattle ,buy packer stock then what ever the packers beat me out of by manipulating markets I will make up with my packer stock.Hell I might like this packer buisness,get rid of these boots and jeans get me some western cut suits and ostrich skin boots make a living with my mouth instead of my back.gettin tired of cow dung on my boots anyway.......................good luck

Oh haymaker one of little wisdom,
It costs $1,400 to get a load of cattle from our place to Alberta. That's $14 dollars a head for calves and $28
dollars a head for fat cattle. How many feeders would be happy making $28 dollars a head. Isn't that $2 more then the packers were said to be making. Maybe you should become a truck hater as well.
Oh yea I thiught you wore canvas running shoes not boots as the boots "chafed your thighs".

Cost me $35 a head to send calves to the feedyard last year. No telling what it is now that fuel has almost doubled.



BMR,Are you braggin or complainin,maybe you oughta drive a truck for a livin.that way you can drive right pass your neighbors at the sale barn,damn packer lover...........good luck
 
SH, "Pepsi and Coke have proven that it only takes two to have competition while the beef industry has 5 major players and their plant location determines how much freight you are going to have on those cattle."

What a wonderful example of "competition". 30 years ago, when I was 10, I remember buying 12oz bottles of coke for a dime. Now that same volume (in a cheaper container) costs 75 cents. Would you like to compare that increase in price to inflation during the same period, SH? You've convinced me that the "competition of two" sure is a good thing for the consumer. Maybe since Coke and Pepsi are making so much more they are paying thier suppliers more? :roll:
 
Sandhusker said:
SH, "Pepsi and Coke have proven that it only takes two to have competition while the beef industry has 5 major players and their plant location determines how much freight you are going to have on those cattle."

What a wonderful example of "competition". 30 years ago, when I was 10, I remember buying 12oz bottles of coke for a dime. Now that same volume (in a cheaper container) costs 75 cents. Would you like to compare that increase in price to inflation during the same period, SH? You've convinced me that the "competition of two" sure is a good thing for the consumer. Maybe since Coke and Pepsi are making so much more they are paying thier suppliers more? :roll:

I remember those ten cent days. Yep, then "Topp Cola" came out with a 16 oz. bottle at the same price they got bought out by Coke really quick.
Just ask "Royal Crown Cola" how ruthless the big corps are.
 
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, "Pepsi and Coke have proven that it only takes two to have competition while the beef industry has 5 major players and their plant location determines how much freight you are going to have on those cattle."

What a wonderful example of "competition". 30 years ago, when I was 10, I remember buying 12oz bottles of coke for a dime. Now that same volume (in a cheaper container) costs 75 cents. Would you like to compare that increase in price to inflation during the same period, SH? You've convinced me that the "competition of two" sure is a good thing for the consumer. Maybe since Coke and Pepsi are making so much more they are paying thier suppliers more? :roll:

I remember those ten cent days. Yep, then "Topp Cola" came out with a 16 oz. bottle at the same price they got bought out by Coke really quick.
Just ask "Royal Crown Cola" how ruthless the big corps are.

As Topp Cola was bought out by Coke, it is obvious they were unprofitable..... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Sandhusker said:
SH, "Pepsi and Coke have proven that it only takes two to have competition while the beef industry has 5 major players and their plant location determines how much freight you are going to have on those cattle."

What a wonderful example of "competition". 30 years ago, when I was 10, I remember buying 12oz bottles of coke for a dime. Now that same volume (in a cheaper container) costs 75 cents. Would you like to compare that increase in price to inflation during the same period, SH? You've convinced me that the "competition of two" sure is a good thing for the consumer. Maybe since Coke and Pepsi are making so much more they are paying thier suppliers more? :roll:

How do you know they are making so much more Could the increase in their expences have something to do with the increase in price Sandhusker Maybe they aren't making any more than they did back when pop was 10 cents a bottle look at the wage increase in the last 30 years and look at the cost of fuel to deliver those 75 cent bottles to very town in America do you think that comes free. Do you think the producer is the only one that has an increase in the inputs? I'm with SH I can't believe you loan money to people with your attitude.
 
Tam: "look at the wage increase in the last 30 years"

Ever here of automation? Not trying to be sarcastic, but when I am truly amazed at the amount of work being done with scarcely a handful of people in some of these facilities. I would be very interested to know the ratio of people to bottle of Coke put out today vs. that of 30 years ago. Since food is one of my favorite past times I occasionally watch the food channel before going to bed (and then probably getting another snack before I go to sleep :oops: ). I never realized that so many twinkies could be filled with cream at one time with a machine :D .
 
Tam, "How do you know they are making so much more Could the increase in their expences have something to do with the increase in price Sandhusker Maybe they aren't making any more than they did back when pop was 10 cents a bottle look at the wage increase in the last 30 years and look at the cost of fuel to deliver those 75 cent bottles to very town in America do you think that comes free. Do you think the producer is the only one that has an increase in the inputs? I'm with SH I can't believe you loan money to people with your attitude."

Coke is a public company, Tam. Anybody can look at their financials. If you would of bothered to do a little research before blistering me, you would know more about their profits, expenses, etc... I know you've got internet :wink:

Have you ever heard of he CPI, Tam? Do you know what the average inflation rate in the US has been since 1970? It's been roughly 4%. This tells you that the average cost of goods has risen 4% a year. This takes into account transportation, wages, raw goods, etc... Now do your math and tell me what 10 cents would be at that rate for 30 years. Use the rule of 72 - divide 72 by the interest rate and it will tell you how many years the cost of that good should take to double.

You can hang with SH, my folks warned me about picking my friends... :wink: :lol:
 
Haymaker, I'll let your blathering posts speak for themselves.


Mike in reference to Coke and Pepsi: "Have you looked at their price increases lately?"

Mike in reference to shipping calves: "Cost me $35 a head to send calves to the feedyard last year. No telling what it is now that fuel has almost doubled."

Amazing how you can understand rising fuel costs as it relates to your increased costs to ship calves but you cannot make the connection to these same rising fuel costs CONTRIBUTING TO the rising costs of coke and pepsi??


Mike: "Pepsi and Coke prove only that government intervention and squashing the competition is dictated in the corporate boardroom. Competition has been stepped on like a roach."

Pepsi and Coke like Anheiser Busch, Miller Brewing, and Coors like Ford, Chrysler, and GM and hudreds of other examples of INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION only proves that the most efficient companies survive WITH TRUE COMPETITION FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

I'd rather see the free enterprise system determine competition rather than your "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SQUASH THE BIG SUCCESSFUL CORPORATION SO US LESS EFFICIENT COMPANIES CAN COMPETE" government intervention alternative.

This anti corporate mentality reminds me of the "dumbing down" process in our school systems so the underachievers can compete with the overachievers.

"Punish achievement" / "regulate prosperity", some things never change!


Mike: "You'd be surprised at the manipulations and hostile takovers in the soft drink industry."

Why hasn't Pepsi taken over Coke or why hasn't Coke taken over Pepsi?

It's never that the less efficient companies couldn't compete is it?

It's always "HOSTILE TAKEOVERS" and "SQUASHING THE COMPETITION" with the "anti corporates" isn't it????


Mike: "There are books on how crooked this business is/was."

Yeh and of course they all tell the truth don't they?

Probably written by the less efficient, less successful company that couldn't compete.

There is also a book written about packer concentration and how that affects market competition by Benjamin Roberts. I asked Benjamin Roberts how Armour, Wilson, Swift, Cudahey, and Morris became ibp, Excel, Monfort, National, and Smithfield IN AN INDUSTRY THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY CONTROLLED????

He couldn't answer that simple question!


If the packing industry, like the soft drink industry, is "supposedly" controlled by "HOSTILE TAKEOVERS" or "SQUASHING THE COMPETITION" like the packer blamers would lead us to believe, what happened to all the original companies?

Once again the obvious is simply too obvious isn't it?


Sandhusker: "What a wonderful example of "competition". 30 years ago, when I was 10, I remember buying 12oz bottles of coke for a dime. Now that same volume (in a cheaper container) costs 75 cents. Would you like to compare that increase in price to inflation during the same period, SH?"


The fact that you would use the price increase of pop in 30 years to make your point about a "supposed" lack of competition proves how naive you really are about the costs involved with large companies.

So why don't you invest in a soft drink company and put your money where your mouth is?

If you guys are so convinced that the rising cost of coke and pepsi is proof of a lack of competition, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE PRICE OF BOTTLED WATER????

Heck, that's just water. How tough can it be to bottle water and sell it for $1.00 per bottle? MUST BE QUITE A RACKET HUH???

With prices that high there must still be a profit to be made by undercutting $1.00 bottled water isn't there?

Give it a try and let me know how you turn out then maybe you'll figure out why coke and pepsi products are priced where they are.

BLAMERS.......sheeeesh!


Mike: "If we go by your assimilations of competition, there will be only a few large corporations running the entire agribusiness show here."

There already is.

How many tractor companies are there??????

HOSTILE TAKEOVERS and SQUASHING THE COMPETITION or the result of increased efficiencies?


You can't fathom the concept of mergers being "mutually beneficial" can you?


Mike: "Scott Kilman in the Wall Street Journal reports that ADM's total legal tab "for one of the biggest global price-fixing scandals of the 1990s" has now climbed to more than $250 million, including criminal fines, civil settlements and lawyer bills and that tab "will probably rise as more governments pile on" as "antitrust regulators in Mexico and Brazil are mulling whether to levy their own penalties."

Innocent until proven guilty. I look at mounting legal fees as evidence of the increased efforts of anti corporate blamers looking to the legal system to regulate prosperity.


Radar: "Ever here of automation? Not trying to be sarcastic, but when I am truly amazed at the amount of work being done with scarcely a handful of people in some of these facilities. I would be very interested to know the ratio of people to bottle of Coke put out today vs. that of 30 years ago."

Perhaps that might explain some of the down trend in manufacturing jobs that the dems claim are all moving over seas huh?


~SH~
 
Interesting thought and replies SH.

So if we are talking about freedom to expand and the process of supply and demand, how would that effect your job as a trapper?

If I could convince the people of this state, that we would be better off with coyotes and fox and to just put a hunting season on them so we could sell licenses, and we woulkdn't need to hire trappers, would that bother you?

Or if the bunny huggers get the people to vote to quit using "paw hold" traps, would that bother you? Hey, you got to change with the times.

How about if we landowners could convince the rest of the voting public that we as landowners could do a better and cheaper job of managing the wildlife and we all voted out and abolished the GF&P, would that be a good thing?

We all need to change with the times, but most of us struggle to make that change.

I stated in another thread that I no longer have problems with deer eating my haystacks, by simply getting rid of the stacks. Do you think any other ranchers will change that way?

I didn't have much of a problem with the recent snow/rain because I have switched my system of ranching to cooperate with mother nature rather than a more antagonistic approach. Do you think all others will follow suit?

Just because something works or makes sense to me doesn't preclude the fact that others will see it another way and will continue to do as they always have and survive or go down in flames before they change and/or adapt.

Wolves don't bother me, but I think if I lived next to Yellowstone Park or wherever they have introduced them, I probably would have a different point of view.

Sorry ol' buddy, but you don't get to be the only one with a valid opinion.
 
Sandhusker: "I'm about through wrestling this pig, how about you?"

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

I would be to if I was as factually defenseless as you are!

Always looking for a support group!


~SH~
 
JB: "So if we are talking about freedom to expand and the process of supply and demand, how would that effect your job as a trapper?"

If the public sees predator control as a service that is no longer needed, so be it. I'll go back to ranching full time.


JB: "If I could convince the people of this state, that we would be better off with coyotes and fox and to just put a hunting season on them so we could sell licenses, and we woulkdn't need to hire trappers, would that bother you?"

If the public was naive enough to believe that fur harvesting young migrating coyotes in the winter time would reduce the number of territorial adult coyotes that prey on their livestock the following spring and summer, I would go back to cattle ranching because I wouldn't want to work with people that were that naive.

Fortunately, the vast majority of ranchers are smarter than that.


JB: "Or if the bunny huggers get the people to vote to quit using "paw hold" traps, would that bother you?"

WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Of course caving to the bleeding hearts would bother me just as giving up hot branding would bother most ranchers.


JB: "How about if we landowners could convince the rest of the voting public that we as landowners could do a better and cheaper job of managing the wildlife and we all voted out and abolished the GF&P, would that be a good thing?"

In the minds of the GF&P blamers, probably!


JB: "We all need to change with the times, but most of us struggle to make that change."

Yeh we all need to change with the times but some proposed changes are voted down by the majority such as a ban on steel foothold traps and private ownership of the public's wildlife.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top