~SH~ said:
SH, you are just full of hot air. At least I ask you for clarification of what you are saying before I disagree, rant and rave and do all the little adolescent postings that you are so fond of.
Help Support Ranchers.net:
SH, you are just full of hot air. At least I ask you for clarification of what you are saying before I disagree, rant and rave and do all the little adolescent postings that you are so fond of.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I already explained this to where anyone with any knowledge of this industry can understand it. I'm sorry you don't fit into that category Elementary.
If you have a specific question ask and I'll accomodate you by pounding my head against the wall again in an effort to get you to understand the most basic premises of cattle pricing.
~SH~
If you have a specific question ask and I'll accomodate you by pounding my head against the wall again in an effort to get you to understand the most basic premises of cattle pricing.
~SH~
~SH~ said:
Please explain what you mean by this:
~SH~ said:
specifics would be fine. Does everyone have to ask you the same question more than once or is it just your teachers? Please answer before you pound your head against the wall.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The trend in this industry is for more producers to capture value at the consumer level. USPB is a classic example of this. Branded beef programs working through existing packing companies is another example. Contrast that with the fear that so many have that producers will be "serfs on their land" working under contract for Tyson because that is what has occurred in the pork and broiler industries. It's not happening in beef despite the doomsday prophets. Producers are investing in the packing side of the industry creating more "BOTTOM UP" vertical integration. Packers are not investing in the producer side of the industry to control that side.
Go ahead Elementary, see if you can contradict anything I have stated.
~SH~
Go ahead Elementary, see if you can contradict anything I have stated.
~SH~
rkaiser
Well-known member
What is it that you call "the producer side" SH? Is a producer simply the guy who takes every cost added to the packer. Or is he also the margin player we like to call the feeder or feedlot guy.
Seems that packers own quite a few cattle up here in Canuckleland. In fact more so all the time. Some feedlot owners seem to be okay with taking out their risk and simply adding infustructure and expense to accomodate a per head cheque. Does this have anything to do with your conversation wise, oh one?
And please don't try to compare this to the bottom up packers who are truely trying to help the producers of both of our countries. Your arguement slips back and forth so much that most have a hard time seeing your diversion.
Seems that packers own quite a few cattle up here in Canuckleland. In fact more so all the time. Some feedlot owners seem to be okay with taking out their risk and simply adding infustructure and expense to accomodate a per head cheque. Does this have anything to do with your conversation wise, oh one?
And please don't try to compare this to the bottom up packers who are truely trying to help the producers of both of our countries. Your arguement slips back and forth so much that most have a hard time seeing your diversion.
~SH~ said:
SH, Don't be so quick with your last sentence. I do not try to contradict you everytime, you are good enough to do that on your own.
How far back do you go on that producer side? Does it include packer owned or controlled feedyards?
It seems to me that Sandhusker was pointing out that there are bottlenecks that control industries. When companies try to control these bottlenecks through concentration or collusion (which is what the PSA was written to prevent and enumerated in Section 202, c-g) then there are other certain rules that they must follow (Section 202 a, b and part of c). Normally competitive markets make a and b unnecessary because sellers could go to competition and sell their products. In the Pickett case, the packers are trying to get out of a and b.
You continually argue that a and b are unnecessary because there is "competition". Unfortunately for you, the Pickett plaintiffs showed to the jury that this is not the case. They showed this through showing that there was a difference that was paid in the cash market vs. the captive supply market for essentially the same time period. You even answered that the cattle in formula pricing could be killed at the packing plant the same day as the cattle in the formula pricing. Cash cattle could be killed the day before than formula cattle, in fact.
Ranchers want a piece of the retail action because they are tired of the mismanagement of the packers of their product. Packers are trying to gain more control over the bottleneck of processing through more concentration here and abroad. What do you not understand about these issues that everyone else seems to grasp?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Show everyone where I contradicted myself.
Bring it cheap talker.
Watch the diversion folks....................
Sandhusker, like you, throws out theories he can't back either. If it wasn't for cheap talk you guys wouldn't contribute anything.
I've explained this how many freaking times and you still clutch on to your same empty argument because you are simply too ignorant to understand it or too arrogant to admit that you don't understand it.
THIS WEEKS "NON NEGOTIATED" FORMULA CATTLE ARE BASED ON LAST WEEK'S CASH PRICE. LAST WEEK'S CASH PRICE IS BASED ON LAST WEEK'S SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS. THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE IS BASED ON THIS WEEK'S SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS. THE TWO PRICES WILL ONLY BE THE SAME IF THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS ARE THE SAME.
That is a fact! You will not contradict that fact! Anyone that knows anything about the normal supply and demand factors affecting cattle prices knows it's a fact.
Like the complete idiot you are, you will make the same baseless argument a week from now because YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
You don't speak for anyone else and you don't grasp anything yourself.
You can't even understand the most basic market concept of this week's supply and demand factors are not the same as last weeks supply and demand factors. You're the ignorant one here and you prove it continually.
~SH~
rkaiser, I am going to have to talk over SH as he is in one of his moods again. If those guys are trading their power over the control for checks then the game is almost over for them. That is the same deal that Tyson made with their poultry farmers. Wait until they get the supply they want and then start playing their games.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Elementary,
You said I do a good enough job of contradicting myself. Show everyone where I contradicted myself. What seems to be the hangup?
Watch the diversion folks.................
~SH~
You said I do a good enough job of contradicting myself. Show everyone where I contradicted myself. What seems to be the hangup?
Watch the diversion folks.................
~SH~
~SH~ said:
Make it worth my time, SH. You probably already asked Agman the answer to the question. How about using the quote from his investor friend? Do you want to bet or has your last payout been too unbearable?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Quit diverting and show everyone where I contradicted myself.
You made the allegation now back it up and quit dancing.
~SH~
You made the allegation now back it up and quit dancing.
~SH~
~SH~ said:
Will CSRA ban packers from buying feeder calves? Yes or no?
No!!!. See, you haven't read it.
Will CSRA ban formula pricing based on a weekly weighted average base price as we know formula pricing now? Yes or no?
This is more complicated because of your confusion between formula pricing and grid pricing.
Packers will continue to buy on the grid and you can sell that way or live. The only change is that packers must give you a firm base price AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS MADE.
Will CSRA ban forward contracts AS WE KNOW THEM? Yes or no?
NO! A few forward contracts are now made based on negotiated firm fixed base prices. This would become the norm.
Just imagine that ~SH~ thinks it's communistic to require a fixed price on a contract. Try buying stock on the stock market without a firm fixed price.
You have proven that you have not read the bill at all. Yet you are against it. Apparently you must have needed somebody else to tell you what to think about it. And it seems like they must have lied to you about what the bill will do. READ IT YOURSELF---THE AMI IS LYING ABOUT IT.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thank you for answering my questions OCM. Seriously!
Dont jump to conclusions, I wanted your interpretation.
Assuming your interpretation is correct there still is no justification for this law. The feeding industry does not need you or the Livestock Marketing Police to save them from their pricing mechanisms when they have numerous marketing options available to them.
This law will accomplish nothing in the way of adding competitiveness to selling fat cattle.
I told you last time we had this discussion that I liked your (Schroeder's) definition of formula pricing as it relates to the formula devised to arrive at the base price. I also told you that Swift defines "formula pricing" and "grid pricing" as one and the same. I have no problem or confusion with your (Schroeder's) definition of formula pricing.
Give me a break. Nobody pulls my strings on anything.
Not everything is as it "SEEMS".
I will oppose any government intervention into the pricing of cattle, PERIOD!
~SH~
Dont jump to conclusions, I wanted your interpretation.
Assuming your interpretation is correct there still is no justification for this law. The feeding industry does not need you or the Livestock Marketing Police to save them from their pricing mechanisms when they have numerous marketing options available to them.
This law will accomplish nothing in the way of adding competitiveness to selling fat cattle.
I told you last time we had this discussion that I liked your (Schroeder's) definition of formula pricing as it relates to the formula devised to arrive at the base price. I also told you that Swift defines "formula pricing" and "grid pricing" as one and the same. I have no problem or confusion with your (Schroeder's) definition of formula pricing.
Give me a break. Nobody pulls my strings on anything.
Not everything is as it "SEEMS".
I will oppose any government intervention into the pricing of cattle, PERIOD!
~SH~
~SH~ said:
You're believing the propaganda again!
This bill has nothing to do with the government pricing cattle. That is up to the market. This has to do with the government doing its job (like in the stock market) of making sure the pricing mechanisms are open and honest.
RobertMac
Well-known member
Two questions for SH...(anyone else can feel free to give an intelligent opinion :wink: 
)
Does Tyson own the land, buildings, and machinery in poultry production?
If a poultry producer buys his own chickens and feeds them out, where does he sell them?
A comparison....
Poultry_______________________Beef
1. Breeder farm_____________Seedstock
2. Hatchery_________________Cow/calf
3. Feedmill_________________@ Feedlot
4. Grow-out Houses__________Feedlot
5. Processing_______________Processing
6. Marketing________________Marketing
I added Marketing to their list, but the question is...what segments can be(or need be) owned or controlled by Tyson, ect. for the beef industry to emulate their poultry industry?
5 & 6 are the "bottle neck"...what can be done to change that?
Remember, the bottle neck of an hour glass controls the flow of sand!!!
)Does Tyson own the land, buildings, and machinery in poultry production?
If a poultry producer buys his own chickens and feeds them out, where does he sell them?
A comparison....
Poultry_______________________Beef
1. Breeder farm_____________Seedstock
2. Hatchery_________________Cow/calf
3. Feedmill_________________@ Feedlot
4. Grow-out Houses__________Feedlot
5. Processing_______________Processing
6. Marketing________________Marketing
I added Marketing to their list, but the question is...what segments can be(or need be) owned or controlled by Tyson, ect. for the beef industry to emulate their poultry industry?
5 & 6 are the "bottle neck"...what can be done to change that?
Remember, the bottle neck of an hour glass controls the flow of sand!!!
Tommy
Well-known member
RobertMac...Does Tyson own the land, buildings, and machinery in poultry production?
No, the person raising the poultry has to furnish the land, buildings, and machinery.
If a poultry producer buys his own chickens and feeds them out, where does he sell them?
I do not believe he would have a market for them, unless he sold them to his neighbors.
No, the person raising the poultry has to furnish the land, buildings, and machinery.
If a poultry producer buys his own chickens and feeds them out, where does he sell them?
I do not believe he would have a market for them, unless he sold them to his neighbors.
RobertMac
Well-known member
Tommy said:
I left out financing in the first question...with a six figure loan for each house, you're under the thumb of those that own the market!
Tommy
Well-known member
RobertMac...I left out financing in the first question...with a six figure loan for each house, you're under the thumb of those that own the market!
You got that right Robert. Just when a person is getting the loan paid down some, they make them renovate their houses.
You got that right Robert. Just when a person is getting the loan paid down some, they make them renovate their houses.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Tramp, Tramp, Tramp....here come the "fear mongerors".
The end is near, we are all doomed, serfs on our land, join R-CULT today!
Your questions are irrelevant Robert Mac because the industry is headed towards producers controlling the bottleneck, not the packers. The money is tied up in Land, livestock, and machinery, not packing houses.
USPB is the first major step in that direction. Tyson is not going to control this industry when the equity is on this side of the industry. Everyone can raise, feed, and slaughter their own cattle and market their own beef right now if they want to and Tyson can't do a damn thing about it.
I get so sick of this bullsh*t "sky is falling" fear mongering. What a bunch of defeatests. Meanwhile the wheels at USPB just keep turning.
You guys really need to start a blamers support group, hey, I guess you already did. It's called R-CULT/OCM.
~SH~
The end is near, we are all doomed, serfs on our land, join R-CULT today!
Your questions are irrelevant Robert Mac because the industry is headed towards producers controlling the bottleneck, not the packers. The money is tied up in Land, livestock, and machinery, not packing houses.
USPB is the first major step in that direction. Tyson is not going to control this industry when the equity is on this side of the industry. Everyone can raise, feed, and slaughter their own cattle and market their own beef right now if they want to and Tyson can't do a damn thing about it.
I get so sick of this bullsh*t "sky is falling" fear mongering. What a bunch of defeatests. Meanwhile the wheels at USPB just keep turning.
You guys really need to start a blamers support group, hey, I guess you already did. It's called R-CULT/OCM.
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Robertmac, I have been talking to some bird growers in the past few weeks and they are crying the blues.......................
LP gas is gonna cut a big hole in the grower profits this winter.
Lots of guys are predicting big losses (depending on how bad the winter might be) and many are wondering how they will make the notes on their new houses and upgrades.
Since the Big Boys control the supply of chicken (by controlling the number of chicks to the growers) and therefore control the price of chicken, this game is more "Socialistic" than any of us can imagine.
I could show you a few hundred empty houses right now............with the payments continuing...................
