More Socialism

[rkaiser]

Sure like that word conspiracy don't you Jason. Why is it that you come out and play on ranchers. Do you think that a few ranchers are conspiring to take out the mutinational packer, and you and the super Hero defender are out to stop this.

Really got going with the world trade thing Jason, you had better settle down a bit.

Jason -

So somehow Tyson Lakeside and Cargill were alone responsible for opening the US border to Canadian beef? The CFIA and USDA had no control over it?

How could Tyson and Cargill be alone, when they tell the USDA and CFIA what to do. This is all one group as far as I am concerned. Or is that a conspiracy theory too.

Sure was fun for Cargill and Tyson to sit back and watch Rcalf take the blame for the border thing while they wallowed in the river pitching Salmon out without even a pitchfork.

SH tells us time and again that the high prices for beef in the USA were due to consumer demand. Thus the high prices paid for cattle in the USA. Nothing to do with the border being closed he says, and it is proven by the fact that cattle prices have remained high even with an open border to live fats and feeders.

THEREFORE. SH is showing us all that losses to packing plants in the USA were not due to the closed border but rather tight supply in his own country and slim or negative margins at times. Ultimately packers, and especially Tyson and Cargill lost nothing on the American side of the border and profitted profusely on the Canadian side.

This is the truth. But when SH reads this he will twist and turn and dance and prance and call Randy names.

Whatch this folks - as the gopher trapper says.

 

[Sandhusker]

For Australia to ship beef to Japan and korea they have to stop shipping it somewhere else. Prices fell in Canada in 2003 so it wasn't an attractive market. The US price didn't fall the same way because of the size of the population.

However, the US was only buying it for trim, Japan needed a replacement for staple dishes (ie beef and rice bowls). The Japanese market is worth more so Australia (packer interests) would logically switch to sell for the higher dollar.

You claim they did this on purpose. At least thats what your statements indicate. I think anyone can see the lower quality (not grain fed) Australian beef wouldn't command the same dollar (yen) as American grain fed beef. It is a stretch they would take the risks of playing BSE games to make some extra money from Australia while losing money from the US and Canada. Even for a conspiracy hound as yourself that has got to look far fetched.

I don't claim they did it on purpose, actually they don't have the power in Japan to do anything. I'm just saying that Cargill might not be getting pinched as bad as it appears on the surface and that Tyson's problems come from an underestimation of the Japanese.

That lower priced beef costs less to produce, too. Look at shipping costs as well. Most of those ships run on diesel.

I've said in plain English that I don't believe there is a conspiracy. Yet you call me a conspiracy hound? Come on, Jason.

 

[Econ101]

Labels often hide the truth.

 

[Jason]

It just seems those who set out statements that Cargill/Tyson wanted the border closed here but got it open here aren't seeing facts. They see conspiracy.

Sometimes a business will benefit from a tragedy. Like Cargill/Tyson wound up benefiting in Canada after August 2003. Other companies in Canada also benefited. HR trucking CoolX, and likely others. Did they cause the troubles too?

Is it wrong to adjust to new circumstances and prosper?

Only a fool would jump into a business and try to compete based on rumoured profits. Reality would bounce them pretty fast.

This is what I object to. R-calf not having an official stance from one day to the next. They just take money from good folks and waste it on law suits. Producer backed ventures with no market research taking money from good folks and wasting it on town meetings and never having a chance to actually compete.

If a packer was engaged in collusion, prosecute them out of business. Even ask the government to get the subsidy money paid to them back. In the big scheme of things what will 40 million split between all other cattle producers get us? A dinner out?

Randy bring proof Tyson/Cargill tells CFIA what to do. I don't believe it for a second. CFIA is made up of people they make mistakes too.

Producers would be better served to understand how packers make their money and work the system. Raise the cattle that bring the most money. These things don't just change overnight. There are clear targets that will add value to cattle. If you don't make enough money raising cattle the way you do, make changes. Expand to raise more, or hold them longer to add value. Finish them and sell the beef. If that doesn't generate the cash desired, get into another line of work.

Pretty simple really.

 

[rkaiser]

Cargill and Tyson and their USDA opened the border to boxed beef Jason, and enjoyed the profits which followed due to the closed border for Fats.

Too bad you can't see that Jason. What is your problem.

Jason -

Producer backed ventures with no market research taking money from good folks and wasting it on town meetings and never having a chance to actually compete.

I take this as a slam against BIG C Jason. Is that correct? If so, you obviously never went to a BIG C meeting. The Plant proposal came after Beef INITIATIVE Group, actually went out and listened to 20 times the producers that the average ABP producer meeting could muster.

Jason

Producers would be better served to understand how packers make their money and work the system. Raise the cattle that bring the most money. These things don't just change overnight. There are clear targets that will add value to cattle. If you don't make enough money raising cattle the way you do, make changes. Expand to raise more, or hold them longer to add value. Finish them and sell the beef. If that doesn't generate the cash desired, get into another line of work.

The only part of this statement that I disagree with Jason is the "better served" part. Producers need to survive - true - just as Randy Kaiser needs to survive. And Does. But simply falling into puppet mode like Jason Towbridge and the gopher trapper (although it doesn't matter much to the gopher trapper cause he isn't even in the industry) will simply allow for more control and power which neither one of you will ever convince anyone the Cargill and Tyson have.

Wake up Jason, I am not complaining for myself, I am complaining about losing a way of life in North America. And go ahead and tell me that that is a conspiracy theory. Small town Canada used to thrive from Agriculture. That has changed, and will continue to change if laws favouring mutinational companies and corporate welfare business do not.

What is it that you support Jason? Less farms, more bigger players, and to hell with the guy who lived a good life raising livestock and grain in a honest wholesome manner.

Any theory that was out there concerning packer control and concentration was proven in Canada during the past three years. If you are to blind to see that, no one can help you Jason. I hope your operation goes well. :roll:

 

[Jason]

Number 1 the border opened to Canadian boxed beef because Canada was the first country to have BSE in a domestic cow and have the ability to trace her out quickly and accurately. The extensive testing of over 2000 animals that had any contact with her and all of them negative proved to the world we didn't have a big problem.

All packers wanted trade resumed not just Tyson/Cargill. They all could see the damage staying status quo on banning beef from countries with firewalls and safeguards in place.

Would you rather the border had remained closed and we all went broke? Talk about small towns shutting down.

My comments about anyone taking money from ranchers may well apply to BigC. You have never shown any reason I would give money to the group, but any proposed plant with no idea how to compete fits.

Your complaining for a way of life. Then stand up and say the gov't should legislate family farms right to survive no matter how small or inefficient. No family farm should be allowed to go broke for any reason. Sheesh garanteed job security. I could like that. Sit back and do next to nothing and wait for the subsidy cheques to carry me to retirement.

Nothing regarding packer concentration has been proven by the closed border. If we had 25 packers with less capacity than our numbers of cattle we would have had the same problem. Producers here saw the value in having more in Canada capacity, but if you ever had investigated Ranchers.net prior to BSE you would have seen discussions about Canada finding ways to do that already. We were starting to try to expand slaughter capacity and gain more export markets.

Answer the question Scott always poses. How would more less efficient packers raise prices for producers?

 

[Econ101]

Number 1 the border opened to Canadian boxed beef because Canada was the first country to have BSE in a domestic cow and have the ability to trace her out quickly and accurately. The extensive testing of over 2000 animals that had any contact with her and all of them negative proved to the world we didn't have a big problem.

All packers wanted trade resumed not just Tyson/Cargill. They all could see the damage staying status quo on banning beef from countries with firewalls and safeguards in place.

Would you rather the border had remained closed and we all went broke? Talk about small towns shutting down.

My comments about anyone taking money from ranchers may well apply to BigC. You have never shown any reason I would give money to the group, but any proposed plant with no idea how to compete fits.

Your complaining for a way of life. Then stand up and say the gov't should legislate family farms right to survive no matter how small or inefficient. No family farm should be allowed to go broke for any reason. Sheesh garanteed job security. I could like that. Sit back and do next to nothing and wait for the subsidy cheques to carry me to retirement.

Nothing regarding packer concentration has been proven by the closed border. If we had 25 packers with less capacity than our numbers of cattle we would have had the same problem. Producers here saw the value in having more in Canada capacity, but if you ever had investigated Ranchers.net prior to BSE you would have seen discussions about Canada finding ways to do that already. We were starting to try to expand slaughter capacity and gain more export markets.

Answer the question Scott always poses. How would more less efficient packers raise prices for producers?

They wouldn't have the market power to lower prices as Tyson did in the Pickett case. You still don't get the thing about market power, do you Jason? You will defend Tyson and Cargill but you fail to see the reality. You haven't done any of the reading I suggested. Wake up, or have you already taken the oath? Who is the "We" that is starting to expand slaughter capacity and gain more exports?

 

[agman]

Number 1 the border opened to Canadian boxed beef because Canada was the first country to have BSE in a domestic cow and have the ability to trace her out quickly and accurately. The extensive testing of over 2000 animals that had any contact with her and all of them negative proved to the world we didn't have a big problem.

All packers wanted trade resumed not just Tyson/Cargill. They all could see the damage staying status quo on banning beef from countries with firewalls and safeguards in place.

Would you rather the border had remained closed and we all went broke? Talk about small towns shutting down.

My comments about anyone taking money from ranchers may well apply to BigC. You have never shown any reason I would give money to the group, but any proposed plant with no idea how to compete fits.

Your complaining for a way of life. Then stand up and say the gov't should legislate family farms right to survive no matter how small or inefficient. No family farm should be allowed to go broke for any reason. Sheesh garanteed job security. I could like that. Sit back and do next to nothing and wait for the subsidy cheques to carry me to retirement.

Nothing regarding packer concentration has been proven by the closed border. If we had 25 packers with less capacity than our numbers of cattle we would have had the same problem. Producers here saw the value in having more in Canada capacity, but if you ever had investigated Ranchers.net prior to BSE you would have seen discussions about Canada finding ways to do that already. We were starting to try to expand slaughter capacity and gain more export markets.

Answer the question Scott always poses. How would more less efficient packers raise prices for producers?

They wouldn't have the market power to lower prices as Tyson did in the Pickett case. You still don't get the thing about market power, do you Jason? You will defend Tyson and Cargill but you fail to see the reality. You haven't done any of the reading I suggested. Wake up, or have you already taken the oath? Who is the "We" that is starting to expand slaughter capacity and gain more exports?

Using your argument I would have to conclude that a lower average price, the result of more inefficient plants, would benefit our industry. Is there anyone else on the planet that could be so misguided as you? I thought you had at least a rudimentary understanding of economics.

All the reading you suggested is decades old. Your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and business in general allows you to attempt to draw parallels to the present. You are wrong as always. Ignorance breeds conspiracy theories. You seem to have a conspiracy theory for every post you make. Answer my simple question for the readers. Who was there, when and what took place behind the closed door meetings that you CLAIM occurred in the Pickett case? Either you have the facts to back your scandalous statement or you initiated and perpetuated a bold faced lie.

The only thing proved in the Pickett case was that Taylor's findings failed the Hauseman test for causality. Taylor by his own admission under oath said that he failed to test his theories regarding causality. Presence does not establish cause except in your uninformed and conspiratorial mind. In short, your sole mate proved nothing in court except that he did not know what he was talking about. While the jurors missed that glaring shortcoming in Taylor's testimony the presiding judge did not.

Since you are a self-anointed legal expert answer yes or no to the following question. Does the law require theories advanced at trail to be tested for validity?

Yes?

No?

I believe readers are tiring of your dancing around basic and direct questions with dissertations that are both lengthy and totally meaningless. Try answering the question for a change.

 

[Econ101]

Number 1 the border opened to Canadian boxed beef because Canada was the first country to have BSE in a domestic cow and have the ability to trace her out quickly and accurately. The extensive testing of over 2000 animals that had any contact with her and all of them negative proved to the world we didn't have a big problem.

All packers wanted trade resumed not just Tyson/Cargill. They all could see the damage staying status quo on banning beef from countries with firewalls and safeguards in place.

Would you rather the border had remained closed and we all went broke? Talk about small towns shutting down.

My comments about anyone taking money from ranchers may well apply to BigC. You have never shown any reason I would give money to the group, but any proposed plant with no idea how to compete fits.

Your complaining for a way of life. Then stand up and say the gov't should legislate family farms right to survive no matter how small or inefficient. No family farm should be allowed to go broke for any reason. Sheesh garanteed job security. I could like that. Sit back and do next to nothing and wait for the subsidy cheques to carry me to retirement.

Nothing regarding packer concentration has been proven by the closed border. If we had 25 packers with less capacity than our numbers of cattle we would have had the same problem. Producers here saw the value in having more in Canada capacity, but if you ever had investigated Ranchers.net prior to BSE you would have seen discussions about Canada finding ways to do that already. We were starting to try to expand slaughter capacity and gain more export markets.

Answer the question Scott always poses. How would more less efficient packers raise prices for producers?

They wouldn't have the market power to lower prices as Tyson did in the Pickett case. You still don't get the thing about market power, do you Jason? You will defend Tyson and Cargill but you fail to see the reality. You haven't done any of the reading I suggested. Wake up, or have you already taken the oath? Who is the "We" that is starting to expand slaughter capacity and gain more exports?

Using your argument I would have to conclude that a lower average price, the result of more inefficient plants, would benefit our industry. Is there anyone else on the planet that could be so misguided as you? I thought you had at least a rudimentary understanding of economics.

All the reading you suggested is decades old. Your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and business in general allows you to attempt to draw parallels to the present. You are wrong as always. Ignorance breeds conspiracy theories. You seem to have a conspiracy theory for every post you make. Answer my simple question for the readers. Who was there, when and what took place behind the closed door meetings that you CLAIM occurred in the Pickett case? Either you have the facts to back your scandalous statement or you initiated and perpetuated a bold faced lie.

The only thing proved in the Pickett case was that Taylor's findings failed the Hauseman test for causality. Taylor by his own admission under oath said that he failed to test his theories regarding causality. Presence does not establish cause except in your uninformed and conspiratorial mind. In short, your sole mate proved nothing in court except that he did not know what he was talking about. While the jurors missed that glaring shortcoming in Taylor's testimony the presiding judge did not.

Since you are a self-anointed legal expert answer yes or no to the following question. Does the law require theories advanced at trail to be tested for validity?

Yes?

No?

I believe readers are tiring of your dancing around basic and direct questions with dissertations that are both lengthy and totally meaningless. Try answering the question for a change.

Agman, the trial was for the jurors. They were to determine if it had the impact, not Taylor, not Hauseman, not the judges. The jurors. It was a JURY trial, not the kangaroo court held in your office and held in packer circles. If Hausnman had his own theory, maybe he needed to present it at trial. I think it would have been interesting for Hausman to explain why beef has lost market share to the substitutes that Tyson, Swift and the others own. If factor "x" as you call it was the reason, Tyson should have used it in their defense and presented evidence to that theory. It was not Pickett's job to go over Tyson's theory or present it.

Talk about dancing around questions! You have yet to answer my question on who benefits from imports. Your minions have had a lot to say but lets hear it from the wizard himself. You have yet to go over the eexample YOU brought up on the Glickeman IBP case and its relevance to the Pickett case. You have yet to explain the 11th Circuit getting the RPA example wrong in their brief.

As much as you have jumped to conclusions and said that I said something on this forum that I did not say, I would say it doesn't really matter if you have read the trial transcripts, as your reading comprehension shows it doesn't mattter.

Taylor tested his numbers and his theory over and over again. Whether or not the actions of Tyson were the causative action that led to a lowering of the beef market was to be answered by the jury. Not the judge, not the appellate judges, not Hauseman. The JURY. If any of the appellate courts had reason to say the jury was wrong, they should have specifically stated that instead of LYING and saying that there was not a mere scintella of evidence. The ENUMERATED PROHIBITIONS were put into the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 just for such misunderstandings of the economic concepts involved. The court tries to do away with those prohibitions with a "legitimate" business reason excuse that is flawed. They also tried to turn all the "or"s into "and" s so it would read something different. They are as wrong as your supporters are on who benefits from beef imports. Where is your answer? I would assume the witnesses for Tyson were as deer eyed as you seem to be.

As far as your "soul mate" characterization goes, I have met Taylor only a few times and talked to him on the phone a few times. I haven't found anything that I should question regarding his reasoning, unlike you. I have read some of his other work and looked into the math. He has been right on all of things I have questioned him on and you have not.

As far as your "economic" theory that more efficient packing plants mean higher prices for producers instead of competition, YOU ARE WRONG. Packer efficiency compared to other packers is important for their profitabilty in a comparative sense but it does not mean that it increases producer prices. When packers have market power over producers it can mean that they get LESS money, as Pickett proved. Packers are BUYERS of cattle and SELLERS of processed beef. Those are two different things, in case you haven't noticed.

Answer the RPA and the imports questions.

Leave economics to someone who understands these things, as your silence obviously betrays you as it did Tyson at trial.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "SH tells us time and again that the high prices for beef in the USA were due to consumer demand. Thus the high prices paid for cattle in the USA. Nothing to do with the border being closed he says, and it is proven by the fact that cattle prices have remained high even with an open border to live fats and feeders."

Your first lie is that I said it had "nothing to do with the border being closed". That is a damn lie Randy Kaiser! I never said that. This is so typical of your packer blaming brainwashed mind. You can't comprehend what you read so you make sh*t up like the idiot you are.

Of course a lack of Canadian cattle helped our market, BUT NOT TO THE DEGREE THAT THE R-CULTERS CLAIMED AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE BORDER IS OPENED NOW AND CATTLE PRICES ARE HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR.

I have yet to find an R-CULTer who can defend R-CULT's position on the affects of opening the Canadian border. Nothing screams louder of their ignorance than the fact that cattle prices are higher this year, with an opened Canadian border, than they were last year with a closed Canadian border.

Randy Kaiser: "THEREFORE. SH is showing us all that losses to packing plants in the USA were not due to the closed border but rather tight supply in his own country and slim or negative margins at times. Ultimately packers, and especially Tyson and Cargill lost nothing on the American side of the border and profitted profusely on the Canadian side."

This is an absolute bonafide BOLD FACED LIE!

Boise and Pasco were running at 30% of capacity due to a lack of Canadian cattle. Those plants incurred huge losses due to a closed Canadian border.

If you don't think running at 30% of capacity would create a loss in packer profitabiliy you are unquestionably the biggest idiot that ever posted on this forum.


What is it with you Randy? You can't peg anything legitimate on me so you think you have to lie?

Randy Kaiser: "But simply falling into puppet mode like Jason Towbridge and the gopher trapper (although it doesn't matter much to the gopher trapper cause he isn't even in the industry) will simply allow for more control and power which neither one of you will ever convince anyone the Cargill and Tyson have."

Another lie!

I am and have been involved in every aspect of this industry at one time or another. From cow/calf to feeding to processing. I still own cows.

You're just showing your pathetic desperation Randy. You can't debate me on a factual merit so you resort to lying and I see the little ankle biter has joined you in one of your lies. I'm glad you guys have eachother because if you had to rely on your knowledge of this industry you wouldn't stand a chance.

Elementary: "Taylor tested his numbers and his theory over and over again."

Another BOLD FACED LIE!

Taylor testified in court that he had not tested his theories. You are so lost that you even contradict your own witnesses. What a complete phony you are.

Elementary: "If any of the appellate courts had reason to say the jury was wrong, they should have specifically stated that instead of LYING and saying that there was not a mere scintella of evidence."

There wasn't a scintella of evidence to support the jury's decision and Judge Strom explained the many reasons why. You just can't accept the truth because you are a packer blaming conspiracy theorist.

Elementary: "As far as your "soul mate" characterization goes, I have met Taylor only a few times and talked to him on the phone a few times. I haven't found anything that I should question regarding his reasoning, unlike you. I have read some of his other work and looked into the math. He has been right on all of things I have questioned him on and you have not."

Hahaha! As if you are qualified to judge. Give me a break!

Elementary: "As far as your "economic" theory that more efficient packing plants mean higher prices for producers instead of competition, YOU ARE WRONG. Packer efficiency compared to other packers is important for their profitabilty in a comparative sense but it does not mean that it increases producer prices. When packers have market power over producers it can mean that they get LESS money, as Pickett proved. Packers are BUYERS of cattle and SELLERS of processed beef. Those are two different things, in case you haven't noticed."

Oh, I suppose the Pickett plaintiffs would have received higher prices from a packer that needed a $40 per head margin to continue operations as opposed to the larger more efficient packers dropping their price as their needs were met??

Leave economics of the cattle/beef industry to someone who understands these things. You can't even grasp the most basic concepts of the economics of this industry.

Go back to the "question for Elementary" thread and committ to an explanation or do you feel the vice starting to squeeze the brown matter from between your ears? LOL!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Randy, answer this question honestly without running off on another of your thumbsucking packer blaming tangents. I'm not taking a position on whether it's good or bad. I'm simply asking your opinion. What is wrong with Tyson and Cargill owning 85% of the packing industry in Canada if they are in competition with eachother?

Now don't read more into that question and suggest that I said it was just fine. I'm simply asking what YOU BELIEVE the problem is with Tyson and Cargill owning 85% of the slaughter capacity in Canada if they are competing with eachother for the same cattle.

What is your point? Do you believe they not competitive with eachother? Are they making huge profits at your expense? Can you prove either? Do you believe more packers means more money for producers?

JUST EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POINT RANDY KAISER?????

 

[rkaiser]

Just like the two year old SH is, when he gets mad the names get worse. Liar Liar pants on fire.

Come on SH. Your statements are open for discussion just like everyone else on this board.

Just because you got caught and can't prove that Tyson and Cargill lost money in America due to the closed border, you do what. Form an opinion. Or are you out right lying. The plants in Boise could have switched to killing UTM's or brought in cattle from Mexico or the Ukraine, so your so called proof of the Canadian border being the cause of their losses is already another Lie.

Losses in American plants were die to a strong consumer demand for beef and a tight supply. The little bit that could have dribbled in from Canada means nothing, just as you have proven with higher prices and an OPEN border. I'm just agreeing with you SH. Does that mean that you are Lying.

SH

Randy is a packer blamer

That is an out right Lie SH. Randy has a different opinion in the area of trends in the industry than the old Gopher Trapper, plain and simple.

Time for you to once again suck your thumb SH. Just like the two year old that you are.

 

[rkaiser]

Sorry SH, you posted before I was finished.

My ideas on two mutinational packer owning 85% of the industry in Canada are obviously totally different than yours. It becomes an idiology issue, and I am not prepared to go there with you. If you support corporate welfare and top heavy industry control, I can't help that. It is your mind. If you truely think that competition is as good as it can be with two bidders, good for you, I DON"T. If you beleive that Cargill and Tyson have no influence over our governement policy, good for you, I DON"T.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Just because you got caught and can't prove that Tyson and Cargill lost money in America due to the closed border, you do what. Form an opinion."

I provided the absolute proof that Cargill and Tyson lost money in America. You're just too brainwashed to accept it.

Randy: "The plants in Boise could have switched to killing UTM's or brought in cattle from Mexico or the Ukraine, so your so called proof of the Canadian border being the cause of their losses is already another Lie."

Just listen to your own stupidity.

First, why would Boise need to switch to killing UTM's or bring in cattle from Mexico or the Ukraine (LOL!) if they were not losing money?

Great job shooting your foot off there wizard!

PERHAPS BOISE SHOULD HAVE CALLED YOU UP TO ASK YOU HOW TO KEEP FROM LOSING MONEY?????

Brought in cattle from Mexico or the Ukraine???? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

Boise doesn't BRING IN, THEY BUY AND THE FEEDER BRINGS IN. Do you suppose a feeder is going to absorb the cost of trucking fat cattle from Mexico to Boise? How ignorant can you possibly be?

Are you saying that Boise is not slaughtering UTM cattle now????

Answer the question Randy!

Randy Kaiser: "Losses in American plants were die to a strong consumer demand for beef and a tight supply. The little bit that could have dribbled in from Canada means nothing, just as you have proven with higher prices and an OPEN border. I'm just agreeing with you SH."

Losses in Boise and Pasco had everything to do with the border being closed. THEY WERE RUNNING AT 30% OF NORMAL CAPACITY!

How can you be so dense?

SH (previous): "Randy is a packer blamer"

Randy the packer blamer in response: "That is an out right Lie SH."

Your insignia said, "Packer blaming is fun". Now you lie about your own insignia?

You pathetic little man!


Why don't you answer my questions Randy? I asked them twice. Learning from Sandman and Elementary on how to make statements and divert questions huh?

Imagine that!


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Hey ther other pathetic little man.

How far is it from Peace River Alberta to Boise Idaho.

If Boise is killing UTM cattle, are you saying that they were dependent on cattle from Alberta to survive. You have your own country and your own cattle don't you.

Sorry I don't have time this morning for more SH. I'll right a good long one for you to tear to pieces later tonight.

 

[Anonymous]

RM: "That's easy...Tyson and Cargill did nothing to develop markets for Canadian beef other than opening the border wide enough to get their boxed beef through and then process as many devalued Canadian cattle as they could and sell the boxed beef into the high USA market place. A Canadian processor worth its salt would have implemented a protocol to sell beef to the Asian markets and others."

I knew there was no way that I could ask Randy kaiser what is wrong with Tyson and Cargill controlling 85% of Canada's packing industry without him and Sandman taking it as advocating that situation. I knew it. That's how their conspiring brains operate. I even offered a disclaimer trying to head off the inevitable to no avail.

Personally, I think an industry is much better served with the situation we have here in the states where we have 5 large efficient packers all competing for the same cattle and numerous level 2 packers with niche marketing schemes.

I'll agree with your basic premonition Robert that there is inefficiencies within the system regarding quality. I think some of the quality aspects of beef are not realized in the quest to move quantity. That is why I think we are better off in the U.S. than Canada would be if our industries were considered to be seperate. Personally, I don't think they are or need to be considered seperate.

My question to Randy really should have been reworded to ask, "If Canada had the slaughter capacity to match it's cattle herd, what would be wrong with Cargill and Tyson owning 85% of that slaughter capacity.

If there is one thing to be learned in this from Canada it is that the R-CULT isolationists will pull every dirty trick in the book out of their hats to stop Canadian imports so Canada needs to expand their slaughter capacity to accomodate the size of their herd. It's too bad it has to be that way.

It's obvious that nobody can compete with Cargill and Tyson from an efficiency standpoint but smaller packers can sacrifice some slaughter efficiency if they add enough value to the carcass. You are right about that Robert Mac.

RM: "I understand why you won't answer my question...it would blow your R-CALF biased statements to pieces!"

Hardly!

Your questions are simply irrelevant to the issue.

RM: "One other thing...all dollars in the industry come from the consumers, the bottle neck is between the producers and the consumers...AND THAT IS ALL THEY NEED TO CONTROL THE INDUSTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Tell that to the USPB investors!

Producers can control the bottleneck much easier than the packers. It won't be long and the packer blamers will be cussing the large producer owned packing plants.

This is all about Class Envy! The hatred towards large successful corporations. A staple in the Democratic party which R-CALF represents.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "My ideas on two mutinational packer owning 85% of the industry in Canada are obviously totally different than yours. It becomes an idiology issue, and I am not prepared to go there with you."

You certainly aren't!

Does Boise slaughter UTM cattle Randy, yes or no?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, For efficiency of scale to take place, the individual plant may need to be big, but the ownership of more than one plant does nothing to the efficiencies of scale. It does add to market power, however.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: ".....the ownership of more than one plant does nothing to the efficiencies of scale."

Who suggested it did?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: ".....the ownership of more than one plant does nothing to the efficiencies of scale."

Who suggested it did?


~SH~

Why do you support the concentration in the industry then? It only leads to market power.