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

NCBA- In Bed with Packers- STILL/AGAIN

A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBA again crawls in bed with the multinational corporate packers- and continuing the consolidation of the agriculture industry...

I guess they are plumb happy with JBS/Pilgrims Pride type deals continuing.... :???:


NCBA Opposes Government Intrusion in the Marketplace



The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is urging the Senate to oppose an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to the fiscal 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that would require the Department of Justice (DoJ) to expand oversight efforts of competition within the agriculture industry.



"DoJ already has ample authority to investigate antitrust violations in the agriculture sector," said Colin Woodall, NCBA executive director of legislative affairs. "Expanding these efforts would be a purely political move to redirect their resource-allocation choices. Asymmetric price transmission in agriculture has already undergone thorough review in the private sector; there is no need for a taxpayer-funded version."



NCBA is also opposed to language in the amendments that calls for DoJ to place "an emphasis on asymmetric price transmission from the retail to farm level." When DoJ enforces antitrust law in the agriculture business, it should do so according to antitrust doctrine in its entirety; it is inappropriate to place greater emphasis on any one factor than called for under the law.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
NCBA again crawls in bed with the multinational corporate packers- and continuing the consolidation of the agriculture industry...

I guess they are plumb happy with JBS/Pilgrims Pride type deals continuing.... :???:


NCBA Opposes Government Intrusion in the Marketplace



The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is urging the Senate to oppose an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to the fiscal 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that would require the Department of Justice (DoJ) to expand oversight efforts of competition within the agriculture industry.



"DoJ already has ample authority to investigate antitrust violations in the agriculture sector," said Colin Woodall, NCBA executive director of legislative affairs. "Expanding these efforts would be a purely political move to redirect their resource-allocation choices. Asymmetric price transmission in agriculture has already undergone thorough review in the private sector; there is no need for a taxpayer-funded version."



NCBA is also opposed to language in the amendments that calls for DoJ to place "an emphasis on asymmetric price transmission from the retail to farm level." When DoJ enforces antitrust law in the agriculture business, it should do so according to antitrust doctrine in its entirety; it is inappropriate to place greater emphasis on any one factor than called for under the law.


Anyone supporting the NCBA who raises cattle should question the leadership on this. Packers are running the NCBA and this is a perfect example. Mrj, what say ye?

The packers have privately approved asymmetric price transmission. They want to buy as low as they can and sell as high as they can. It is the result of a noncompetitive market.


Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I stole some figures off another site that CANFAX put up-- in 1999 producers were making 24% share of the retail price of beef--Today that is 16%....I'm sure since Canada operates basicly off US market figures for then and now it can't be that much different....

BUT good old NCBA keeps supporting the Tysons/Cargills/JBS-Brazils-and further monopolistic vertical integration- and that keep taking any profit they make (so thier auditors make it look like they are losing money) and investing in more feedlots and Packing Plants in Brazil, Australia, Argentina, etc. etc.-or buying up other meat/protein source plants- and daily move us closer to the chicken/hog contracts they want.....
Canada is closer to a one packer/feeder system- the rest of these boys have their eye set on doing the same world wide and trying to educate the consumer to that idea of good generic "meat"....
Then they can feed the world with their generic "meat" from wherever is cheapest on whatever given day -- and the consumer be damned to where- or what- it comes from...
 

mrj

Well-known member
Investigation after investigation has shown the accusations of price fixing via forward contracting to be fictional accounts.

That won't stop Feingold and others from attempting ever more reguation to end private enterprise one way or another.

Who knows what is tripping Grassleys' chain on this issue???? Politics of re-election would be a fair guess.

I think the leaders of NCBA are quite able to hold their own in conversations with any other segment of the industry and do fairly represent US cattle produers.

Some producers realize that the industry from one end to the other is better served by working together where we can than by indulging in lying, litigation, and lalaland fantasies of USDA "bureaucrats" being "paid off under the table". They generally are NOT members of R-CALF.

Further, they do realize the fact that we produce at least twice the beef as in the 1950's with half the number of cows. That does have an effect, along with the 'Obamanomics' we now suffer under.

Sorry if my patience is short today. I'm recovering from two surgeries last week.......and will be fine soon as the radiation pills kill off any possible Thyroid cancer cells lurking in my system....complete recovery is the prognosis, but the bruises are biting right now.

mrj
 

PORKER

Well-known member
They now have a working wool mill not only creating yarn from the fine wool of the area but also custom processing for growers. Mountain Meadow wool returns 10% of the sale of finished products back to their select group of ranchers. These ranchers are compensated at or above the current auction price of equivalent wool types.

So what is holding up the packers from paying 10% of their profits back to the cow-calf ranchers?
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Investigation after investigation has shown the accusations of price fixing via forward contracting to be fictional accounts.

That won't stop Feingold and others from attempting ever more reguation to end private enterprise one way or another.

Who knows what is tripping Grassleys' chain on this issue???? Politics of re-election would be a fair guess.

I think the leaders of NCBA are quite able to hold their own in conversations with any other segment of the industry and do fairly represent US cattle produers.

Some producers realize that the industry from one end to the other is better served by working together where we can than by indulging in lying, litigation, and lalaland fantasies of USDA "bureaucrats" being "paid off under the table". They generally are NOT members of R-CALF.

Further, they do realize the fact that we produce at least twice the beef as in the 1950's with half the number of cows. That does have an effect, along with the 'Obamanomics' we now suffer under.

Sorry if my patience is short today. I'm recovering from two surgeries last week.......and will be fine soon as the radiation pills kill off any possible Thyroid cancer cells lurking in my system....complete recovery is the prognosis, but the bruises are biting right now.

mrj

Mrj, I hope you have a quick recovery from your surgeries. My wife had a thyroid tumor removed a few decades ago and has had no problems since that we can tell. I hope you have just as successful of a recovery. I sure hope that all cancer cells are taken out with your radiation therapy and you will be in our prayers for this and your health issues. Good health trumps almost anything and I wish you well with your medical care.

I don't think Grassley is out for pure politics on this issue but we never really know what is going on in our politician's heads, do we? We only hear what they say. I tend to disagree with your "work with" attitude with packers because it has been proven to me that they will use misinformation and lack of transparency to their goals in the "competition" game and how they deal with producers. You may have your own experiences which differ, but we all view the world from our own point of view. I would be interested in the "lying" you mention. I don't think that there are many bureaucrats getting "paid under the table" unless it comes from the revolving door or other perks for agreeing with packer scams. You will have to admit that in the Schumaker case that the USDA was incompetent and packers benefited from that incompetence. If it was not incompetence, then it was corruption, with whatever influences that entails. Some people cater to money and power like it was a god. You have to admit to that at least.

Like I said, I wish you well with your health issues.

Tex
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
PORKER said:
They now have a working wool mill not only creating yarn from the fine wool of the area but also custom processing for growers. Mountain Meadow wool returns 10% of the sale of finished products back to their select group of ranchers. These ranchers are compensated at or above the current auction price of equivalent wool types.

So what is holding up the packers from paying 10% of their profits back to the cow-calf ranchers?

SH said the more the packers make, the more they can pass back to us. I'm wondering if they pay more than 10% back already?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
PORKER said:
They now have a working wool mill not only creating yarn from the fine wool of the area but also custom processing for growers. Mountain Meadow wool returns 10% of the sale of finished products back to their select group of ranchers. These ranchers are compensated at or above the current auction price of equivalent wool types.

So what is holding up the packers from paying 10% of their profits back to the cow-calf ranchers?

SH said the more the packers make, the more they can pass back to us. I'm wondering if they pay more than 10% back already?

The packers want people (and judges) to get "can" and "do" mixed up. Of course in reality they get away with anything they can without the "doing" that some attribute to them.


Tex
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex,thank you for your kind words. I do feel confident of the outcome of this cancer bout. My concern, which I plan to investigate, is that I had breast cancer 7 years ago and may have been overconfident of predictions for the success of my treatments then, and didn't insist on strong repeat checks for anything further.

Sorry for any confusion. I was hurrying too much. The "lying" is referencing things I've heard on radio against the Beef Checkoff, NCBA and others in the very recent past, and some are in print again this past week.

The "paid under the table" is accusations some people have made on this site and elsewhere as the obvious or apparent reason some leaders and/or regulators at USDA and elsewhere are not stopping packers from operating as they do, and just about any other perceived 'ills' of the cattle industry 'they' blame on the packers, NCBA, or others they think are stealing their lunch when they don't get the prices they want for bawling calves weaned on trucks to market.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Old Timer: "NCBA again crawls in bed with the multinational corporate packers- and continuing the consolidation of the agriculture industry..."

This is just like the communist packer ban OT. You think stopping mergers is good for the industry. You think breaking up the large packers would be good for the industry. The problem is, you can't support either position with any facts.

Why stop a merger just because you THINK it will be harmful? I know for an absolute fact that the smaller less efficient packers that were replaced by today's large packers could not pay you as much money for fat cattle as the larger packers OR THEY WOULD STILL BE IN BUSINESS. Why should I allow you to force producers to take less for their fat cattle just because you need someone to blame for lower prices???

So at what point does WANTING TO BELIEVE SOMETHING carry more weight than what the facts will support?

At what point does a company become too big?? Should I stop you from buying your neighbors ranch if you want to expand??? You socialists that think that every large corporation is evil sicken me. City money is buying up ranches for recreational purposes with no intent on having cattle make the payments and you are worried about competition in the packing industry???

If NCBA opposes a bill to stop large corporations from merging, it's because there is no evidence to support that particular merger being bad for livestock producers.

You call it "being in bed with" simply because some producers don't buy into your baseless conspiracy theories.

Say what you will OT but I'm glad I don't have to sell fat cattle in the inefficient packing world you would create.

"Punish achievement - regulate prosperity" that's the packer blamers battle cry.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Old Timer: "NCBA again crawls in bed with the multinational corporate packers- and continuing the consolidation of the agriculture industry..."

This is just like the communist packer ban OT. You think stopping mergers is good for the industry. You think breaking up the large packers would be good for the industry. The problem is, you can't support either position with any facts.




~SH~

Well ~SH~-- you ask the Canadians what "vertical integration" - leaving them to one or two packers- that also control a majority of the feeding industry have done for them :???:

Or remind me how 20 years of failure to enforce antitrust laws- and industry rules and regs (like the PSA was set up to do) has done for the country- with banks, investment companies, and insurance industries all running rampant raping and pillaging- and becoming "too big to fail"....

Yep - bigger, better, faster- with no regulation has really done us well :roll: :(

BUSH BUST- is the only result I've seen......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Great job defending your position again Sandhusker!!

The way you roll out those facts to support your views is impressive to say the least.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Same-O Same-O factually defenseless you!


OT,

Like always, you throw out your arguments as if you could actually support them with documented facts. I'm so sure you have all sorts of facts to support your position on how 2 large packing companies in Canada is the basis for the cattle market in Canada.

How ironic that you want to shut Canadian cattle producers out of the US market then blame the large packers in Canada for their market situation when they have historically relied on the US market. Hahaha! The hypocrisy never ends.

Hey, just something for you to think about OT, not like it's going to do any good, if Canada has historically relied on the packing industry in the US to process much of their cattle and YOU were successful in shutting them off of access to that processing capacity, wouldn't that leave the processing capacity in Canada with more cattle than processing capacity??? Wouldn't you be responsible for the packer leverage in Canada???

Sorry, didn't mean to throw logic your way when you are so engrained in your packer blame.

What I wouldn't give to watch you try to defend your views in a court of law where facts matter. That would truly be worth watching.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top