NCBA&RFDTV
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam said:
Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not R-CALF will pay a dime or more in damages?
A
Anonymous
Guest
R-CULT does not speak for this industry!
You cannot maintain a voice for the majority of producers based on lies.
~SH~
You cannot maintain a voice for the majority of producers based on lies.
~SH~
Haymaker, be carefull! Spending too much time in fantasy land is harmful to a person. NCBA membership and directors are about 2/3 cow calf producers, and just under 1/3 cattle feeders, with a few "others" in the mix.
It is interesting that you could find nothing of substance from that program to complain about.
Wasn't it interesting that the R-CALF member from WY who called in claimed that Canada does not have a feed ban in place? She sounded very surprised when she was told that Canada most certainly DOES have a feed ban and that their protections are very much the same as ours and that Canadian beef is exactly the same as beef produced in the USA.
Bringing out the fact that our prices are due to consumer demand, not closure of the Canadian border so live cattle imports. Also noted was that last year we imported beef from many countries in larger amounts than ever, yet still had the highest prices.
The Bush Administration is working and doing all they can to expedite trade with Japan. Jamie Willrett pointed out that the Japanese find it more difficult to cope with their peoples' concern about the science when people in the cattle industry in our country are saying things contrary to the best science re. BSE.
Re. CAFTA, how many on this site knew that those countries already are sending beef to this country with NO tariff? Or knew that under CAFTA those countries will, over time eliminate their tariffs on our beef? They need top quality USA beef for their tourist trade.
BTW, only yesterday morning, I heard Johnny Smith make his perpetual claim that people in those CAFTA nations have no money. FACT: per capita income in Costa Rica is $9100.00 annually. In Mexico it is $9,000.00 annually. Sure is a far cry from "one or two dollars a day" that JS says is all those people earn. Their populations are growing. Most growth is in their cities, and their incomes are increasing. Sounds like a fair trade deal when the tariffs we pay are dropping for a change. Looking at who is opposing it is interesting, too.
MRJ
It is interesting that you could find nothing of substance from that program to complain about.
Wasn't it interesting that the R-CALF member from WY who called in claimed that Canada does not have a feed ban in place? She sounded very surprised when she was told that Canada most certainly DOES have a feed ban and that their protections are very much the same as ours and that Canadian beef is exactly the same as beef produced in the USA.
Bringing out the fact that our prices are due to consumer demand, not closure of the Canadian border so live cattle imports. Also noted was that last year we imported beef from many countries in larger amounts than ever, yet still had the highest prices.
The Bush Administration is working and doing all they can to expedite trade with Japan. Jamie Willrett pointed out that the Japanese find it more difficult to cope with their peoples' concern about the science when people in the cattle industry in our country are saying things contrary to the best science re. BSE.
Re. CAFTA, how many on this site knew that those countries already are sending beef to this country with NO tariff? Or knew that under CAFTA those countries will, over time eliminate their tariffs on our beef? They need top quality USA beef for their tourist trade.
BTW, only yesterday morning, I heard Johnny Smith make his perpetual claim that people in those CAFTA nations have no money. FACT: per capita income in Costa Rica is $9100.00 annually. In Mexico it is $9,000.00 annually. Sure is a far cry from "one or two dollars a day" that JS says is all those people earn. Their populations are growing. Most growth is in their cities, and their incomes are increasing. Sounds like a fair trade deal when the tariffs we pay are dropping for a change. Looking at who is opposing it is interesting, too.
MRJ
Re. CAFTA, how many on this site knew that those countries already are sending beef to this country with NO tariff? Or knew that under CAFTA those countries will, over time eliminate their tariffs on our beef?
I think everyone knew that MRJ.
Did you know MRJ CAFTA only grants immediate access to these countries for prime cuts like porterhouses and filet mignon?
I think everyone knew that MRJ.
Did you know MRJ CAFTA only grants immediate access to these countries for prime cuts like porterhouses and filet mignon?
rancher said:
How is it bad to have immediate tariff free access for the prime cuts which have a 40% tariff rate?
Cutting the rates, ranging from 10 to 30% over a period of time beats no cuts, doesn't it?
Remember, these are countries that ALREADY export to us duty free.
These are countries that currently are buying $12.5 million worth of beef and beef variety meat exports from us. Wouldn't it be great to increase that amount AND have it be at free or reduced tariffs to boot?
With the USA at about 4% of world population, doesn't it make sense to improve business and trade relations, with better access for our products in those developing and countries with increasing incomes?
MRJ
MRJ,with the poverty level that exists in central America its obvious who stands to gain from CAFTA.Most of those folks cant afford shoes much less a good piece of beef.Packers want CAFTA they have already started construction on facilities there,they are the ones that will capitalize on cheap labor,land & beef ship it to the UNITED STATES with the good ole USDA stamp and pocket the profit at the expense of the AMERICAN & CANADIAN cattle man.Thats the reason we need M COOL,not CAFTA...........good luck
Cal
Well-known member
Beef from the US will be able to be exported without a tarriff, under CAFTA. Beef from Central America is already freely allowed into the states, as I understand it.HAY MAKER said:
There is no market for beef in central america,packers want this free trade agreement in place so they can be assured of profits,they know without an agreement they are at risk to import beef into the UNITED STATES the cafta agreement will give them security and without M COOL they will be well on there way of suppling the AMERICAN housewife beef from central AMERICA..............good luck PS the market for beef is right here in the good ole USA.When cafta is passed and packers get their plants built and running at capacity it will be plain to see who wanted cafta,and the NCBA is helping them.
Tommy
Well-known member
mj...FACT: per capita income in Costa Rica is $9100.00 annually. In Mexico it is $9,000.00 annually. Sure is a far cry from "one or two dollars a day" that JS says is all those people earn.
What does Mexico have to do with CAFTA mj?
Lou Dobbs....The White House, however, couldn't find the votes for this so-called free trade agreement before his re-election in the fall, and the president likely doesn't have the votes for it now. And that's a good thing for American workers.
CAFTA advocates say the agreement would open up free trade between the United States and the Dominican Republic and five countries in Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
But this agreement represents the same free trade at all costs policy that has led to a 70 percent increase in the trade deficit since 2001. We're not signing trade agreements to open new markets for our exports. Instead we're continuing to enter into outsourcing agreements with countries that cannot possibly buy our goods.
If you add up the gross domestic products of the six CAFTA economies, the total market comes to about $85 billion, according to the latest available figures. That's only slightly larger than the economy of New Haven, Connecticut and less than a fifth of the size of New York City. As such, expanding trade with this bloc cannot possibly be a serious growth driver for the $11 trillion U.S. economy.
The CAFTA trading partners are simply too poor and too small to serve as major consumer markets for anything made in America, if indeed we still are manufacturing anything in this country. But with 40 percent of workers in Central America earning less than $2 a day, CAFTA will pit the working poor of these countries against American workers, especially textile workers and small farmers. U.S. multinationals don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to keeping jobs at home in the face of cheaper labor overseas.
More than 35 percent of all U.S. goods exports to the six CAFTA countries consist of turnaround exports, which are unfinished textile, apparel and other materials that are not ultimately consumed in these countries. These "round-trip" imports are assembled by low-wage workers and exported right back to the American marketplace.
As a result, U.S. exports to CAFTA countries generally produce greater imports to our market, which further swells the worsening record trade deficit. In fact, turnaround exports have contributed to the U.S. trade deficit with the six CAFTA nations rising by nearly 60 percent from 1997-2004, according to the U.S. Business & Industry Council.
And at least three of the six CAFTA countries are in such a weak financial position they couldn't possibly boost imports. The Dominican Republic is currently receiving a $665 million standby loan from the International Monetary Fund to help the country emerge from its economic crisis of 2003. The program is set to last until mid-2007, and the country will be under pressure to increase exports and curb imports. Unless, of course, those imports are turnaround imports that are shipped right back into the U.S. market.
Honduras and Nicaragua are also receiving special debt relief from the IMF because of their great indebtedness and high poverty rates. While they're not austerity programs like the Dominican Republic's, neither country has much capacity to sharply increase net imports.
"Americans know a bad trade deal when they see one," says Ernest Baynard, executive director of Americans for Fair Trade. "They've already had to live through one for 10 years under NAFTA."
U.S. workers have lost nearly 900,000 jobs as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement, most of them in the higher-paying manufacturing sector, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
But NAFTA's effects are even more evident in our exploding trade deficit. Exports to Canada and Mexico have more than doubled since 1993, but imports to our neighboring countries have risen by 173 percent, from $151 billion to $412 billion. As a result, the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned from $9.1 billion in 1993 to $110.8 billion last year.
CAFTA may bring lower prices to consumers, but it would most likely lead to more jobs being shipped to cheap foreign labor markets. And a new poll on CAFTA shows American consumers do not want to give up their jobs for lower prices, according to the nonprofit organization Americans for Fair Trade. In fact, 74 percent of those polled said they would oppose CAFTA if it reduces consumer prices but eliminates jobs for American workers.
"The only people who stand to gain from CAFTA," Baynard adds, "are people who are offshoring jobs already or want to offshore jobs."
That is something we simply cannot afford. Working Americans know all too well the high cost of free trade. I can only hope Congress has learned that lesson as well.
What does Mexico have to do with CAFTA mj?
Lou Dobbs....The White House, however, couldn't find the votes for this so-called free trade agreement before his re-election in the fall, and the president likely doesn't have the votes for it now. And that's a good thing for American workers.
CAFTA advocates say the agreement would open up free trade between the United States and the Dominican Republic and five countries in Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
But this agreement represents the same free trade at all costs policy that has led to a 70 percent increase in the trade deficit since 2001. We're not signing trade agreements to open new markets for our exports. Instead we're continuing to enter into outsourcing agreements with countries that cannot possibly buy our goods.
If you add up the gross domestic products of the six CAFTA economies, the total market comes to about $85 billion, according to the latest available figures. That's only slightly larger than the economy of New Haven, Connecticut and less than a fifth of the size of New York City. As such, expanding trade with this bloc cannot possibly be a serious growth driver for the $11 trillion U.S. economy.
The CAFTA trading partners are simply too poor and too small to serve as major consumer markets for anything made in America, if indeed we still are manufacturing anything in this country. But with 40 percent of workers in Central America earning less than $2 a day, CAFTA will pit the working poor of these countries against American workers, especially textile workers and small farmers. U.S. multinationals don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to keeping jobs at home in the face of cheaper labor overseas.
More than 35 percent of all U.S. goods exports to the six CAFTA countries consist of turnaround exports, which are unfinished textile, apparel and other materials that are not ultimately consumed in these countries. These "round-trip" imports are assembled by low-wage workers and exported right back to the American marketplace.
As a result, U.S. exports to CAFTA countries generally produce greater imports to our market, which further swells the worsening record trade deficit. In fact, turnaround exports have contributed to the U.S. trade deficit with the six CAFTA nations rising by nearly 60 percent from 1997-2004, according to the U.S. Business & Industry Council.
And at least three of the six CAFTA countries are in such a weak financial position they couldn't possibly boost imports. The Dominican Republic is currently receiving a $665 million standby loan from the International Monetary Fund to help the country emerge from its economic crisis of 2003. The program is set to last until mid-2007, and the country will be under pressure to increase exports and curb imports. Unless, of course, those imports are turnaround imports that are shipped right back into the U.S. market.
Honduras and Nicaragua are also receiving special debt relief from the IMF because of their great indebtedness and high poverty rates. While they're not austerity programs like the Dominican Republic's, neither country has much capacity to sharply increase net imports.
"Americans know a bad trade deal when they see one," says Ernest Baynard, executive director of Americans for Fair Trade. "They've already had to live through one for 10 years under NAFTA."
U.S. workers have lost nearly 900,000 jobs as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement, most of them in the higher-paying manufacturing sector, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
But NAFTA's effects are even more evident in our exploding trade deficit. Exports to Canada and Mexico have more than doubled since 1993, but imports to our neighboring countries have risen by 173 percent, from $151 billion to $412 billion. As a result, the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned from $9.1 billion in 1993 to $110.8 billion last year.
CAFTA may bring lower prices to consumers, but it would most likely lead to more jobs being shipped to cheap foreign labor markets. And a new poll on CAFTA shows American consumers do not want to give up their jobs for lower prices, according to the nonprofit organization Americans for Fair Trade. In fact, 74 percent of those polled said they would oppose CAFTA if it reduces consumer prices but eliminates jobs for American workers.
"The only people who stand to gain from CAFTA," Baynard adds, "are people who are offshoring jobs already or want to offshore jobs."
That is something we simply cannot afford. Working Americans know all too well the high cost of free trade. I can only hope Congress has learned that lesson as well.
"Tommy said:
MRJ: Sure sounds like a typical liberal/ Democrat/Union viewpoint! Can't we recognize that the world is going to change, that we need to improve our educational levels of our lowest paid workers (including instilling in them the desire and belief that they should and need to prepare and educate themselves for better paying work); that we need to push our political leaders to make good trade pacts, and that the world isn't going to stand still, keeping those "two dollar a day workers" in their place; people working for justice in the world and our government need to partner up to push the extremely wealthy top rung in those poorest nations into sharing more of the wealth with their people and stop keeping them so impoverished.
MRJ
Tommy
Well-known member
MRJ: Sure sounds like a typical liberal/ Democrat/Union viewpoint! Can't we recognize that the world is going to change, that we need to improve our educational levels of our lowest paid workers (including instilling in them the desire and belief that they should and need to prepare and educate themselves for better paying work); that we need to push our political leaders to make good trade pacts, and that the world isn't going to stand still, keeping those "two dollar a day workers" in their place; people working for justice in the world and our government need to partner up to push the extremely wealthy top rung in those poorest nations into sharing more of the wealth with their people and stop keeping them so impoverished.
NAFTA has Been a Big Flop
by Mark Weisbrot
NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?
In last week's Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, NAFTA, now almost 10 years old, was being put forth as a success story by the World Bank and other international organizations.
But that is much too generous. The fundamental measure by which economists evaluate the success or failure of economic policy is the growth of income per person. This ignores distribution; but from a purely economic point of view, if the economy grows, there is at least the possibility that everyone can improve their living standards.
By that measure, NAFTA is a terrible economic failure. From 1994 through 2003, the Mexican economy has grown by only 11 percent per person. This is less than one-fourth the rate of growth that Mexico experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the relevant economic comparison for anyone who wants to evaluate Mexico's experience with NAFTA.
Of course, the reforms embodied in NAFTA did not begin in 1994 - they started in the early 1980s. But if we take the longer view, it looks even worse: From 1980 to the present, income per person in Mexico has grown by about 19 percent. This compares to 93 percent for the 1960-1979 (somewhat shorter) period. In other words, there is no economic evidence that the NAFTA model is a success.
In fact it appears that past performance, when the Mexican government had a much larger role in the economy, was much more successful - in spite of any inefficiencies. The same is true for the region as a whole. Replacing development policy with a mere opening up of the economy to international trade and investment, as NAFTA and CAFTA seek to do, simply has not worked. Many Latin American leaders are aware of this problem, and they are also aware of the growing discontent with the region's long-term economic failure.
These agreements have also lowered wages and salaries for the majority of U.S. employees, as even the research of pro-trade economists clearly demonstrates. After 40 consecutive months of manufacturing job losses, some Republican strategists are wondering aloud whether they want to try to squeeze this agreement through Congress in an election year. They might ask President Bush: NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?
NAFTA has Been a Big Flop
by Mark Weisbrot
NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?
In last week's Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, NAFTA, now almost 10 years old, was being put forth as a success story by the World Bank and other international organizations.
But that is much too generous. The fundamental measure by which economists evaluate the success or failure of economic policy is the growth of income per person. This ignores distribution; but from a purely economic point of view, if the economy grows, there is at least the possibility that everyone can improve their living standards.
By that measure, NAFTA is a terrible economic failure. From 1994 through 2003, the Mexican economy has grown by only 11 percent per person. This is less than one-fourth the rate of growth that Mexico experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the relevant economic comparison for anyone who wants to evaluate Mexico's experience with NAFTA.
Of course, the reforms embodied in NAFTA did not begin in 1994 - they started in the early 1980s. But if we take the longer view, it looks even worse: From 1980 to the present, income per person in Mexico has grown by about 19 percent. This compares to 93 percent for the 1960-1979 (somewhat shorter) period. In other words, there is no economic evidence that the NAFTA model is a success.
In fact it appears that past performance, when the Mexican government had a much larger role in the economy, was much more successful - in spite of any inefficiencies. The same is true for the region as a whole. Replacing development policy with a mere opening up of the economy to international trade and investment, as NAFTA and CAFTA seek to do, simply has not worked. Many Latin American leaders are aware of this problem, and they are also aware of the growing discontent with the region's long-term economic failure.
These agreements have also lowered wages and salaries for the majority of U.S. employees, as even the research of pro-trade economists clearly demonstrates. After 40 consecutive months of manufacturing job losses, some Republican strategists are wondering aloud whether they want to try to squeeze this agreement through Congress in an election year. They might ask President Bush: NAFTA, CAFTA, do we hafta?
RobertMac
Well-known member
The parent company of Taco Bell came out in favor of CAFTA because they felt it would reduce their input cost...we are one of their input providers. Can you connect the dots?????
Agman tells us that one of the main factors driving beef demand is increased disposable income coming from an improved USA economy. When do you think the people in these countries will reach an equal level of income to afford our beef at our prices? Do you think the resort industry in these countries aren't serving quality beef now and there is a market just waiting to be filled? The benefit for the beef industry is in moving product that can't be sold here.
Fact is, global trade is coming because it is cheaper to ship product half way around the world than half way across this country. The first step in competing(and our only chance) is in TRUTH IN LABELING!!!!!
Agman tells us that one of the main factors driving beef demand is increased disposable income coming from an improved USA economy. When do you think the people in these countries will reach an equal level of income to afford our beef at our prices? Do you think the resort industry in these countries aren't serving quality beef now and there is a market just waiting to be filled? The benefit for the beef industry is in moving product that can't be sold here.
Fact is, global trade is coming because it is cheaper to ship product half way around the world than half way across this country. The first step in competing(and our only chance) is in TRUTH IN LABELING!!!!!
RobertMac
Well-known member
I DO!!!! 
