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

OCM Says USDA's Economic Analysis A Spin Tool

Help Support Ranchers.net:

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
OCM Says USDA's Economic Analysis A Spin Tool



Lincoln, NE ~ The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) is helping prepare an amicus brief supporting the preliminary injunction sought by R-CALF USA and ordered by a federal district court in Billings, Montana. OCM Economics Fellow, Dr. Robert Taylor, analyzed USDA’s economic impact statement on the rule. Dr. Taylor concluded USDA has no basis to state consumers will benefit and that USDA engaged in deception by labeling meat packers as consumers.



"USDA’s economic analysis claims significant benefits to consumers and almost equal losses to ‘producers.’ But USDA’s ‘consumers’ are really meat packers,” said Taylor, who is an agricultural economist at Auburn University. “The USDA rationale apparently is that meat packers consume cattle. But this mislabeling is deceptive and contrary to basic economics. Consumers are end-users of beef. They are individual people. Meat packers are mere economic intermediaries, not consumers. Producers are ranchers and feeders who grow the cattle.”



“The government has no basis to predict any benefit to true consumers,” continued Taylor. “The extreme concentration in the meat packing and retail supermarket sectors compels a conclusion end-use consumers are unlikely to benefit from the Minimal Risk Rule. USDA economists have admitted, in sworn court declarations, they have no basis to estimate whether end-use consumers will benefit.”



"When the entire analysis is boiled down, the primary economic result is a transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers,” said Taylor. “There is essentially no benefit to society from a mere wealth transfer. The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, which sets standards for regulatory cost/benefit analysis, instructs agencies to exclude these transfer payments because there ‘are no economic gains from a pure transfer payment because the benefits to those who receive such a transfer are matched by the costs borne by those who pay for it.’” USDA's own economic analysis showed a net benefit to society of only 5 cents per person annually.



“Therefore the only conclusion possible from the USDA economic impact statement on the border reopening rule is that a massive transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers will occur. No benefit to end-use consumers was or can be shown,” concluded Taylor.
 

Bull Burger

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Fruited Plains of western SD
PORKER said:
OCM Says USDA's Economic Analysis A Spin Tool



Lincoln, NE ~ The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) ........... Dr. Taylor concluded USDA has no basis to state consumers will benefit and that USDA engaged in deception by labeling meat packers as consumers.



"But USDA’s ‘consumers’ are really meat packers,” ....... Meat packers are mere economic intermediaries, not consumers.



............economic result is a transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers,” said Taylor.

........border reopening rule is that a massive transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers will occur. .............” concluded Taylor.


Another "load of crap" from our socialist friends at OCM (Omnipresent Criminals of Mainstream).

Do we strip all profits from the "evil packers" and let cattle producers benefit?
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Without packers cattle producers are nothing. You can't eat an animal with the hide still on it. Need to get it processed and in a box. Packer bashers shouldnt be able to ship their cattle to a packer. This organization is no more than a R-sick spin off!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Bull Burger said:
PORKER said:
OCM Says USDA's Economic Analysis A Spin Tool



Lincoln, NE ~ The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) ........... Dr. Taylor concluded USDA has no basis to state consumers will benefit and that USDA engaged in deception by labeling meat packers as consumers.



"But USDA’s ‘consumers’ are really meat packers,” ....... Meat packers are mere economic intermediaries, not consumers.



............economic result is a transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers,” said Taylor.

........border reopening rule is that a massive transfer of wealth from cattle producers to meat packers will occur. .............” concluded Taylor.


Another "load of crap" from our socialist friends at OCM (Omnipresent Criminals of Mainstream).

Do we strip all profits from the "evil packers" and let cattle producers benefit?

All profits? These figures were posted a while back, I think it said Tyson was making about $9 million per day net profit, for the last few years. No, we don't need to strip all profits, there's enough to go around if it only would.
 

Bull Burger

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Fruited Plains of western SD
Mike said:
.........I think it said Tyson was making about $9 million per day net profit, for the last few years. No, we don't need to strip all profits, there's enough to go around if it only would.


Hey Mike, like I always say: If you don't like what they pay, don't sell to them.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Bull Burger said:
Mike said:
.........I think it said Tyson was making about $9 million per day net profit, for the last few years. No, we don't need to strip all profits, there's enough to go around if it only would.


Hey Mike, like I always say: If you don't like what they pay, don't sell to them.

I don't because Tyson don't bid against Excel for the grid prices on cattle at the feedyard I usually use. It's pretty much a "take it or leave it" type deal nowadays for the grid.
 

Latest posts

Top