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

OK Sandhusker, here's the dadada deal!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tommy,I hope you have'nt missed the fact that,there are times that you are really reading Mr Tam's posts :wink: ................good luck
 
Tommy,

Here's how "cheesy" Sandhusker's win is:

Sandman (from above post): "Tam, the bet was that he could prove his statement."

That was not the bet Tommy!

My statement involved the entire time period that the border was closed not just calendar year 2004.

In my mind, I committed to calendar year 2004 in the bet and I know that in calendar year 2004, the losses in Pasco and Boise did not offset the gains in Brooks (Lakeside) and that is why I lost the bet. I have a conscience.

The losses in Pasco and Boise were greater than the gains in Brooks for the entire period of time that the border was closed. If the bet was as Sandman said above, to prove my statement, I never lost THAT BET.

I could easily grab this statement and avoid paying the $100 but I know that I agreed to calendar 2004 and so does Agman so I'm going to pay it.

As you can plainly see, the bet in Sandman's mind revolved around my original statement that he called a lie but he'll take the money and claim victory anyway because that's the kind of person he is.



~SH~
 
Sandhusker said:
Fedup, I am going to send it to a place that is trying to help EVERY rancher in the US: R-CALF.

And they keep rolling down hill like a snowball headed for Hell...

you could flush it down the toilet with better results.

better yet go buy some cheese for your whine :lol2:

this is the diretion of RCALF :arrow: AND :arrow: then they :cry2: I wish they would just :stop: and seek :help:
 
You're so proud aren't you SH. You simply got yourself caught in a time frame thing. Come on. Everyone knows the dates and times of everything here.

May 20 - Border closed.

Sept. (not sure the date) Border miraculously opens to boxed beef.

Within days, the salmon run starts. Cargill and Tyson have an extreme over supply of cattle and are able to price the cattle with excessive profit in their pockets.

A few ups and downs as the battle over the border looms, and Rcalf rears it's ugly protectionist (second) head.

Rcalf's lawyers heat up the battle with threats and then injuntions. Prices bounce up and down with speculation but never once see losses for Cargill and Tyson in Alberta.

March 2005 sees a spike to a near fair basis as the open border date looms.

Rcalf stikes the blow and Cargill and Tyson cash in with another round of price declines.

Border opens and still the spread is plenty for profit.

BUT SH is stuck on the fact that he has PROOF that the losses in the US plants exceeded the gains in Canada. HOG WASH.

Give it a break SH. This one is over. Pay Sandhusker and go pick your nose for a while. :roll:
 
Randy: "BUT SH is stuck on the fact that he has PROOF that the losses in the US plants exceeded the gains in Canada. HOG WASH."

You're wrong!

Tyson's own financial records showed Lakesides profits at near breakeven levels during Dec. 2004.

You're just stuck in your blame with nothing to support your position.

Go suck your thumb.


~SH~
 
BUT SH is stuck on the fact that he has PROOF that the losses in the US plants exceeded the gains in Canada. HOG WASH.

Prove it :wink:
 
SH said:
Tyson's own financial records showed Lakesides profits at near breakeven levels during Dec. 2004.

Isn't that why Tyson has accountants and tax lawyers...to show profits at "near breakeven"? Isn't it profits that are taxed?
 
I suppose you think Tyson is lying to their investors too huh?

Sure don't want potential investors to think their making a profit huh? LOL!

Better check for those scope reflections again on those distant hills Robert.

"They're coming to take you away ho ho he he...to the funny farm, that's where you'll be"



~SH~
 
SH, your childish antics are really wearing thin, but please keep it up because it is marginalizing any creditability you have left.

Here's a question that maybe even you can answer...simply...

How does paying taxes to the government improve the investors position?
 
Robert Mac,

The day you have the ability to challenge my credibility will be the day you actually bring something of relevance to the table. I have debated you on many issues over the last 3 - 4 years and I cannot remember a single time when you have ever contradicted anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. You just keep throwing out the same old wore out concerns like industry concentration that have been proven to be non issues time and time again.

Your anti corporate bias just screams. You have an issue with concentration but not once have you ever presented an example where concentration in the beef industry has been detrimental to producers. You just repeat what you hear. Somehow you actually believe that concentration is unique to the packing industry.

How do you explain a 50% advance in price within a single year if concentration is an issue in this industry? You can't! The only way you can rationalize this stupid concentration conspiracy theory of yours is if packers have selective times of market manipulation. Packer concentration is something for chronic bitchers such as yourself to crow about when you don't have any legitimate concerns.

The fact is, concentration in this industry has led to higher cattle prices due to increased efficiencies.


~SH~
 
SH, "Tyson's own financial records showed Lakesides profits at near breakeven levels during Dec. 2004."

Are you talking one month or the year or quarter ending Dec. 2004?
 
Sandhusker: "Are you talking one month or the year or quarter ending Dec. 2004?"

You are the one who claimed I lied. To be brazen enough to make that statement, I would think you wouldn't have to ask these questions.

You said I lied, PROVE IT!

You can't can you because all you ever have is cheap talk.



~SH~
 
That is a brazen statement? SH, if that statement covers the year ending 2004, you have something to start on. If you're only talking one month, you have nothing but "cheap talk."
 
SH, in your mind, no one has ever contradicted anything you have said.

You tell us the effects of concentration all the time...small and medium processors are forced out of business because they can't compete with the economics of scale. When my processor decides to give it up(as he almost did after the Greeley recall), I'm out of business along with everyone else that processes product for resale...just as other producers are effected with each plant closing. That is a marketing avenue taken away because of concentration. It is this uncertainty that keeps me from pushing this business to expand to the point I can make a good living income from it. The market is there, but without a processor, I have no way to access that market. And there isn't another USDA processor that will process for a small producers for several hundred miles. If the majority of producers maintain your attitude, which they do, the day will come that a producer will have to have a signed contract(with stipulated protocol) with a processor to be in business. Don't believe me...look at the chicken industry, there is NO FREE INDEPENDENT MARKET! You, like most all other producers, will keep your head up the big packer's butt until it is too late. And then we will all be in the same shape as Canadian producers...we will have to take what we are offered because we will have no other options. If producers have any desire to control their own destiny, they had better wake up because the present course of the industry will eliminate any ability for control.
 
RobertMac said:
When my processor decides to give it up(as he almost did after the Greeley recall), I'm out of business along with everyone else that processes product for resale...just as other producers are effected with each plant closing. That is a marketing avenue taken away because of concentration. It is this uncertainty that keeps me from pushing this business to expand to the point I can make a good living income from it. The market is there, but without a processor, I have no way to access that market. And there isn't another USDA processor that will process for a small producers for several hundred miles.

Robert I have to call BS on you. Look what you posted.

Why did your processor think about quitting after the Greeley recall? Maybe he understands his facility is old and will need to be upgraded soon? He is scared of a recall on his products? How is that the fault of market concentration?

If he closes you are out of business. Yet you say the market is there. If the market is there invest in his plant so you have a stable processor. Oh wait you don't have enough of a market to support a processor. And there isn't another one for hundreds of miles. That tells me there isn't a market for such processing. If there is they would flourish. If it is a concern of recalls and e-coli, how again is that the fault of the big corps.?

You have made the choice that you don't want to invest to make your business compete, and there is nothing wrong with that decision, but then don't blame you unwillingness to do what others before you have done for your business disappearing.

I know how hard it is to generate volume with a home based beef business. I choose not to pursue it to its potential as well. I don't want the hassel involved. It has nothing to do with the quality of beef or a processor shutting down. I just don't want to have to be on the phone or road as much as it would take to make a living. I am pursuing other options, my choice, as it is yours.
 
RobertMac said:
SH, in your mind, no one has ever contradicted anything you have said.

You tell us the effects of concentration all the time...small and medium processors are forced out of business because they can't compete with the economics of scale. When my processor decides to give it up(as he almost did after the Greeley recall), I'm out of business along with everyone else that processes product for resale...just as other producers are effected with each plant closing. That is a marketing avenue taken away because of concentration. It is this uncertainty that keeps me from pushing this business to expand to the point I can make a good living income from it. The market is there, but without a processor, I have no way to access that market. And there isn't another USDA processor that will process for a small producers for several hundred miles. If the majority of producers maintain your attitude, which they do, the day will come that a producer will have to have a signed contract(with stipulated protocol) with a processor to be in business. Don't believe me...look at the chicken industry, there is NO FREE INDEPENDENT MARKET! You, like most all other producers, will keep your head up the big packer's butt until it is too late. And then we will all be in the same shape as Canadian producers...we will have to take what we are offered because we will have no other options. If producers have any desire to control their own destiny, they had better wake up because the present course of the industry will eliminate any ability for control.

RM, with all due respect, rethink this statement of yours -"small and medium processors are forced out of business because they can't compete with the economics of scale."

If they are forced out of business it is because of their own lack of economies of scale or proper marketing. Whose fault is that? If not for those companies which have grown due to economies of scale are you telling me that prices would be higher if those economies of scale did not exist?

One more question please. Who raises the 170 million chicken that we slaughter each week? If there are no profits at the producer level as you constantly claim how does production increase from 3-5% annually? May I suggest it is only because of profitability at the producer level that is fostered by sustained profitability for the end product. For once, please give credit where credit is due.

Paraphrased from John Templeton "everyday you can think of a reason not to invest, yet the world and business move onward and upward." It is your choice. Have a good one.
 
Production increases of the industry don't give any insight into producer's profitability either way, Agman. They might be doing very well and using profits to expand, or they might be just getting by and hoping more numbers will make things work better.
 

Latest posts

Top