OT mis-information re. Beef Checkoff Refuted

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "But you said R-CALF had no credibility - you've said it many times. Why would the chicken industry use an outfit with no credibility? Sounds like the comment of a fool."

I said R-CULT has no credibility with the media that doesn't mean that the chicken industry couldn't take a statement made by R-CULT and use it against the industry if they were so inclined. Fortunately, I don't think the chicken industry would engage in mudslinging with the beef industry. That was Conman's stupid idea.

Sandbag: "Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line."

HAHAHAHA!

YOU ARE SUCH A DAMN IDIOT SANDBAG! Another example of how liars can't keep their arguments straight.

YOU JUST GOT DONE ARGUING THAT TYSON WOULD LET THEIR BEEF PROCESSING SUFFER TO THE BENEFIT OF PORK AND POULTRY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR VICKERS EXAMPLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF, WHICH IT WASN'T. NOW YOU CONTRADICT THAT ARGUMENT BY SAYING IT WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE DOING.

WHAT'S YOUR POSITION GOING TO BE NEXT TIME?????

OCM: "There are a number of items included in the LRP that are outside the parameters of spending for checkoff money....like lobbying. Like animal health issues. Like efforts at "unity" on issues. These are all out of bounds as far as checkoff spending is concerned."

Why do you guys always talk in "generalizations". Why don't you site me the exact statement you are referring to instead of constant "generalizations"???

What is your point? That the LRP does not allow for these things and should or that the LRP allows for these things and shouldn't???? GIVE ME THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM THE LRP that concerns you.

You guys always want to dance around the truth or dance around committing to a position.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

Sandbag: "But you said R-CALF had no credibility - you've said it many times. Why would the chicken industry use an outfit with no credibility? Sounds like the comment of a fool."

I said R-CULT has no credibility with the media that doesn't mean that the chicken industry couldn't take a statement made by R-CULT and use it against the industry if they were so inclined. Fortunately, I don't think the chicken industry would engage in mudslinging with the beef industry. That was Conman's stupid idea.

Sandbag: "Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line."

HAHAHAHA!

YOU ARE SUCH A DAMN IDIOT SANDBAG! Another example of how liars can't keep their arguments straight.

YOU JUST GOT DONE ARGUING THAT TYSON WOULD LET THEIR BEEF PROCESSING SUFFER TO THE BENEFIT OF PORK AND POULTRY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR VICKERS EXAMPLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF, WHICH IT WASN'T. NOW YOU CONTRADICT THAT ARGUMENT BY SAYING IT WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE DOING.

WHAT'S YOUR POSITION GOING TO BE NEXT TIME?????

OCM: "There are a number of items included in the LRP that are outside the parameters of spending for checkoff money....like lobbying. Like animal health issues. Like efforts at "unity" on issues. These are all out of bounds as far as checkoff spending is concerned."

Why do you guys always talk in "generalizations". Why don't you site me the exact statement you are referring to instead of constant "generalizations"???

What is your point? That the LRP does not allow for these things and should or that the LRP allows for these things and shouldn't???? GIVE ME THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM THE LRP that concerns you.

You guys always want to dance around the truth or dance around committing to a position.


~SH~

It is obvious from your comments that you have not read the Beef Act with comprehension. It is completely outside the authorization of the Beef Act for checkoff money to be spent on a Long Range Plan for the BEEF INDUSTRY.

Remember this is tax money being spent under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture. Since when do we approve of centralized economic planning by the government for a particular industry?

Beyond that there are items included in the plan not authorized by the Beef Act (aside from the whole idea of the plan itself).

There is an explicit list of things checkoff money CAN be spent for in the Beef Act. Now get off your lazy butt and check it out. I'm not going to do you're homework for you. Besides, I just might want to spring it on the Checkoff People at the R-CALF convention in January.

The LRP REEKS with "OUT OF BOUNDS"

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "Pitting one segment of their business against the other would be counterproductive to increasing their bottom line."


SH, "HAHAHAHA! YOU ARE SUCH A DAMN IDIOT SANDBAG! Another example of how liars can't keep their arguments straight. YOU JUST GOT DONE ARGUING THAT TYSON WOULD LET THEIR BEEF PROCESSING SUFFER TO THE BENEFIT OF PORK AND POULTRY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR VICKERS EXAMPLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF, WHICH IT WASN'T. NOW YOU CONTRADICT THAT ARGUMENT BY SAYING IT WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE DOING. WHAT'S YOUR POSITION GOING TO BE NEXT TIME?????"

Actually, SH, you just posted yet another display of your lack of reading comprehension - and you did it in caps :lol: . I appreciate that.

Pitting chicken against beef in effect would be saying to the consumer, "don't buy chicken - buy beef because ........." Vickers didn't pit vane against piston. They didn't try to convince their customers to buy one over the other. Other than a few rebates on price due to late deliveries, none of their customers knew anything about anything.

Who's the damn idiot?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Who's the damn idiot?"

You are, obviously! You and Conman are the idiots who believe the wild conspiracy theory that Tyson would sacrifice beef profits to gain in pork and poultry. As usual, you are wrong. Tyson needs each entity to be profitable because they didn't cut their beef processing or the costs associated with beef processing. If that entity cannot profit on it's own merits, it was a poor investment.

Your Vickers example is inappropriate as are most of your stupid examples. A company letting one product suffer to gain on another product is hardly comparable to Tyson allowing beef to suffer for the benefit of poultry and pork. The two are not comparable. If you want to make a bigger fool out of yourself trying to suggest that they are comparable, carry on.

OCM: "It is completely outside the authorization of the Beef Act for checkoff money to be spent on a Long Range Plan for the BEEF INDUSTRY."

That's your opinion only!

OCM: "Beyond that there are items included in the plan not authorized by the Beef Act (aside from the whole idea of the plan itself)."

WHAT ITEMS???

What is so difficult about being specific? Afraid you don't have a legitimate bench again?


I wish there was a way to allow checkoff blamers not to pay the checkoff and not benefit from the checkoff. I don't believe checkoff blamers should be forced to benefit from the checkoff against their will. Nothing would make me happier than to see the blamers wither on the vine in the commodity beef industry while the progressives double their checkoff and were the sole beneficiaries of the checkoff through their branded beef programs. The blamers could pay for R-CULT's lawyers to lose more court cases for them.

I support any FAIR seperation of regressives and progressives. Blamers just bring everyone down to their victim mentality level anyway. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep the blamers from benefitting from the checkoff.



~SH~

 

[mrj]

ocm, from the standpoint of NOT having thoroughly read the LRP, only skimmed it, I suspect some of your complaint is because the LRP does NOT refer ONLY to the Checkoff. If I recall correctly from past LRP's the goal is for the cattle industry to be united on what we can. That is MANY cattle organizations within the Federation division of NCBA, as well as the Policy/Membership division are speaking and working AS ONE for the good of the cattle/beef industry, when and where we can agree.

And absolutely no one is going to spend checkoff money for things not allowed in the law.

Yes, I have read the Act and Order........however, all who discuss it should review it periodically to be sure we recall it accurately.....agreed?

More on this subject after I have a chance to study the LRP.

MRJ

 

[ocm]

Sandbag: "Who's the damn idiot?"

You are, obviously! You and Conman are the idiots who believe the wild conspiracy theory that Tyson would sacrifice beef profits to gain in pork and poultry. As usual, you are wrong. Tyson needs each entity to be profitable because they didn't cut their beef processing or the costs associated with beef processing. If that entity cannot profit on it's own merits, it was a poor investment.

Your Vickers example is inappropriate as are most of your stupid examples. A company letting one product suffer to gain on another product is hardly comparable to Tyson allowing beef to suffer for the benefit of poultry and pork. The two are not comparable. If you want to make a bigger fool out of yourself trying to suggest that they are comparable, carry on.

OCM: "It is completely outside the authorization of the Beef Act for checkoff money to be spent on a Long Range Plan for the BEEF INDUSTRY."

That's your opinion only!

OCM: "Beyond that there are items included in the plan not authorized by the Beef Act (aside from the whole idea of the plan itself)."

WHAT ITEMS???

What is so difficult about being specific? Afraid you don't have a legitimate bench again?


I wish there was a way to allow checkoff blamers not to pay the checkoff and not benefit from the checkoff. I don't believe checkoff blamers should be forced to benefit from the checkoff against their will. Nothing would make me happier than to see the blamers wither on the vine in the commodity beef industry while the progressives double their checkoff and were the sole beneficiaries of the checkoff through their branded beef programs. The blamers could pay for R-CULT's lawyers to lose more court cases for them.

I support any FAIR seperation of regressives and progressives. Blamers just bring everyone down to their victim mentality level anyway. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep the blamers from benefitting from the checkoff.



~SH~

I love the stimulation of an intellectually challenging debate.



I'm still looking for it.

 

[nightcalver]

Have you seen the ad from Hardees with the pregnant lady who better eat all she can at Hardee's now because for the next 12 years she will be eating at McDonald's (with her kid)?

Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?

The reason the checkoff can't fund an ad that attacks another commidity is because the Sec. of Ag, who must approve all funding requests, wouldn't allow it. There was an ad proposed that said "There's no such thing as a chicken knife." that was not allowed.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You and Conman are the idiots who believe the wild conspiracy theory that Tyson would sacrifice beef profits to gain in pork and poultry. As usual, you are wrong. Tyson needs each entity to be profitable because they didn't cut their beef processing or the costs associated with beef processing. If that entity cannot profit on it's own merits, it was a poor investment."

"Wild conspiracy theory" is your assessment, not Econ's or mine - we understand basic business.

You appear to not understand the basics of diversification. Tyson diversified because they KNOW that there will be periods when chicken, beef, or pork will not be profitable, and times when they will be very profitable. Diversifying reduces the "feast and famine" effect on their balance sheet.

Tyson's goal one is to meet earnings goals for their shareholders - the people who own Tyson. The shareholders don't care where the money was made as long as it is made. Tyson knows this and if a sacrifice of one segment causes another to get them to the finish line, so be it. This is the way it is with ANY diversified company. It's business 101 and very easy to understand - I don't know why you struggle with it so much.

SH, "Your Vickers example is inappropriate as are most of your stupid examples. A company letting one product suffer to gain on another product is hardly comparable to Tyson allowing beef to suffer for the benefit of poultry and pork. The two are not comparable. If you want to make a bigger fool out of yourself trying to suggest that they are comparable, carry on."

What is the difference, SH? Vickers had several product lines and competition in each line - actually more competition than Tyson has. Tyson has several lines and competiton in each (so you tell us). Vickers saw a way to sacrifice the profits in one line to increase profits in the higher margin line. It was a good business move that paid off. The bottom line was directly enhanced as a result of this move. Why wouldn't Tyson do the same? Which of Tyson's lines has a higher margin, beef or chicken?

 

[Econ101]

Have you seen the ad from Hardees with the pregnant lady who better eat all she can at Hardee's now because for the next 12 years she will be eating at McDonald's (with her kid)?

Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?

The reason the checkoff can't fund an ad that attacks another commidity is because the Sec. of Ag, who must approve all funding requests, wouldn't allow it. There was an ad proposed that said "There's no such thing as a chicken knife." that was not allowed.

Nightcalver, Checkoff funds do not necessarily need to "attack" chicken. They do need to be effective on taking back from the poultry the protein substitution that poultry has taken away from beef in the protein market. If the checkoff advertising can not accomplish this benchmark of success, it is useless. If the Secretary of Agriculture is going to use his powers to hinder the advertising of checkoff funds, then the checkoff funds are captive funds; they are captive to the interests of Tyson and the other agribusiness interests that are running the USDA. Tyson has no such constraints on its advertising dollars, why should cattlemen with their own money?

As far as SH's glass house theory, who cares what he thinks? If the result of a clash between beef and poultry is an airing of dirty laundry that the USDA has tried to hide, maybe it will finally get cleaned. I know my family will still eat both poultry and beef. People might be a little more selective on the company that processes that beef and poultry and beef, and that might be a good thing for both the poultry and beef industry.

 

[Jason]

The consumer that picks chicken over beef is the reason for the climb of chicken over beef.

Tyson still can't force consumers which meat to buy.

 

[Sandhusker]

The consumer that picks chicken over beef is the reason for the climb of chicken over beef.

Tyson still can't force consumers which meat to buy.

Tyson can't force consumers to buy one over the other, but you can bet they do what they can to influence consumers to buy the higher margin product.

 

[mwj]

The consumer that picks chicken over beef is the reason for the climb of chicken over beef.

Tyson still can't force consumers which meat to buy.

Tyson can't force consumers to buy one over the other, but you can bet they do what they can to influence consumers to buy the higher margin product.

How do they go about this???????????

 

[Jason]

The only influence Tyson can have on consumers is advertising, which has laws of what can and cannot be said, and possibly lowering their margin to lower the price, however retailers set the retail price based on competition for consumers dollars. Any lower price from Tyson could be taken by retailers as extra profit.

Consumers will buy what they want and pay as little as they can for it.

Tyson has no control over consumers.

 

[Econ101]

The only influence Tyson can have on consumers is advertising, which has laws of what can and cannot be said, and possibly lowering their margin to lower the price, however retailers set the retail price based on competition for consumers dollars. Any lower price from Tyson could be taken by retailers as extra profit.

Consumers will buy what they want and pay as little as they can for it.

Tyson has no control over consumers.

No, Jason, the checkoff money has limits put on it by the way it was set up. Tyson advertising does not. There is a huge difference. The advertising money is captive to the interests of Tyson as sure as ever as long as you don't see effective add campaigns that allow beef to lose market share to poultry.

Who do you think put a lot of money into the notion that chicken was "better" than beef due to its lower fat content? By the way, they always compared the lower fat of chicken breasts to beef instead of chicken thighs.

You really need to read some of those books I suggested before giving some of your examples.

 

[Jason]

You just stepped in it again Conman.

Tyson does not get to advertise their branded products with check-off dollars.

Tyson does not control the fact that the check-off can advertise many beef cuts that are leaner than chicken breast.

Tyson can not influence consumers as to what they buy. They can only process the meats and respond to consumer signals as they come back through (boxed beef) the chain.

 

[Econ101]

You just stepped in it again Conman.

Tyson does not get to advertise their branded products with check-off dollars.

Tyson does not control the fact that the check-off can advertise many beef cuts that are leaner than chicken breast.

Tyson can not influence consumers as to what they buy. They can only process the meats and respond to consumer signals as they come back through (boxed beef) the chain.

When they are one of the few sources of supply, they can and do influence what consumers buy.

If I had an oligopoly in water, I could do the same thing.

Tyson gets to advertise any way they want and fund any research that suits their needs. Beef checkoff is subject to the "okay" of the Sec. of Agriculture, not the checkoff funders.

 

[Jason]

You don't have an ogilopoly in water and Tyson doesn't have one in beef.

You have been exposed. Tyson can't influence consumers any more than any company can by advertising. They can advertise they produce good products. Consumers either believe that or they don't.

Tyson is making money, so many people believe they produce good products.

 

[Econ101]

You don't have an ogilopoly in water and Tyson doesn't have one in beef.

You have been exposed. Tyson can't influence consumers any more than any company can by advertising. They can advertise they produce good products. Consumers either believe that or they don't.

Tyson is making money, so many people believe they produce good products.

No, Jason, in beef, in reference to the cattlemen, there is an oligopsony. Anyone with a little economic training would know that. You need to work on your education a little more. In reference to the wholesale market for beef, the packers have an oligopoly. You have proven time and again that you don't know the difference between these two "hundred dollar" economic words, as you say.

You have been exposed. Just post a little more and I will expose your ignorance again and again until your operation is successful.

 

[Jason]

Prove that the packers can control the markets.

You can't.

 

[Econ101]

Prove that the packers can control the markets.

You can't.

"Control" is a relative term. Any varience from the normal competitive market answer shows a degree of control. Pickett already proved that to a U.S. jury. It is fortunate that you would not have been a candidate for the jury based on your bias and based on your nationality.