Packer May Sue Inspectors

[rkaiser]

Comprehension problems SH?

You and your packer lover sidekick want to tell the rest of the world that it is simply okay for any added cost that the packer incurs to be delt with by a lower price to the producer.

Maybe the packer should be spending some of his own money trying to expand his wholesale market to return some of his added expense on the other end of the ledger.

SH will say "No way packer Bwamer, that is not the real world. You are an ignorant baseless liar with nothing to bring to this discussion!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Comprehension problems SH?

You and your packer lover sidekick want to tell the rest of the world that it is simply okay for any added cost that the packer incurs to be delt with by a lower price to the producer.

Maybe the packer should be spending some of his own money trying to expand his wholesale market to return some of his added expense on the other end of the ledger.

SH will say "No way packer Bwamer, that is not the real world. You are an ignorant baseless liar with nothing to bring to this discussion!!!!

Because they can get the producers to do that advertising for them at no cost and they can be a free rider through the checkoff program. They are playing both sides of the fence on these arguments.

 

[rkaiser]

All part of the big picture Econo. If it all comes back to the producer anyway, why not have the checkoff at the box level like you suggested earlier. Producers pay no matter what, just as SH and Tam like to have it.

 

[Econ101]

All part of the big picture Econo. If it all comes back to the producer anyway, why not have the checkoff at the box level like you suggested earlier. Producers pay no matter what, just as SH and Tam like to have it.

I wish more cattle ranchers could see the big picture. I know it is hard sometimes when you are in the woods to see the forest for the trees.

I would like to propose a checkoff program for boxed beef that goes to pay for less industry concentration so producers have more choice and market inefficiencies are not paid by the producer. Hey- that was supposed to be the result of the Pickett case --before it was railroaded by big packer influence at the USDA, and the political contributions to members of the judiciary, agriculture, and their interests.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "You and your packer lover sidekick want to tell the rest of the world that it is simply okay for any added cost that the packer incurs to be delt with by a lower price to the producer."

No, I am just telling you the fact that any expenses that are added to the packing industry UNIVERSALLY will result in that much less being available to pay for cattle because packers are a margin operater. What they pay for cattle is based on what they get for boxed beef minus what their expenses are minus what they are willing to accept for a profit AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION.

I'm sure you didn't understand that but maybe someone else did.

RK: "Maybe the packer should be spending some of his own money trying to expand his wholesale market to return some of his added expense on the other end of the ledger."

They spend their money all the time on value added products. If you knew anything about the retail beef industry you'd know that but you don't because you are a blamer. Facts don't matter to you.

Kindergarten: "Because they can get the producers to do that advertising for them at no cost and they can be a free rider through the checkoff program. They are playing both sides of the fence on these arguments."

Yet if the packers were paying the checkoff, chronic bitchers like you would be bitching about them having more say on how checkoff dollars are being spent.

How can the packer be a "free rider" when he is a margin operator? If consumers pay more for beef, THE PACKER PAYS MORE FOR CATTLE.

Nobody has more incentive to promote beef since the consumer dollar ultimately stops at the producer level while the rest of the industry operates on a margin.

RK: "If it all comes back to the producer anyway, why not have the checkoff at the box level like you suggested earlier. Producers pay no matter what, just as SH and Tam like to have it."

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the way anyone "LIKES IT", THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS.

Why would you want to give up the control of how checkoff dollars are being spent to the packer WHEN NOBODY HAS MORE INCENTIVE TO GET MORE OF THE CONSUMER'S BEEF DOLLARS THAN THE PRODUCER DOES?

Kindergarten: "I know it is hard sometimes when you are in the woods to see the forest for the trees."

You are the classic case of the blind leading the blind.

Kindergarten: "I would like to propose a checkoff program for boxed beef that goes to pay for less industry concentration so producers have more choice and market inefficiencies are not paid by the producer."

Kindergarten proposes a checkoff paid for and controlled by the packers that would force packers to become less efficient. I have heard everything now.

Keep posting Kindergarten.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

SH

Quote:
RK: "You and your packer lover sidekick want to tell the rest of the world that it is simply okay for any added cost that the packer incurs to be delt with by a lower price to the producer."


No, I am just telling you the fact that any expenses that are added to the packing industry UNIVERSALLY will result in that much less being available to pay for cattle because packers are a margin operater. What they pay for cattle is based on what they get for boxed beef minus what their expenses are minus what they are willing to accept for a profit AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION.

You can't even keep your own paragraph balanced SH. First you talk Universal, then you talk competition. If an expense is added universally, how could it change competitiveness.
I agree that it results in less available for the producer. The difference between myself and a Packer lover like yourself is that you think that that is just fine, and anyone who doesn't is wrong. :roll:

SH -

They spend their money all the time on value added products. If you knew anything about the retail beef industry you'd know that but you don't because you are a blamer. Facts don't matter to you.

Are Cargill and Tyson retailers SH? Here I thought they were wholesalers or as you say margin operators. I won't ask you for all of your Facts :roll: on advertising and promotion done by Tyson and Cargill outside of the checkoff since you are allowed to have an opinion on BS like that in this free world we live in.


SH -

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the way anyone "LIKES IT", THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS.

And packer lovers like SH and Tam will continue to argue to leave it the way it is. :roll: But do they like it or not????? :roll: :roll:

SH

Why would you want to give up the control of how checkoff dollars are being spent to the packer WHEN NOBODY HAS MORE INCENTIVE TO GET MORE OF THE CONSUMER'S BEEF DOLLARS THAN THE PRODUCER DOES?

Of course they do not want to change it. And this unwillingness to change should be proof to anyone in their right mind that they beleive it is an advantage for them. Except of course (the blind packer lover puppets)

Your theory that more money at the consumer level trickles down to the producer is probably partially true. But like so many issues where you beleive you are right beyond a shadow of a doubt, this one reflects. If there was no advantage to the packer, why would they fight for the status quo? Why not try another way for a while?

 

[Tam]

Where did I say I liked it Randy? or is this just another one of your hairbrained opinions stated to stir someone up. :x I don't like it but that is the reality of the beef industry. Until the North American consumers are willing to pay more, any added expence to any other sector of the industry will come back on the one lowest on the food chain (the Producer). Maybe if there was more interest in the US to OPEN the high priced export markets than there is in stopping beef trade between our two countries (IE R-CALF and the US Senate) this wouldn't be happening to the extent it is. But Like it or not it is reality. :roll:

 

[rkaiser]

It is reality right now Tam - but why argue against anything that could change it. Why stand up for the poor old packers on this one?

I can't even touch the US Senate and Rcalf issue as you all know my opinion about who enjoys the Canadian border being closed, except for boxed beef.

 

[Econ101]

Quote:
Kindergarten: "I would like to propose a checkoff program for boxed beef that goes to pay for less industry concentration so producers have more choice and market inefficiencies are not paid by the producer."


Kindergarten proposes a checkoff paid for and controlled by the packers that would force packers to become less efficient. I have heard everything now

SH, I never said that packers would become less efficient. You made that up, attributed it to me and then argued against it.

SH, you point out my argument, however. What is more "efficient" for the packer is not always what is "efficient" for the producer. Packers don't need to become less efficient, they need to stop using market power tools to make barriers of entry in the industry and cheat the producers in their convoluted definition of efficiency. When they are the determinants of efficiency instead of competitive market forces we have less economic efficiency over all.

If all packers could get together tomorrow and agree not to buy cattle at unless it was fifty cents a lb. less tomorrow it has no real consequence to over all efficiency. It just means they got cattle fifty cents a lb. less. Over time, this fifty cents less per lb. will result in less cattle to be sold because producers will not produce as many at a lower price. This is a movement down the supply curve. These type of market moves where the market does not move because of price signals to producers is an abuse of market power. Eventually, with less cattle, when the pipeline of available cattle goes down and there is a scarcity, the packers will either fill that scarcity with substitutes (foreign beef, chicken, pork) or the price of beef will go up and more cattle will eventually come back.

These type of tactics swing the cattle markets. They create inefficiencies in the total market. You could argue, in the short run, that efficiencies are increased because the total price of beef in the store went down by 20% but it would be an incorrect argument. Lower prices do not always mean markets are more efficient. When supply and demand do not give the correct price signals to producers, there is an indication of market manipulation. When price signals do not reflect the market, as the Pickett plaintiffs argued, there is an indication of market manipulation and indeed that is part of the definition of market failure.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, ".Why would you want to give up the control of how checkoff dollars are being spent to the packer WHEN NOBODY HAS MORE INCENTIVE TO GET MORE OF THE CONSUMER'S BEEF DOLLARS THAN THE PRODUCER DOES?"

:shock: I can not believe you just said that. The packers have less incentive than the producers? Absolutely rediculous statement. You'll say anything to back them at the expense of producers. :roll: :???:

 

[Tam]

It is reality right now Tam - but why argue against anything that could change it. Why stand up for the poor old packers on this one?

I can't even touch the US Senate and Rcalf issue as you all know my opinion about who enjoys the Canadian border being closed, except for boxed beef.

So now you agree it is reality :wink:
Where did I argue against anything that could change it? Like I said I have reservation about your manditory checkoff IDEA. I have also said I agree we need to get more slaughter capacity and if Big C wants to levy the animals they slaughter, go for it. I also agree we need to get other export markets open. That said, with the reality that we are living in at present, can we afford to pi** off our current and historically largest market just to get a few little markets to open?

When I ask questions to how your idea will work you either don't answer, You just make sarcastic remarks, say I don't know or your statement is proven to be false like the percentage of our Exports per Production. Now I would have thought someone that is sitting in a boardroom dissussing how they are going to get a share of the export market away from another packer would have known that percentage was 70% not 30%. And would not have had to have a quote from his own organization posted to stop the insisting he were right at 30%. :roll:
When you stated your opinion of how Canada should test for market access. I asked does Canada have the testing capacity to test for market access? Do all the plants in Canada have the labs to test their own production? If they send their samples out will they have the cooler place to hold the carcasses until the outside lab returns the results? Does the CFIA have enough labs to cover all the testing that would have to be done? Does BIG-C's IDEA included building a lab to test their own production or have you thought that far ahead? If any of these question have an answer of NO then how can we use testing for market access as a negotiating tool to open export markets. As parts of every animal processed in Canada was exported before the export bans were put on, which means 100% testing. Randy what is the reality of our testing capabilities in Canada?
Please remember that the CFIA said even if we test for market access none of those test results would be counted for the testing we are to do for the OIE. Which could mean we will be testing every animal in this country. :shock:
So if the reality is that all expenses are passed back to the producer like you now agree is reality, can the Producers afford those extra cost coming from the already low prices we recieve?
We can wish, hope, pray and even have IDEAS about what we would like but reality is what we are dealing with. Reality is not going to change over night and you of all people should know that as look how long BIG C has had their IDEA and have done nothing to get it pass the IDEA stage.
Have they had a Professional Viability Study done? That was, according to the BIG C website the first thing that should have been done. Have you done anything about a Good Business Plan that could be used to convince those with reservations to support your plant and reassure those that have supported your idea so far? That was the second thing on the list.
If you want to do something positive for the industry, go back to your boardroom and come up with a Business Plan that people will support. Then when you come out of that boardroom try sell it with a bit less sarcasm and a few more well thought out answers!!!! And stop bashing the packers they, weither we like them or not, are a neccesary evil that we can't survive without.

 

[Econ101]

It is reality right now Tam - but why argue against anything that could change it. Why stand up for the poor old packers on this one?

I can't even touch the US Senate and Rcalf issue as you all know my opinion about who enjoys the Canadian border being closed, except for boxed beef.

So now you agree it is reality :wink:
Where did I argue against anything that could change it? Like I said I have reservation about your manditory checkoff IDEA. I have also said I agree we need to get more slaughter capacity and if Big C wants to levy the animals they slaughter, go for it. I also agree we need to get other export markets open. That said, with the reality that we are living in at present, can we afford to pi** off our current and historically largest market just to get a few little markets to open?

When I ask questions to how your idea will work you either don't answer, You just make sarcastic remarks, say I don't know or your statement is proven to be false like the percentage of our Exports per Production. Now I would have thought someone that is sitting in a boardroom dissussing how they are going to get a share of the export market away from another packer would have known that percentage was 70% not 30%. And would not have had to have a quote from his own organization posted to stop the insisting he were right at 30%. :roll:
When you stated your opinion of how Canada should test for market access. I asked does Canada have the testing capacity to test for market access? Do all the plants in Canada have the labs to test their own production? If they send their samples out will they have the cooler place to hold the carcasses until the outside lab returns the results? Does the CFIA have enough labs to cover all the testing that would have to be done? Does BIG-C's IDEA included building a lab to test their own production or have you thought that far ahead? If any of these question have an answer of NO then how can we use testing for market access as a negotiating tool to open export markets. As parts of every animal processed in Canada was exported before the export bans were put on, which means 100% testing. Randy what is the reality of our testing capabilities in Canada?
Please remember that the CFIA said even if we test for market access none of those test results would be counted for the testing we are to do for the OIE. Which could mean we will be testing every animal in this country. :shock:
So if the reality is that all expenses are passed back to the producer like you now agree is reality, can the Producers afford those extra cost coming from the already low prices we recieve?
We can wish, hope, pray and even have IDEAS about what we would like but reality is what we are dealing with. Reality is not going to change over night and you of all people should know that as look how long BIG C has had their IDEA and have done nothing to get it pass the IDEA stage.
Have they had a Professional Viability Study done? That was, according to the BIG C website the first thing that should have been done. Have you done anything about a Good Business Plan that could be used to convince those with reservations to support your plant and reassure those that have supported your idea so far? That was the second thing on the list.
If you want to do something positive for the industry, go back to your boardroom and come up with a Business Plan that people will support. Then when you come out of that boardroom try sell it with a bit less sarcasm and a few more well thought out answers!!!! And stop bashing the packers they, weither we like them or not, are a neccesary evil that we can't survive without.

Tam, if the Canadians do not get some sort of PSA, then you can count on the big packers using every economic tool they have to crush any real opposition to their market dominance. It is already happening here in the U.S. with the PSA because we have a bunch of economists that don't know their head from a hole in the ground, or are corrupt, or both.

You Canadians came up with the idea that you should bail out some very deep pocketed American families with taxpayer subsidies. That is not going to solve the problem. I asked Jason before and now I will ask you: If the Canadian taxpayers had not subsidized the captive supply of the packers during the BSE border closing, what would have happened to those plants? Would they have disapperead over night? Why do you support that subsidy and not rkaiser's?

I want to remind you that BSE being linked to bovine products in animal feed was pretty well known and the packers were still selling it for the use in cattle feed. Is there ever any accountability in this industry?

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "You can't even keep your own paragraph balanced SH. First you talk Universal, then you talk competition. If an expense is added universally, how could it change competitiveness."

Your talking in drunken circles again. ONCE AGAIN, if an expense such as a boxed beef checkoff is added to the entire packing industry (universally), it means that much less money is available to pay for cattle. DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO REDUCE THEIR PROFITS????

You wouldn't quit blaming them even if they went broke.

RK: "I agree that it results in less available for the producer. The difference between myself and a Packer lover like yourself is that you think that that is just fine, and anyone who doesn't is wrong."

Listen to yourself! What a thumbsucker. POOR POOR LITTLE RANDY!

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????? Piss and moan, that's what. If you don't like the fact that the packers operate on a margin, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

RK: "Are Cargill and Tyson retailers SH?"

You tell me!

RK: "I won't ask you for all of your Facts on advertising and promotion done by Tyson and Cargill outside of the checkoff since you are allowed to have an opinion on BS like that in this free world we live in."

WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH AND FIND OUT?????

RK: "And packer lovers like SH and Tam will continue to argue to leave it the way it is. But do they like it or not?????"

WHAT THE HECK IS THE ALTERNATIVE????????

JOIN YOU IN BITCHING ABOUT IT EVERY DAY????????

If you don't like the way the packing industry is run, START YOUR OWN PACKING HOUSE WITH YOUR OWN INVESTORS.

RK: "Of course they do not want to change it. And this unwillingness to change should be proof to anyone in their right mind that they beleive it is an advantage for them. Except of course (the blind packer lover puppets)"

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE PACKER CHANGING IT, THIS IS ABOUT THE PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU CHANGING IT SO THE PACKER HAS MORE CONTROL OF THE CHECKOFF DOLLARS THEN YOU CAN BITCH ABOUT THAT.

Elementary economics: "SH, you point out my argument, however. What is more "efficient" for the packer is not always what is "efficient" for the producer. Packers don't need to become less efficient, they need to stop using market power tools to make barriers of entry in the industry and cheat the producers in their convoluted definition of efficiency. When they are the determinants of efficiency instead of competitive market forces we have less economic efficiency over all.

If all packers could get together tomorrow and agree not to buy cattle at unless it was fifty cents a lb. less tomorrow it has no real consequence to over all efficiency. It just means they got cattle fifty cents a lb. less. Over time, this fifty cents less per lb. will result in less cattle to be sold because producers will not produce as many at a lower price. This is a movement down the supply curve. These type of market moves where the market does not move because of price signals to producers is an abuse of market power. Eventually, with less cattle, when the pipeline of available cattle goes down and there is a scarcity, the packers will either fill that scarcity with substitutes (foreign beef, chicken, pork) or the price of beef will go up and more cattle will eventually come back.

These type of tactics swing the cattle markets. They create inefficiencies in the total market. You could argue, in the short run, that efficiencies are increased because the total price of beef in the store went down by 20% but it would be an incorrect argument. Lower prices do not always mean markets are more efficient. When supply and demand do not give the correct price signals to producers, there is an indication of market manipulation. When price signals do not reflect the market, as the Pickett plaintiffs argued, there is an indication of market manipulation and indeed that is part of the definition of market failure."

Elementary economics, you can keep spouting off this market manipulation nonsense until the end of time but without supporting proof it is nothing but garbage.

"THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" are only as good as the facts that support them. You are factually void to defend your position.

Sandman: "I can not believe you just said that. The packers have less incentive than the producers? Absolutely rediculous statement. You'll say anything to back them at the expense of producers."

Nobody has more incentive to increase beef consumption than the producer does. That is an absolute fact. I can't help the fact that you are too ignorant to realize that.

Why do you want packers to have more control of how the producers checkoff dollars are being spent? That's exactly what they will get if they pay a larger share of the checkoff only to turn around and pay that much less for cattle.

You're no smarter than the last time you posted.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Your talking in drunken circles again. ONCE AGAIN, if an expense such as a boxed beef checkoff is added to the entire packing industry (universally), it means that much less money is available to pay for cattle. DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO REDUCE THEIR PROFITS????

You wouldn't quit blaming them even if they went broke.

SH, doesn't the checkoff on each head mean the cattlemen get less money? What is your point? Cattlemen are not the seller of beef, the packer is. If the checkoff is going to benefit the seller, why not let it be on the packer? It only benefits the cattlemen after the dollars pass through the packer's hands. Why not take the dollar there?

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "SH, doesn't the checkoff on each head mean the cattlemen get less money?"

The checkoff on each head paid by the packer means there is that much money available to pay for cattle.

Elementary: "Cattlemen are not the seller of beef, the packer is. If the checkoff is going to benefit the seller, why not let it be on the packer? It only benefits the cattlemen after the dollars pass through the packer's hands. Why not take the dollar there?"

It doesn't matter whether it goes through the packers hands or not. The price we receive for cattle is determined by what consumers are paying for beef. We have a vested financial interest in consumers buying more beef where the packer is simply a margin operator. We need to be involved in determining how those dollars are being spent and we need to continue to work with packers in adding value to beef products and working on food safety issues.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Nobody has more incentive to increase beef consumption than the producer does. That is an absolute fact. I can't help the fact that you are too ignorant to realize that."

That's your opinion, not a fact. I have a serious problem with you stating the packers have a lesser interest in getting all the money they can. As a matter of fact, I know many ranchers who just want a fair price so they can keep going. How many packers will say that? How many packers are in it for the lifestyle? Compare the actions of the packers and ranchers. Where is the political "contributions" coming from to sway the policy and profitability of the industry? Is it ranchers or packers? Who is leaning on the USDA, ranchers or packers? Comparing rancher's and packer's actions, I'd say the packers have plenty of incentive.

You need to open your eyes. You're not fooling anybody. (except for a couple who want you to be right) :wink:

 

[Tam]

It is reality right now Tam - but why argue against anything that could change it. Why stand up for the poor old packers on this one?

I can't even touch the US Senate and Rcalf issue as you all know my opinion about who enjoys the Canadian border being closed, except for boxed beef.

So now you agree it is reality :wink:
Where did I argue against anything that could change it? Like I said I have reservation about your manditory checkoff IDEA. I have also said I agree we need to get more slaughter capacity and if Big C wants to levy the animals they slaughter, go for it. I also agree we need to get other export markets open. That said, with the reality that we are living in at present, can we afford to pi** off our current and historically largest market just to get a few little markets to open?

When I ask questions to how your idea will work you either don't answer, You just make sarcastic remarks, say I don't know or your statement is proven to be false like the percentage of our Exports per Production. Now I would have thought someone that is sitting in a boardroom dissussing how they are going to get a share of the export market away from another packer would have known that percentage was 70% not 30%. And would not have had to have a quote from his own organization posted to stop the insisting he were right at 30%. :roll:
When you stated your opinion of how Canada should test for market access. I asked does Canada have the testing capacity to test for market access? Do all the plants in Canada have the labs to test their own production? If they send their samples out will they have the cooler place to hold the carcasses until the outside lab returns the results? Does the CFIA have enough labs to cover all the testing that would have to be done? Does BIG-C's IDEA included building a lab to test their own production or have you thought that far ahead? If any of these question have an answer of NO then how can we use testing for market access as a negotiating tool to open export markets. As parts of every animal processed in Canada was exported before the export bans were put on, which means 100% testing. Randy what is the reality of our testing capabilities in Canada?
Please remember that the CFIA said even if we test for market access none of those test results would be counted for the testing we are to do for the OIE. Which could mean we will be testing every animal in this country. :shock:
So if the reality is that all expenses are passed back to the producer like you now agree is reality, can the Producers afford those extra cost coming from the already low prices we recieve?
We can wish, hope, pray and even have IDEAS about what we would like but reality is what we are dealing with. Reality is not going to change over night and you of all people should know that as look how long BIG C has had their IDEA and have done nothing to get it pass the IDEA stage.
Have they had a Professional Viability Study done? That was, according to the BIG C website the first thing that should have been done. Have you done anything about a Good Business Plan that could be used to convince those with reservations to support your plant and reassure those that have supported your idea so far? That was the second thing on the list.
If you want to do something positive for the industry, go back to your boardroom and come up with a Business Plan that people will support. Then when you come out of that boardroom try sell it with a bit less sarcasm and a few more well thought out answers!!!! And stop bashing the packers they, weither we like them or not, are a neccesary evil that we can't survive without.

Tam, if the Canadians do not get some sort of PSA, then you can count on the big packers using every economic tool they have to crush any real opposition to their market dominance. It is already happening here in the U.S. with the PSA because we have a bunch of economists that don't know their head from a hole in the ground, or are corrupt, or both.

You Canadians came up with the idea that you should bail out some very deep pocketed American families with taxpayer subsidies. That is not going to solve the problem. I asked Jason before and now I will ask you: If the Canadian taxpayers had not subsidized the captive supply of the packers during the BSE border closing, what would have happened to those plants? Would they have disapperead over night? Why do you support that subsidy and not rkaiser's?

I want to remind you that BSE being linked to bovine products in animal feed was pretty well known and the packers were still selling it for the use in cattle feed. Is there ever any accountability in this industry?

You are so fast to find something you can bash the packers for that you have forgot to read that the propose of the money was to shore up the the part of the Canadian beef industry that was hit the hardest when the border first closed. Which was the whole feeding sector. Tyson and Cargill didn't get any money because they were packers they got the money because they owned feeder cattle just like everyone else that owned feeder cattle. In the governments hast to help out the industry in light of a disaster they paid money to anyone that qualified including Tyson and Cargill. You want to make it sound as if they were the only ones that got any money and they got it because they were packers You are dead WRONG. After the first money was paid out and everyone stepped back and looked at who to help next, Tyson and Cargill didn't qualify for any of the other money that the industry recieved.

Why do you support that subsidy and not rkaiser's?

First of all it wasn't a subsidy it was a disaster payment. :roll:

You say that a business should not be in business if they can't make a profit, they should not recieve handouts to keep them in business.
In most business plans a profit is realized when they take the total income from said business and subtract the total expenses from said business, what is left is the profit. But with BIG-C the total expenses will not be subtracted from the income made by the plant because they plan to put a manditory levy on all cattle sold in Canada to pay down part of their expenses (IE their goverment loans). Just what do you think that will do to their ability to compete against their investor funded competition that is responsible for their own loans? Sure they may show a profit but at what expense to their competition that could have showed a profit if they were competeing on a level playing field. Will we have to come back and bail out a few of these investor funded plants with taxpayers money because they couldn't show a profit because of BIG -C or do we just let them die an expensive death.

I want to remind you that BSE being linked to bovine products in animal feed was pretty well known and the packers were still selling it for the use in cattle feed. Is there ever any accountability in this industry?

Geez Was it not legal for the packers to sell the stuff to the manufacturers as it could and still can be used in other animal feeds. The Packers were not the one putting it into cattle feed. If it was found in cattle feed it was put there by the feed manufacturers not by the packers.
So again why is it that you want to blame everything on the packers? What about the accountability of the rest of the industry? Doesn't that matter as long as you have the packers to blame everything on? Could the packers not have sold this stuff thinking it wouldn't be misused by someone down the line?

 

[Econ101]

Tam, were the packers pushing it to be used for feed for ruminants or not?

SH:

The government is already involved in food safety issues and food safety issues are not going to be compromised so a private company can make a quick buck off the ignorance of the Japanese consumer.

Is SH arguing out of convenience or merit? Penn already believes the Japanese are smarter than the americans. Substitute americans for Japanese.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "That's your opinion, not a fact."

It's real simple for a person of average intelligence.

The packer gets so much for boxed beef. The packer has so much in expenses. The packer tries to buy cattle as cheaply as he can but he can only bid as low as his competition which tightens the profit margins if he's going to have any cattle to kill against that competition. Either way beef consumption goes, the packer is still going to operate in that same tight profit margin.

On the other hand, the more beef demand goes up, the more the producers will receive for their cattle.

WHO HAS MORE INCENTIVE???

How could anything be any more elementary?

Sandman: "I have a serious problem with you stating the packers have a lesser interest in getting all the money they can."

That's the least of your problems. I have a serious problem with your complete lack of integrity and your inability to back any of your views with supporting facts. All you do is attempt to discredit what others believe when you have nothing to back what you believe.

No matter how much beef demand increases, the packer will still operate on a margin. Tyson may increase that margin slightly by involving themselves in more value added products so they can receive more money for cattle but as soon as their competition catches up in those areas, the margins tighten again.

In other words, if Tyson sells 10 minute microwavable products which allows them to add value to the chuck and round, they can pay more for cattle than their competition and still increase their profit margin by these value added products. If Swift does the same thing, then Swift will also pay more for cattle which would tighten Tyson's margin again because now Tyson is back to having to match Swift's price.

In yours and Elementary Economic's conspiracy world, there would have to be no competition between Excel, Swift, Tyson, USPB, and Smithfield. That just isn't so and anyone with any knowledge of this industry will tell you that.

Sandman: "As a matter of fact, I know many ranchers who just want a fair price so they can keep going."

What defines "FAIR PRICE" when there is over $250 per head difference between LOW COST and HIGH COST producers? Some ranchers will not make it at current price levels.

What more reason to increase consumer demand for beef than to receive a "FAIR PRICE" (subjective) for your cattle? When consumer demand for beef goes up cattle prices go up!

Sandman: "How many packers will say that?"

You are making my point! The packer is a margin operator. They will pay for cattle depending on where consumer demand for beef is so who has more incentive to increase consumer demand for beef than the producer?

Sandman: "How many packers are in it for the lifestyle?"

What the heck does that have to do with anything?

Sandman: "Compare the actions of the packers and ranchers. Where is the political "contributions" coming from to sway the policy and profitability of the industry?"

NCBA!

Meanwhile R-CULT is working to convince U.S. consumers that having BSE in your native herd means your beef is "HIGH RISK" and contaminated.

Sandman: "Who is leaning on the USDA, ranchers or packers?"

What does any of this have to do with the fact that nobody has more incentive to increase beef consumption than the producer does?

Hell, let's look at Robert Mac's argument for a minute. Tyson has their fingers in the poultry and pork business too. WHO HAS MORE INCENTIVE TO PROMOTE BEEF CONSUMPTION IN THAT SITUATION? BEEF PRODUCERS OR A PORK, POULTRY, AND BEEF PROCESSOR WHO GETS A MARGIN EITHER WAY?

Use your damn head for once in your life and quit just arguing to the contrary JUST TO BE CONTRARY! I get so sick of your pathetic antics.

Sandman: "Comparing rancher's and packer's actions, I'd say the packers have plenty of incentive."

The argument was never whether the packers had incentive, THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE PRODUCERS HAVE MORE INCENTIVE.

You will fail miserably in your attempt to contradict anything I have stated here just as you always do.

If the packers had more control of the checkoff dollars, you'd be bitching about that too.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Back on topic. If the packers are going to sue the inspectors, what is going to stop them from suing a cattleman who will not sell them cattle in the future? Tyson seems to revere the courts only to the extent that they can use them.