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

packer monopoly

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Hayseed,

I don't really know why I waste my time arguing with you when you don't seem to understand even the most basic concept.

If packers were truly as dishonest as you seem to believe, the plaintiffs in Pickett would have had a better platform to stand on then trying to convince a jury that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases through other venues would constitute market manipulation. If that verdict had stood, it would have opened the door for lawsuits if a feeder dropped the price he was willing to pay in the cash market due to purchases he/she made through other venues. You can't set a standard of socialized markets for the packing industry and not have it apply to purchases of cattle in general.

Countless investigations were conducted by GIPSA into allegations of market manipulation and price fixing. The vast majority of those investigations revealed nothing.

That doesn't matter to you does it? By Gawd the packers are screwing producers and that's just the way it is because that's what you want to believe.

How pathetic.


~SH~

I should'nt even reply to this piece of malarkey since you posted this regularly for years but I will.
Any and all the of the so called investigations are'nt worthless,the AMI is so permeated into any and all Ag related governmental agencies,makes it a waste of tax payer money,and you know this you are just hoping someone,somewhere will be naive enough to believe it.
good luck
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
redrobin said:
HAY MAKER said:
redrobin said:
Haymaker if I agree with you that the packer influence is too great in the beef chain with their captive supply ability, and I'm not sure I do, what's the fix? You don't like my thoughts on less government protection for the packers. What's your favorite plan? More government regulations?

what do you mean "if" you agree,i have never met a cattleman that did not have a stance on the proposed GIPSA Rule,read it and you tell me"if" you agree.
good luck
I'm against the new GIPSA rule. Now answer my question. What's your plan?

Why ?
good luck

PS you are gonna hafta excuse me for a minute till I figure exactly what you are for...........believe me it will have a bearing on my answers.
 

redrobin

Well-known member
A packer buyer is any person
regularly employed on salary, or other
comparable method of compensation, by
a packer to buy livestock for such
packer. Proposed new § 201.212(b)
would also prohibit packers from
entering into exclusive purchase
agreements with any dealer except those
dealers the packer has identified as its
packer buyers. This provision does not
eliminate exclusive arrangements, but
provides transparency by identifying the
dealer as a packer buyer for a specific
packer. Proposed new § 201.212(a) and
(b) would work in conjunction to
prevent apportioning territory by
independent dealers and packers

My sale barn owner buys kill cows for Gibbon. The way I read the rule, he can only buy for one packer. That sure takes lots of cards out of his pocket sale day. The card he's missing might have been a bid for me.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
redrobin said:
A packer buyer is any person
regularly employed on salary, or other
comparable method of compensation, by
a packer to buy livestock for such
packer. Proposed new § 201.212(b)
would also prohibit packers from
entering into exclusive purchase
agreements with any dealer except those
dealers the packer has identified as its
packer buyers. This provision does not
eliminate exclusive arrangements, but
provides transparency by identifying the
dealer as a packer buyer for a specific
packer. Proposed new § 201.212(a) and
(b) would work in conjunction to
prevent apportioning territory by
independent dealers and packers

My sale barn owner buys kill cows for Gibbon. The way I read the rule, he can only buy for one packer. That sure takes lots of cards out of his pocket sale day. The card he's missing might have been a bid for me.

Well the rule as it stands is a proposal,but I would agree dont make any sense to have salebarns buying for only one packer,where did you get this ?
good luck
 

redrobin

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Well the rule as it stands is a proposal,but I would agree dont make any sense to have salebarns buying for only one packer,where did you get this ?
good luck
That's quoted from the proposed bill. The original information to me came from my sale barn man. He's the one that told me and if I remember his info came from the LMA.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
~SH~ said:
Hayseed,

I don't really know why I waste my time arguing with you when you don't seem to understand even the most basic concept.

If packers were truly as dishonest as you seem to believe, the plaintiffs in Pickett would have had a better platform to stand on then trying to convince a jury that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases through other venues would constitute market manipulation. If that verdict had stood, it would have opened the door for lawsuits if a feeder dropped the price he was willing to pay in the cash market due to purchases he/she made through other venues. You can't set a standard of socialized markets for the packing industry and not have it apply to purchases of cattle in general.

Countless investigations were conducted by GIPSA into allegations of market manipulation and price fixing. The vast majority of those investigations revealed nothing.

That doesn't matter to you does it? By Gawd the packers are screwing producers and that's just the way it is because that's what you want to believe.

How pathetic.


~SH~

I should'nt even reply to this piece of malarkey since you posted this regularly for years but I will.
Any and all the of the so called investigations are worthless,the AMI is so permeated into any and all Ag related governmental agencies,makes it a waste of tax payer money,and you know this you are just hoping someone,somewhere will be naive enough to believe it.
good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://mobile.americanagriculturist.com/main.aspx?ascxid=cmsNewsStory&rmid=0&rascxid=&args=&rargs=9&dt=634266136846664000&lid=a8yebu2d9qxnz7lo&adms=634266136844792000Xe300c99a0a&cmsSid=44192&cmsScid=9



51 Ag Groups File PSA Abuse Brief With U.S. Supreme Court


This weekend, while most Americans were counting their blessings and watching football, 51 farm groups filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. They're asking the court to consider a lower court case involving deceptive practices by a large food processor.

The particular case was Terry v. Tyson Foods, which involved an effort by a contract poultry producer to receive a fair price for his broilers and organize farmers to battle deceptive conduct by Tyson Foods. "The Terry case is critical to fulfilling Congressional intent that the Packers and Stockyards Act protects farmers from abusive practices by dominant processors," says Bill Bullard, president of R-CALF.

" All types of farmers and ranchers are receiving less of every food dollar, because of abusive and anti-competitive practices by the major food processors," he charges. "Each year, farmers receive a smaller portion of every food dollar. Dominant food processors such as Tyson, JBS/Swift, and Dean Foods are using their economic clout to engage in a wide range of anticompetitive and deceptive practices to severely reduce revenue for farmers and ranchers."

The PSA is a 1921 statute enacted to protect farmers from deceptive and abusive practices by processors. Some courts have mistakenly concluded that in order to prevail under the PSA a farmer must demonstrate an antitrust violation.

That wasn't the intent of its authors, argues the group. "The PSA was enacted as the antitrust laws had failed to protect farmers and Congress recognized the need for a separate statute to protect farmers," explains Attorney David Balto.

Groups leading the effort include National Farmers Union, R-CALF, National Family Farm Coalition, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Rural Advancement Foundation International, and the Organization for Competitive Markets.

"We hope the court reviews the Terry case and directs the courts to follow the statute," said Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets. "U.S. farmers and ranchers play by the rules every day; food processors should play by the same rules."
 

redrobin

Well-known member
redrobin said:
Haymaker if I agree with you that the packer influence is too great in the beef chain with their captive supply ability, and I'm not sure I do, what's the fix? You don't like my thoughts on less government protection for the packers. What's your favorite plan? More government regulations?
Haymaker, you've had plenty of time to think about it, what plan or options do you like? What's the fix?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
redrobin said:
redrobin said:
Haymaker if I agree with you that the packer influence is too great in the beef chain with their captive supply ability, and I'm not sure I do, what's the fix? You don't like my thoughts on less government protection for the packers. What's your favorite plan? More government regulations?
Haymaker, you've had plenty of time to think about it, what plan or options do you like? What's the fix?

redrobin,sorry for the late reply,been tryin to stay off this page damn packer lovers always gets me being blunt.......anyway the issue of market power/conclusion theft by deception etc that the meat packers have been acused of many years is complex, I certainly dont want to over simplify the issue with my answer but I can sum it up for you damned fast "TRANSPARENCY" would be my plan,shine some daylite on their record keeping.good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
redrobin said:
redrobin said:
Haymaker if I agree with you that the packer influence is too great in the beef chain with their captive supply ability, and I'm not sure I do, what's the fix? You don't like my thoughts on less government protection for the packers. What's your favorite plan? More government regulations?
Haymaker, you've had plenty of time to think about it, what plan or options do you like? What's the fix?

redrobin,sorry for the late reply,been tryin to stay off this page damn packer lovers always gets me being blunt.......anyway the issue of market power/conclusion theft by deception etc that the meat packers have been acused of many years is complex, I certainly dont want to over simplify the issue with my answer but I can sum it up for you damned fast "TRANSPARENCY" would be my plan,shine some daylite on their record keeping.good luck

So as a business are you willing to share your financial records with the world?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
redrobin said:
Haymaker, you've had plenty of time to think about it, what plan or options do you like? What's the fix?

redrobin,sorry for the late reply,been tryin to stay off this page damn packer lovers always gets me being blunt.......anyway the issue of market power/conclusion theft by deception etc that the meat packers have been acused of many years is complex, I certainly dont want to over simplify the issue with my answer but I can sum it up for you damned fast "TRANSPARENCY" would be my plan,shine some daylite on their record keeping.good luck

So as a business are you willing to share your financial records with the world?

When you have a long history of theft by deception,the word "willing" dont apply,these theives dont get the same tretment as a honest buisness man would,only thing that keeps them outa the pen is money.
good luck
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
redrobin,sorry for the late reply,been tryin to stay off this page damn packer lovers always gets me being blunt.......anyway the issue of market power/conclusion theft by deception etc that the meat packers have been acused of many years is complex, I certainly dont want to over simplify the issue with my answer but I can sum it up for you damned fast "TRANSPARENCY" would be my plan,shine some daylite on their record keeping.good luck

So as a business are you willing to share your financial records with the world?

When you have a long history of theft by deception,the word "willing" dont apply,these theives dont get the same tretment as a honest buisness man would,only thing that keeps them outa the pen is money.
good luck

What determines a "Honest" business? If you want the packers to show their books why shouldn't you? Maybe your neighbors figure you got you place by deception.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
HAY MAKER said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So as a business are you willing to share your financial records with the world?

When you have a long history of theft by deception,the word "willing" dont apply,these theives dont get the same tretment as a honest buisness man would,only thing that keeps them outa the pen is money.
good luck

What determines a "Honest" business? If you want the packers to show their books why shouldn't you? Maybe your neighbors figure you got you place by deception.

No my neighbors know how I got my place,and it damned sure was'nt the way you are gonna get yours someday :roll:
now beat it......................good luck

click.
 

Latest posts

Top