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

Question about trade with Canada

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
Here's an idea. How be we renegotiate NAFTA? There are a lot of people here who are not happy with the way it's written regarding water and oil. There are people up here who would love to redo NAFTA in such a way that water is off the negotiating table.

Note: We are the source of 60% of you oil, and our country contains about twenty percent of the world's fresh water.

You guys don't need any of that do you? :wink:

This is why NAFTA will not be tossed out. :!:

NAFTA has only been here for 10 years or so. Weren't we buying your goods before NAFTA? Why the heck do we need NAFTA to trade? WE DON'T!

I've got nothing against trade agreements, lets throw this pig out and start over. This time, lets make sure it is done legally with no unconstitutional provisions in it. Let's also make sure our priorities are right and safety comes before "the deal'.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) Adjusting for herd size, you've found 45 times the number we have here (1 positive for every 1MM head vs 2 in 90MM). You're going to have to bring me hard numbers to make me believe your testing is 40 times better.

2) Kato's wrong. She wouldn't touch my example for obvious reasons, so I'll ask you to put yourself in her place and tell me what you would do if I started delivering you sour milk instead of good? Would you continue to honor our agreement as before and keep paying me?

1) The numbers I saw were current to 2005 and are available on the USDA website and the CFIA website. In 2006, when adjusted for herd size, we're well above your 40x number as you guys tested .001% and we tested .1% (total herd numbers, not 4D numbers).

2) We're not delivering you a sour product, but rather 1 shipment in 1 million is sour. If every shipment we sent was sour, you'd have a case but 1 out of 1 million? If you tried to put that before any court in the US or Canada, it would be thrown out.

Oh wait. It already has. Several times. :wink:

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) Adjusting for herd size, you've found 45 times the number we have here (1 positive for every 1MM head vs 2 in 90MM). You're going to have to bring me hard numbers to make me believe your testing is 40 times better.

2) Kato's wrong. She wouldn't touch my example for obvious reasons, so I'll ask you to put yourself in her place and tell me what you would do if I started delivering you sour milk instead of good? Would you continue to honor our agreement as before and keep paying me?

1) The numbers I saw were current to 2005 and are available on the USDA website and the CFIA website. In 2006, when adjusted for herd size, we're well above your 40x number as you guys tested .001% and we tested .1% (total herd numbers, not 4D numbers).

2) We're not delivering you a sour product, but rather 1 shipment in 1 million is sour. If every shipment we sent was sour, you'd have a case but 1 out of 1 million? If you tried to put that before any court in the US or Canada, it would be thrown out.

Oh wait. It already has. Several times. :wink:

Rod

Rod, you choose the data AFTER the USDA said our infection was so low that we didn't even need to hardly test any more - so they more or less quit?

What do you think is the acceptable level of BSE that a country should import before being alarmed?

I would encourage you to do a "Rest of the Story" on why those cases were thrown out. Does "You should defer to the USDA's judgement" ring a bell?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) Rod, you choose the data AFTER the USDA said our infection was so low that we didn't even need to hardly test any more - so they more or less quit?

2) What do you think is the acceptable level of BSE that a country should import before being alarmed?

3) I would encourage you to do a "Rest of the Story" on why those cases were thrown out. Does "You should defer to the USDA's judgement" ring a bell?

1) By current to 2005, I meant from the start of testing to 2005. All I could find at the time was a compilation of all testing through those years. The 2006 numbers were by themselves.

2) If two countries have identical levels of BSE, which I believe we do (actually I believe the US is nominally higher), then trade should not be restricted as neither herd is in danger of increasing infection.

3) I've read most of the courtroom documents I could my mitts on. Fact is, R-Calf could not convince the court that Canadian beef was a danger to the herd, given that the rates of infection are identical between our two countries.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) Rod, you choose the data AFTER the USDA said our infection was so low that we didn't even need to hardly test any more - so they more or less quit?

2) What do you think is the acceptable level of BSE that a country should import before being alarmed?

3) I would encourage you to do a "Rest of the Story" on why those cases were thrown out. Does "You should defer to the USDA's judgement" ring a bell?

1) By current to 2005, I meant from the start of testing to 2005. All I could find at the time was a compilation of all testing through those years. The 2006 numbers were by themselves.

2) If two countries have identical levels of BSE, which I believe we do (actually I believe the US is nominally higher), then trade should not be restricted as neither herd is in danger of increasing infection.

3) I've read most of the courtroom documents I could my mitts on. Fact is, R-Calf could not convince the court that Canadian beef was a danger to the herd, given that the rates of infection are identical between our two countries.

Rod

The CDC says you are 26 times higher. The USDA says it is the same. Who are you going to believe? Considering the USDA has also said;
1) Your feed ban was effective in 1999, even after 5 cases were born after the "effective date"
2) Our firewalls are sufficient to stop the spread of BSE when the OIE (the outfit they tout as being experts) says it is not.
3) The chances of importing BSE from Canada is "low", but they can't define what is "low", "medium", or "high" or put any numerical scale behind any of their "ratings".
4) The Alabama cow was negetive (until Fong stepped in)

I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Free trade fears on the rise

Economic anxiety has inspired a backlash against free trade, as a new Fortune poll shows, giving Democratic candidates a potent issue. Will it lead to protectionism?

By Nina Easton, Washington editor



(Fortune Magazine) -- "We are the champions - of the world" may be the verse that rings out in stadiums across the U.S., but in the great game of global trade, Americans are increasingly feeling like the losers. A large majority - 68% - of those surveyed in a new Fortune poll says America's trading partners are benefiting the most from free trade, not the U.S. That sense of victimhood is changing America's attitude about doing business with the world.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:

Rod
 

Tex

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:



Rod

Rod, I think Canadians producers are just as much a victim of the packer policies as the U.S. producers are.

Right now, because of the lower dollar, you are becoming victims of a the packer bse policy of doing everything but testing. You would be shippng to the orient if Canada tested like the Japanese. We might as well, if the USDA didn't end private testing.

Maybe the blame should be placed where it belongs. We should have national policies that actually fix problems instead of creating more by catering to packer intersests and then dividing producers.

When it comes right down to it, Rod, U.S. producers don't have to be happy with packer policies in Canada or the U.S. that depress their prices. Canadian producers shouldn't either. When the USDA breaks policy to allow Tyson to sell its boxed beef in the U.S., it hurt U.S. producer prices and sound science was sold out to special interst science. Rcalf had every right in the world to point out that fact in court to protect U.S. cattlemen from Tyson's foreign investments.

Canadians have had every right in the world to test for bse like the Japanese do to open other markets than just the U.S. market. They didn't take that option and it has hurt Canadian exports, even more so with a decreasing dollar which will problably only get worse. Canadians can't keep blaming rcalf because rcalf follows U.S. producer interests--- I guess you can, but it doesn't help your situation.

You need to work on your own govt. (as we do) to get your (our) markets out of control and damage by packer policies.

This is what happens when politicians bend over for billionaires--- the little guy is the one who ends up feeling the screwing.
 

Tex

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:



Rod

Rod, I think Canadians producers are just as much a victim of the packer policies as the U.S. producers are.

Right now, because of the lower dollar, you are becoming victims of a the packer bse policy of doing everything but testing. You would be shippng to the orient if Canada tested like the Japanese. We might as well, if the USDA didn't end private testing.

Maybe the blame should be placed where it belongs. We should have national policies that actually fix problems instead of creating more by catering to packer intersests and then dividing producers.

When it comes right down to it, Rod, U.S. producers don't have to be happy with packer policies in Canada or the U.S. that depress their prices. Canadian producers shouldn't either. When the USDA breaks policy to allow Tyson to sell its boxed beef in the U.S., it hurt U.S. producer prices and sound science was sold out to special interst science. Rcalf had every right in the world to point out that fact in court to protect U.S. cattlemen from Tyson's foreign investments.

Canadians have had every right in the world to test for bse like the Japanese do to open other markets than just the U.S. market. They didn't take that option and it has hurt Canadian exports, even more so with a decreasing dollar which will problably only get worse. Canadians can't keep blaming rcalf because rcalf follows U.S. producer interests--- I guess you can, but it doesn't help your situation.

You need to work on your own govt. (as we do) to get your (our) markets out of control and damage by packer policies.

This is what happens when politicians bend over for billionaires--- the little guy is the one who ends up feeling the screwing.
 

Tex

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:



Rod

Rod, I think Canadians producers are just as much a victim of the packer policies as the U.S. producers are.

Right now, because of the lower dollar, you are becoming victims of a the packer bse policy of doing everything but testing. You would be shippng to the orient if Canada tested like the Japanese. We might as well, if the USDA didn't end private testing.

Maybe the blame should be placed where it belongs. We should have national policies that actually fix problems instead of creating more by catering to packer intersests and then dividing producers.

When it comes right down to it, Rod, U.S. producers don't have to be happy with packer policies in Canada or the U.S. that depress their prices. Canadian producers shouldn't either. When the USDA breaks policy to allow Tyson to sell its boxed beef in the U.S., it hurt U.S. producer prices and sound science was sold out to special interst science. Rcalf had every right in the world to point out that fact in court to protect U.S. cattlemen from Tyson's foreign investments.

Canadians have had every right in the world to test for bse like the Japanese do to open other markets than just the U.S. market. They didn't take that option and it has hurt Canadian exports, even more so with a decreasing dollar which will problably only get worse. Canadians can't keep blaming rcalf because rcalf follows U.S. producer interests--- I guess you can, but it doesn't help your situation.

You need to work on your own govt. (as we do) to get your (our) markets out of control and damage by packer policies.

This is what happens when politicians bend over for billionaires--- the little guy is the one who ends up feeling the screwing.
 

Tex

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:



Rod

Rod, I think Canadians producers are just as much a victim of the packer policies as the U.S. producers are.

Right now, because of the lower dollar, you are becoming victims of a the packer bse policy of doing everything but testing. You would be shippng to the orient if Canada tested like the Japanese. We might as well, if the USDA didn't end private testing.

Maybe the blame should be placed where it belongs. We should have national policies that actually fix problems instead of creating more by catering to packer intersests and then dividing producers.

When it comes right down to it, Rod, U.S. producers don't have to be happy with packer policies in Canada or the U.S. that depress their prices. Canadian producers shouldn't either. When the USDA breaks policy to allow Tyson to sell its boxed beef in the U.S., it hurt U.S. producer prices and sound science was sold out to special interst science. Rcalf had every right in the world to point out that fact in court to protect U.S. cattlemen from Tyson's foreign investments. Selling untested boxed beef to the U.S. without testing it saved Tyson and saved Canada from having to pay out even more from an industry in Canada that depended so heavily on international trade. Some of that money probably found its way back to U.S. politicians and their cronies back in the U.S. to buy more packer policies.

Canadians have had every right in the world to test for bse like the Japanese do to open other markets than just the U.S. market. They didn't take that option and it has hurt Canadian exports, even more so with a decreasing dollar which will problably only get worse. Canadians can't keep blaming rcalf because rcalf follows U.S. producer interests--- I guess you can, but it doesn't help your situation.

You need to work on your own govt. (as we do) to get your (our) markets out of control and damage by packer policies.

This is what happens when politicians bend over for billionaires--- the little guy is the one who ends up feeling the screwing.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
1) I could go on. There's also the widepsread skeptism up there about the Texas cow and our testing in general. Yet, you suddenly find the USDA to be credible and the CDC, who's job it is to know disease, not? :shock:

2) Judge Cebull was the only court that actually heard the arguements against the USDA, and he kept the door closed. You tell me how much testimony the 7th heard when they allowed only 30 minutes for arguements. What about when they said we had to"Defer to the USDA". Does that sound like R-CALF got shot down on their arguements? That wasn't a ruling based on the arguements. I've got the transcripts.

1) I'm not paying attention attention to either CDC or the USDA's analysis, but rather to the raw testing data. This is why I don't lend credence to either the CDC nor the USDA and believe that the US has a rate of infection higher than Canada.

2) I've seen the precis of the transcripts. 30 minutes was all that RCalf had because they had nothing. Period. Except for protectionist drivel and the 7th recognized it as such. Cebull was an idiot for ever allowing the injunction in the first place.

Now I know you're going to say 'RCalf isn't protectionist'. Why then does RCalf want to shut off boxed beef trade from Canada? Boxed beef poses no threat to the US herd whatsoever, yet RCalf wants to see it closed. Why? Just plain old protectionism. Meanwhile, Canadians have other fights we should be paying attention to. Rcalf is just playing into the multinationals hands by pitting Canadian vs US cattle producers. Maybe we should figure out where RCalf's getting their bucks? Maybe a little coin from Tyson? :wink:

Rod

You think the CDC can't analyze raw data? I'm pretty sure they can, and had more to analyze than what you've come up with.

Come on, Rod. 30 minutes was all that was scheduled. R-CALF could of presented testimony for days if allowed. Obviously, the hearing wasn't set up to take testimony. You're playing stupid here and I know dang well you're a heck of a lot smarter than that.

I'd say R-CALF wants boxed beef shut off for the same reasons that Korea won't take it. It's a BSE risk that doesn't need to be taken, and a needless risk is a foolish risk.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'd say R-CALF wants boxed beef shut off for the same reasons that Korea won't take it. It's a BSE risk that doesn't need to be taken, and a needless risk is a foolish risk.

How is boxed beef a BSE risk? :roll: None of that makes it back into feed system for any animals, much less cattle. C'mon Sandhusker. Thats just plain old protectionism at its finest.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
I'd say R-CALF wants boxed beef shut off for the same reasons that Korea won't take it. It's a BSE risk that doesn't need to be taken, and a needless risk is a foolish risk.

How is boxed beef a BSE risk? :roll: None of that makes it back into feed system for any animals, much less cattle. C'mon Sandhusker. Thats just plain old protectionism at its finest.

Rod

How do you think humans are supposed to get it?
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
How do you think humans are supposed to get it?

A year or so back, you said you supported RCalf's BSE injunction because of the risk to the US herd. Now you don't want consumers to eat Canadian beef because of an UNPROVEN link between BSE and vCJD? Since American beef is about the same risk, do you support consumers not eating US beef too?

Why do I suspect you have more than a few protectionist's bones in your body? :wink:

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
How do you think humans are supposed to get it?

A year or so back, you said you supported RCalf's BSE injunction because of the risk to the US herd. Now you don't want consumers to eat Canadian beef because of an UNPROVEN link between BSE and vCJD? Since American beef is about the same risk, do you support consumers not eating US beef too?

Why do I suspect you have more than a few protectionist's bones in your body? :wink:

Rod

How can you seperate the human risk from the herd risk? The very reason you want a healthy herd is so the disease isn't available to be transfered to humans. Cattle dying is not the biggest concern here, is it?

Don't be bringing that unproven link stuff. How do you think that arguement would of set with your and our trading partners when BSE was first found? It is accepted that there is a risk, and until that is disproven, it's pretty stupid to take needless chances.

I support additional testing and more research on BSE. However, I am not as concerned with US beef as I am Canadian because your risk is 26 times higher than ours.

I'm not a protectionist, I'm all for trade. I just say first things first, and safety is a higher priority to me than somebody making a buck.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I support additional testing and more research on BSE. However, I am not as concerned with US beef as I am Canadian because your risk is 26 times higher than ours.

Lets analyze this 26 times higher number for a moment, shall we? The risk of a Canadian beef having BSE is 0.000026%. The US's risk is .000001. This is only if we accept the CDC's numbers. That 26 times number is just a crude way to incite emotion. We're dealing with risks that are so small they are completely meaningless, 26 times or not. There is a million times (literally) greater risk of Ecoli poisoning from beef, and thats already a neglible risk. If you really believed that those kinds of risks make it worthwhile to avoid a product, then you'd never eat anything, drink anything, or buy anything.

So no matter how you slice it, its pure protectionism. I'm a little disappointed Sandhusker. I thought you understood how much our two countries relied on one another. Without Canada, the US would be without one of its largest trading partners. Do you have any idea how many US jobs would be lost without trade with Canada? Do you have any idea how much a gallon of fuel would cost you? Or a gallon of water? Or a watt of electricity?

Free and open trade between Canada and the US in ALL products is the ONLY way to try and offset the power of the multinational corporations. With wide open trade, smaller organizations have the ability to reach broader audiences and gain economies of scale production. That is the only way that livestock producers, on either side of the border, will survive into the next century. Rcalf and other organizations like them are only helping to promote the end of the small cattle producer. I only hope that people realize it before its too late.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I agree the risk is small. However, there is a flaw in your numbers, you're basing those figures on the number of animals found. There's no way in hell that we're finding all of them.

I've never said that we shoudn't trade with Canada, or anyone else. I've said that first things come first. I place safety and legality over "the deal". I'll argue that Free Trade is one of the worst ideas that we ever came up with. It does't help the little guy, it just allows the multi-nationals more ways to arbitrage global prices and put pressure on the little guys. How is a small company supposed to grow when a multi-national has an array of sources to draw on to undercut prices?

After every flipping Free Trade we've gotten into, the trade surplus' of our partners has gone up. That means we're losing money - on every one! The big corporates are doing well, their % of national income is at a 60 year high, while the % for workers is the lowest since the depression. You bet, they love Free Trade. The Federal Reserve warned years ago that a trade deficit of over 5% of GDP was danger - we're now at 6.5% and every goddam new Free Trade deal makes that number go higher.

I always thought "trade" involved an exchange of goods. You have something that I want but don't have, the same with you, and we swap. That obviously isn't happening. We're buying, but not selling. I'm sorry, Rod, but I am staunchly and proudly against Free Trade. It's not working! On the contrary, it's taking us down the crapper economically. There isn't anything free about Free Trade, it's terribly costly. Not only do we not need more, we need to get out of the deals we're in.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
1)I agree the risk is small. However, there is a flaw in your numbers, you're basing those figures on the number of animals found. There's no way in hell that we're finding all of them.

2) The big corporates are doing well, their % of national income is at a 60 year high, while the % for workers is the lowest since the depression.

1) The risk isn't small, its non-existent.

2) I agree the current free trade agreement isn't working between our two countries. And your free trade agreement with Mexico was rediculous. You can't have free trade between countries whose standard of living and wages have such a wide gulf. Between Canada and the US though? Heckuvan idea, EXCEPT for the all the pet projects that the politicians wanted "protected" and all the exceptions that were granted (like softwood lumber, HRSW, boat building, etc, etc, etc). Pure and open free trade between our countries, without all the excess paperwork and costs incurred by the brokerage businesses would allow small companies to thrive.

Right now the free trade agreement is a rediculous mess, and I hate to say it, but thats been caused by 'cry wolfers' like RCalf and other groups on both sides of the borders. We quit listening to the protectionists, things would get much better...

Rod
 

Latest posts

Top