A
Anonymous
Guest
OCM,
You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.
In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."
1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?
The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.
2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?
Why not post the bill in it's entirety?
~SH~
You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.
ocm: "MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.
I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.
The AMI LIED. And you have believed them."
In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."
1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?
The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.
2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?
Why not post the bill in it's entirety?
~SH~