question for SH

[ocm]

Kindergarten Economics: "There is no debate that the price of all cattle went down due to the captive supplies and its cause was the abuse of the market power it leveraged."

Kindergarten your ignorance absolutely screams. To makes such a stupid suggestion is to say that the only factor playing on market movements is captive supplies. Are you really that stupid?

You are basically saying that consumer demand for beef and beef by products, both domestic and foreign has no impact on the market. If the market goes down it's captive supplies not increased supplies or reduced demand.

You have left absolutely no doubt that you are totally ignorant of cattle marketing issues.


OCM,

Do you now believe that you have to save the chicken farmers from themselves too?

Chicken farming is not cattle ranching.

You can't confine beef cows and run them as efficiently as you can on pasture. It's another "apples to oranges" comparison.


~SH~

I believe in honesty and balance of power, like our country's founders. The apples to apples comparison is MARKET POWER.


And you should know (and I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it will confuse you) that supply and demand have an effect on the price even when there is an absolute monopoly. Just because you can note some supply/demand effect does not mean there is no monopoly.

 

[rkaiser]

And Canada now has 50% of it's slaughter capacity controlled by Cargill, and 80% controlled by Cargill and Tyson combined.

I guessthis is okay in your world hey SH, - hey Jason.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "I believe in honesty and balance of power, like our country's founders."

Bullcrap!

You do not believe in honesty or you would not support R-CULT lying about the safety of Canadian beef to stop Canadian imports. You would not support R-CULT lying about USDA not caring about food safety. You would not believe in the PRESUMPTION OF PACKER GUILT WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. You would not believe in false accusations and conspiracy theories.

You believe in lies and deception and are an embarrassment to conservative Republicans everywhere.

OCM: "And you should know (and I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it will confuse you) that supply and demand have an effect on the price even when there is an absolute monopoly. Just because you can note some supply/demand effect does not mean there is no monopoly."

First you say you believe in honesty and then you follow that with a bold faced lie.

THERE IS NO MONOPOLY OCM!!!

Monopoly is defined as: "exclusive control of the use, sale, or distribution of a commodity or service by one person or one group of persons;"


Tyson, Excel, Swift & Co, Smithfield, and USPB all competing for the same cattle. Count them! That's 5 major companies and there is numerous level two packers.

THERE IS NO MONOPOLY!

QUIT LYING!!!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Randy Kaiser: "And Canada now has 50% of it's slaughter capacity controlled by Cargill, and 80% controlled by Cargill and Tyson combined.

I guessthis is okay in your world hey SH,"

WHAT THE HECK IS YOUR POINT RANDY????

Are you upset because Jason and I don't join you in bitching about it?



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

No SH , just wondering if you think it is just fine for Cargill to control 50% and the tag team of Cargill and Tyson to control 80% of Canadian slaughter capacity?

You and Jason will continue to bench about everything anyone says that doesn't agree that Cargill and Tyson are Gods.

Is this the way of the future in your mind?

Should we simply accept this takeover of the industry. Especially in Canada where the government sees no use for limits on packer ownership of feeders like many States don't, and seems to applaud any move toward the current multinational" two party monopoly". (there must be a word in the liberal dictionary for "two party monopoly" eh SH). No I do not like government control, but I don't like control by two companies either. Which wing will that make me SH, right or left, or just a simple minded BLAMER.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "No SH , just wondering if you think it is just fine for Cargill to control 50% and the tag team of Cargill and Tyson to control 80% of Canadian slaughter capacity?"

With the border opened it doesn't matter, if you don't like Tyson and Cargill's price in Canada, send them South to Swift, USBP, or Smithfield.

Compare the trucking cost to the markets you have.

If you don't like those markets, kill your own cattle.

If you are not willing to kill your own cattle, quit bitching.

Randy: "You and Jason will continue to bench about everything anyone says that doesn't agree that Cargill and Tyson are Gods."

You're sucking your thumb again.

Jason and I are simply presenting the facts of this issue. That's what bothers you, admit it. You want to be left in peace to blame packers with your fellow packer blamers.

Randy: "No I do not like government control, but I don't like control by two companies either. Which wing will that make me SH, right or left, or just a simple minded BLAMER."

I don't think you're simple minded, I just think you're a packer blamer. LOL!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake?

 

[rkaiser]

You know SH, maybe you're right. I should not be bitching about a $150.00 basis with an open border. I should just keep my mouth shut like a good little Canadian. Listen to SH, and Agman explain how it is all reality, how it is all legal and fair business. How no one is to blame.
How it is democratic, fair, free enterprise, etc. etc.
Don't say a word Randy Kaiser, or you are a BLAMER, a kindergarten student, or simply ignorant. Or some left wing fanatic. :roll:

If things are to be better for grassroots producers, someone has to speak up. Someone has to risk the name calling of fools like SH, Agman, and our dear Jason. Someone who does understand business. Who does understand the legal means that Cargill and Tyson legally rape the producers of North America, and the world. Someone who will stand up without BS protectionist policies like Rcalf hides behind.

Congradulations SH if your personal business is okay; so is mine, but to many producers in both of our countries are not okay, and to assist them in being okay, things must change. And change my friend, may include change within the power structure built and lived in by Cargill and Tyson.

 

[Anonymous]

At some point Randy someone is going to have to provide hard evidence to prove that there is REAL market manipulation activity going on.

Until that point, you have nothing but "opinion", "theory", and "conjecture.

You are of the "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" mentality.

Jason and I are of the "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" mentality.

That's the difference!



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Yip SH you and Jason are "the good guys".

I don't disagree that laws will need to be proven broken. But up to that time, what do we do about the ranchers wasting more and more equity trying to feed the good people of both of our countries?

My arguement, as always is that the big picture needs another look. And part of that look includes the packing industry.

If you want to keep defending the packers and degrading anyone who suggests change, that's your choice.
I see an opportuntiy for producers in both of our countries based on my own personal business. That opportunity cannot be realised in the atmosphere we currently live in.
Whether you want to admit it or not; mutinational packers hold a shitload of power. Power that may not always make tham profits, but power that is definately undeniable. Power that lobbies for and demands change and then lives with it. All legal as you point out, and I admit, but power never the less.

Call it accidental, or call it whatever you like, packer ownership affects price. Competition among ten is better than competition among two. And how can you ever prove that two are, or are not competing.

Those last two sentences should be worth a cut and paste from you SH, am I wrong?

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Call it accidental, or call it whatever you like, packer ownership affects price."

Packer ownership in Canada is .06% of our total beef consumption in the U.S. making it irrelevant.

If producers don't want packers to own cattle, don't sell them feeder calves. It's that simple!

Randy: "Competition among ten is better than competition among two."

More bidders does not necessarily mean more money to producers.

DEEPER POCKETS AND TIGHTER MARGINS (better efficiency) = MORE MONEY FOR PRODUCERS.

We had more packers at one time. The smaller less efficient packer couldn't compete with the larger more efficient packers BECAUSE THE LARGER MORE EFFICIENT PACKER PAID MORE FOR CATTLE AND SURVIVED ON A TIGHTER PROFIT MARGIN.

Randy: "And how can you ever prove that two are, or are not competing."

It would be revealed in their profits and their prices compared to other packing companies profits and their prices.


I am not defending the packers per say, I am defending the truth and a presumption of innocense. I can't help that doesn't jive with your desire to blame and your need to believe conspiracy theories.

Just because large packers have power does not mean they are abusing that power. Any packer in Canada would have taken advantage of an overabundant supply relative to slaughter capacity. You would have done the same thing in their shoes.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Just because large packers have power does not mean they are abusing that power. Any packer in Canada would have taken advantage of an overabundant supply relative to slaughter capacity. You would have done the same thing in their shoes.

And just as I cannot prove that Cargill and Tyson did not abuse power, you, SH, cannot prove that they did not.

Yes any packer wouild take advantage. Does that make it right?Is it right for the packer (whoever that may be) to profit profusely while the producer burns equity?

I don't want to hear you "Blame Rcalf" routine again SH. I want to deal with laws that let this happen.

I've sucked my thumb to the bone dipshit, time for you to quit sucking yours. Tell me how we continue to watch producers go broke while packers in Canada profit, border open or closed.

Feeder cattle have moved up but fats are less than pre border opening. Dumb ash feedlot guys are bidding against Tyson and Cargill who have a boxed beef price fixed by forward contracts. I don't care what dollar you are using, break even some $1.10 - 9 weight cattle with an 80 cent fat market for me.

 

[blackjack]

...personally I have no problem with the farmers that contract with companies further up the chain... for some of us that have been in the ag business for some time have seen neighbours set up contracts... to watch the company leave the area high and dry... other production contracts that if the farmer did not increase his production the company would end it ...knowing d##m well he never had the land base to increase... by the way I blame govt ag policys for what is happening to the primary producer and the price squeeze but most farmers blame the corps... in saying that I don't think the farmers still in business today can all be wrong by thinking that...

 

[ocm]

Just because large packers have power does not mean they are abusing that power. Any packer in Canada would have taken advantage of an overabundant supply relative to slaughter capacity. You would have done the same thing in their shoes.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Power corrupts"? I'm sure you have. Our founding fathers went to a great deal of trouble balancing the powers of government to prevent concentration of power and its attendant corruption.

Do you believe that a human being in a position of power in government is MORE corruptible than someone in a position of power in business?

Our government is structured to both PREVENT accumulation of power PREEMPTIVELY, and to punish its abuse after the fact.

Why should business be treated any differently? Are government employees evil (even state employees), and business employees not?

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "And just as I cannot prove that Cargill and Tyson did not abuse power, you, SH, cannot prove that they did not.

The burden of proof falls at the feet of the accuser, not the accused.

If you want to live your life crying in your beer because you think every major corporation is screwing you WITHOUT PROOF, that's your problem.

Randy: " Yes any packer wouild take advantage. Does that make it right?Is it right for the packer (whoever that may be) to profit profusely while the producer burns equity?"

What would you do if you were a packer? Would you pay more for cattle than you had to? Would you not try to profit in Canada to cover your losses in the U.S.?

OH, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT ISN'T IT????

Would your being in their shoes and doing the same thing make it right?

You won't answer that.

You wouldn't be any damn different yet you seem to think the packers owe you a living.

Randy: "I don't want to hear you "Blame Rcalf" routine again SH. I want to deal with laws that let this happen."

If I want to point out the lies and deception of R-CULT there is not a damn thing you can do about it. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

I don't know what kind of twisted Canadian logic would allow R-CULT a free pass when they lied about the safety of your product to put you in that position. I'm sure they appreciate your support.

Randy: "I've sucked my thumb to the bone dipshit, time for you to quit sucking yours."

I'm not blaming anyone like you are, I'm simply point out the facts of these issues which are despised by packer blamers like you.

Randy: "Tell me how we continue to watch producers go broke while packers in Canada profit, border open or closed."

If you are going broke with the Canadian border opened, then you must have been going broke before it closed. No wonder you want to blame packers.

Randy: "Feeder cattle have moved up but fats are less than pre border opening. Dumb ash feedlot guys are bidding against Tyson and Cargill who have a boxed beef price fixed by forward contracts. I don't care what dollar you are using, break even some $1.10 - 9 weight cattle with an 80 cent fat market for me."

Why would feedlot guys be bidding against Cargill and Tyson on fat cattle?

That doesn't even make sense.

Like I said, if you don't like your prices, send them South. That's where the beef ends up anyway.

OCM: "Have you ever heard of the phrase "Power corrupts"? I'm sure you have."

Of course I have. Mainly by unsuccessful blamers.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? I didn't think so.

I do not believe every successful company or corporation is corrupt. That's obviously your claim to fame.

OCM: "Do you believe that a human being in a position of power in government is MORE corruptible than someone in a position of power in business?"

What anyone "BELIEVES" is irrelevant to what they can "PROVE".

OCM: "Our government is structured to both PREVENT accumulation of power PREEMPTIVELY, and to punish its abuse after the fact."

I suppose that would explain Clinton's impeachment process huh?


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

You don't blame anyone hey SH? Almost every post you make is BLAMING Rcalf.

I will never give Rcalf a free ride for their part in keeping the border closed (remember I don't believe it was ALL Rcalf that kept it closed), Their protectionist nature and use of BSE as an economic tool is as deplorable as the packer led USDA's use of BSE as an economic tool.

I told you a million times SH, my integrated beef business is doing fine. The conventional industry in Canada and the USA is not. YES before and after BSE. If you and your arrogant partner Agman want to ignore and even make the majority of primary producers in our two countries out to be useless and ignorant that's your choice. I choose to try to find a way to help these family farms survive.

When I was talking about feelot guys bidding against the packers, I was talking about feeder cattle. Cargill and Tyson have huge feeder inventories here in Canada, just like some of your more SH minded States. Unless these feedlot guys have some connection to the packers on a contract level, they are fools to bid against them for feeders.

Packers love it when dumbass feelot guys refuse their one and only bid for the week. They simply kill their own cattle and buy the dumbass's cattle next week at a lower bid. (I call them dumbasses in all kindness, these are truely the capitalist looking for change) Integration with two players who hold 80% capacity is far closer to a communist sytem than the true competitive marketplace our countries both stand for.

You are so bloody focused on defending the packers SH, that you cannot open your mind to alternatives. Your own primary producers are failing rapidly under the current system, and you see no need to change. I don't believe that the packers owe me a living. I believe change is needed to allow a level playing field again. A field that has never been level since the mutinationals gained such a high level of control. Control that is even more here in Canada with two companies owning 80% of the slaughter capacity and backing that up with huge inventories of feeder cattle to control their own market.

Now SH. back to your grade 10 method of cut and paste, and show how I am wrong.
Never a straight answer to anyone on this board, never an honest opinion (unless you honestly ONLY want to defend packers), and never anything but put downs and name calling.

 

[rkaiser]

Thought I would catch you before you fell off your chair again laughing at my claim that Tyson and Cargill wanted the border closed as long as they could.

The big picture is SH. Power and control. The longer that border was closed, the more time Cargill and Tyson had to secure power in Canada, and very likely in the northern states. Break the importer in the northern states, and ultimately out bid Swift for the third largest packing plant in Canada, with the millions made during the BSEconomic windfall. What else was Cargill to do with their million, give it up in Taxes?

And power in the packing industry was only the start. How many more Canadian companies were bought out by Cargill, how many more feedlots do they now control. The windfall has only just begun.

You can blame Rcalf all you want SH, but the game was on for the big boys, and they won and will continue to win.

Our lame assed Liberal government allows it and will continue to allow it because mutinational control is as liberal as you can get. Saying Cargill is a result of true free enterprise at work is a joke. Corporate welfare builds these giants and then they tell the government what to do. Conspiracy theory - of course SH will claim that, and then he will get back on to his defense of these liberal loving welfare oligarchs.

 

[Murgen]

I guess we as producers of fed cattle could also come up with a system of supply that meets demand weekly. Ownership by many could be marketed as a group! Would that be lack of competition, as the dairy industry in Canada is percieved?

It's funny that some US groups attack our idea of quota systems, to market to the multinationals, but when it comes to beef, the American producer is all for such a system, in their ideoligies.

We do have the opportunity to devise such a system, where the Multinational Packers buy from a couple of marketing groups. But that would take some co-operation, a concept that we in the beef industry seem so opposed to. We watch the multinationals profit from lack of percieved competition, but are not willing to implement the same system when it comes to providing raw product.

"divide and conquer, or congregate and conquer?"

 

[Econ101]

I guess we as producers of fed cattle could also come up with a system of supply that meets demand weekly. Ownership by many could be marketed as a group! Would that be lack of competition, as the dairy industry in Canada is percieved?

It's funny that some US groups attack our idea of quota systems, to market to the multinationals, but when it comes to beef, the American producer is all for such a system, in their ideoligies.

We do have the opportunity to devise such a system, where the Multinational Packers buy from a couple of marketing groups. But that would take some co-operation, a concept that we in the beef industry seem so opposed to. We watch the multinationals profit from lack of percieved competition, but are not willing to implement the same system when it comes to providing raw product.

"divide and conquer, or congregate and conquer?"

Good points, Murgen. The problem with a large group selling to a very few is the lack of bargaining power. That is why the PSA Section 202 a) and b) were written. Quota groups give back that bargaining power. They can be good, bad or indifferent, like unions.

 

[Tam]

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake?

That is funny Sandhusker here you are talking about being robbed at gunpoint. I was talking to someone in the US the other night and the comment "Nobody was putting a gun to anyones head to sign a forward contract" came up, and it wasn't me that said it I just agreed. Then I was told they had made out very well in their contracts over the years. By the conversation I got the feeling it would make them very unhappy if they couldn't sell their calves the way they wanted to because of some stupid lawsuit.