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

R-Calf Issues Another Press Release...

TimH

Well-known member
An R-Calf spokesman talks to the media........

Billings-Bob.jpg


Hey folks.........It's "Billings Bob"!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Careful, now, you Canadian boys, We have bases real close to the border--or highways to get them there. :wink: :wink: :wink:

We might not want foreign propaganda terrorist camps north of us. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
TimH said:
An R-Calf spokesman talks to the media........

Billings-Bob.jpg


Hey folks.........It's "Billings Bob"!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well RCult goes against what America was founded on, built on and stands for.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
TimH said:
An R-Calf spokesman talks to the media........

Billings-Bob.jpg


Hey folks.........It's "Billings Bob"!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well RCult goes against what America was founded on, built on and stands for.

Interesting comment coming from a foreigner! :lol: So what exactly is it that R-CALF is against that is so un-American?

The picture looks like SH to me, "I have never been refuted! Truth is my only bias! ILLUSIONS! Deceiver! Your blood will flow upon the sands like milk from a goat and Allah will open the gates of hell for your deceptive soul! R-CULT! I detest you! &%[email protected]#!*&^&!!!!!!"
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
LOL RCult is trying to force consumers to buy their product.
They might as well just come out and say that they want the Feds to come in and "Nationalize" the packing companies.
Class envy, divide and conquer and where all victims of the big capitalist, etc, etc.
LOL RCULT sounds more like Joseph Stallin everyday. LOL Remember how they couldnt even feedthemselves with his collective farming?
Main article: Agriculture of the Soviet Union.

Agriculture was organized into a system of collective farms (kolkhozes) and state farms (sovkhozes). Organized on a large scale and highly mechanized, the Soviet Union was one of the world's leading producers of cereals, although bad harvests (as in 1972 and 1975) necessitated imports and slowed the economy. The 1976-1980 five-year plan shifted resources to agriculture, and 1978 saw a record harvest. Cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, and flax were also major crops.

However, despite immense land resources, extensive machinery and chemical industries, and a large rural work force, Soviet agriculture was relatively unproductive, hampered in many areas by the climate (only 10 percent of the Soviet Union's land was arable), and poor worker productivity.

[edit]
Foreign trade and currency
Largely self-sufficient, the Soviet Union traded little in comparison to its economic strength. However, trade with noncommunist countries increased in the 1970s as the government sought to compensate gaps in domestic production with imports.

In general, fuels, metals, and timber were exported. Machinery, consumer goods, and sometimes grain were imported. In the 1980 trade with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) member states accounted for about half the country's volume of trade.

The Soviet currency (ruble) was non-convertible after 1932 (when trade in gold-convertible "czervonetz", introduced by Lenin in NEP years was suspended) until the late eighties. It was impossible (both for citizens and state-owned businesses) to freely buy or sell foreign currency even though the "exchange rate" was set and published regularly. Buying or selling foreign currency on a black market was a serious crime until the late eighties. Individuals who were paid from abroad (for example writers whose books were published abroad) normally had to spend their currency in a foreign-currency-only chain of state-owned "Beryezka" ("Birch-tree") stores. Once a free conversion of currency was allowed, the exchange rate plummetted from its official values by almost a factor of 10.

Overall, the banking system was highly centralized and fully controlled by a single state-owned Gosbank, responsive to the fulfillment of the government's economic plans. Soviet banks furnished short-term credit to state-owned enterprises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Agriculture
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
LOL RCult is trying to force consumers to buy their product.
They might as well just come out and say that they want the Feds to come in and "Nationalize" the packing companies.
Class envy, divide and conquer and where all victims of the big capitalist, etc, etc.
LOL RCULT sounds more like Joseph Stallin everyday. LOL Remember how they couldnt even feedthemselves with his collective farming?
Main article: Agriculture of the Soviet Union.

Agriculture was organized into a system of collective farms (kolkhozes) and state farms (sovkhozes). Organized on a large scale and highly mechanized, the Soviet Union was one of the world's leading producers of cereals, although bad harvests (as in 1972 and 1975) necessitated imports and slowed the economy. The 1976-1980 five-year plan shifted resources to agriculture, and 1978 saw a record harvest. Cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, and flax were also major crops.

However, despite immense land resources, extensive machinery and chemical industries, and a large rural work force, Soviet agriculture was relatively unproductive, hampered in many areas by the climate (only 10 percent of the Soviet Union's land was arable), and poor worker productivity.

[edit]
Foreign trade and currency
Largely self-sufficient, the Soviet Union traded little in comparison to its economic strength. However, trade with noncommunist countries increased in the 1970s as the government sought to compensate gaps in domestic production with imports.

In general, fuels, metals, and timber were exported. Machinery, consumer goods, and sometimes grain were imported. In the 1980 trade with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) member states accounted for about half the country's volume of trade.

The Soviet currency (ruble) was non-convertible after 1932 (when trade in gold-convertible "czervonetz", introduced by Lenin in NEP years was suspended) until the late eighties. It was impossible (both for citizens and state-owned businesses) to freely buy or sell foreign currency even though the "exchange rate" was set and published regularly. Buying or selling foreign currency on a black market was a serious crime until the late eighties. Individuals who were paid from abroad (for example writers whose books were published abroad) normally had to spend their currency in a foreign-currency-only chain of state-owned "Beryezka" ("Birch-tree") stores. Once a free conversion of currency was allowed, the exchange rate plummetted from its official values by almost a factor of 10.

Overall, the banking system was highly centralized and fully controlled by a single state-owned Gosbank, responsive to the fulfillment of the government's economic plans. Soviet banks furnished short-term credit to state-owned enterprises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#Agriculture

Roper, I am not a member of rcalf but where did you get this stuff? I have no problem with even the largest company--if they don't use market power (which is what the Packers and Stockyards Act was supposed to prevent) to dominate the market. By not enforcing the law against law breakers, the Fed. govt. has already come out and nationalized the packing industry. They have done it in Canada too. The USDA stopped Canadian imports, not rcalf. Rcalf is just the scapegoat it seems to me.

Producers need the people who buy their products to be in competition for their products too. The items in section 202 of the PSA are the known ways to use market power. Basically it is to differentiate for no real good reason and then discriminate. It is the abuse of market power to obtain lower prices to producers. They used marketing agreements to do this.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should go after a company because it is big. It is because they broke the law. That isn't the only time they have done it. The whole idea of using the excuse that anyone is going after the packers because they are big is just ridiculous. It is just an excuse. There is no law that says they can't be big. You couldn't even get iinto court on that one.

In the case of Canada production, the packers are using the international line to not be held accountable for the elements in the Packers and Stockyards Act. At least that is my biggest beef.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Roper, we're not trying to force people to buy our product - not even close. What we want is for customers to be able to tell our product from other's and to have a checkoff that promotes our product over other's. How can you realize the fullest return on your investment if you can't segregate your own product? How many companies out there promote their competitor's product on an equal basis as your own.

We're also not trying to nationalize the packers. All we want is a fair shake for everybody. We want laws enforced. That is un-American? Come on, Roper, you're smarter than that. Don't fall into this "R-CALF is all bad" mentality that has permeated the people that can't see the big picture.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
http://www.r-calfusa.com/
RCALFs web site says they want to clarify and enforce the Packers & Stockyards Act by banning packer ownership of livestock, requiring all forward contracts to include a firm base price, and by protecting the cash market from further "thinning."
Just like Stalin they want the government to say who can own cattle and who cant, they want the government to tell a private company how much they have to pay someone for their product. <another good reason for packers to relocate outside the US>.and a very slippery slope!
RCALF says R-CALF USA is working hard to achieve meaningful trade safeguards for U.S. cattle producers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement to ensure fairness for U.S. cattle producers.
reply
If they meant this they would be working towards a united North American beef industry instead of doing everything they can to exclude Canadian beef from the market, divideing producers and always working on the negative.
RCALF has done everything in its power to be like Stalin and to stop trade.By doing so RCALF wants to force American consumers to buy beef from American producers which is another slippery slope. Whats next you have to be an rcalf member to sell beef in America?
Plus all RCALF is doing is compouding your percieved troubles. Why doesnt RCALF promote ideas that would actually help? If RCALF thinks there is so much money in the packing industry then why doesnt rcalf organize producers into getting together and forming co/op packing plants? Why not Capitalize on it? Why not look at it as an opportunity? I tell you why,RCALF needs victims, rcalf needs producers to believes that are victims of corporate conspiracies,victims of legal system conspiracies and victims of political conspiracies.
With this kind of mindset how do you convince producers that they can win? How do you convince producers to take the bull by the horns and work together to start their own CO/OP packing plants? How about a campain of producer to the consumers plate! Why not look at ways to get rid of regulation and to create an enviroment where producers can market their own beef?
The last thing that RCALF wants is for American Producers to be is strong and self reliant. Without victims, rcalf is doomed.
Thats why everything they do is always negative. LOL Make the packing companies in America sort every cut of meat by the country of origim. Yup just another reason for packing plants to relocate to Canada. Process only Canadian cattle and then export boxed meat to America. LOL Then wont rcalf be screeching murder!
Sue old hell out of packing plants in America and harass them so that no company will want to build another packing plant on American soil. Yup this insures no new compitition for Tysons. Makes Canada look better as a place to build a packing plant.
You know if rcalf would have won and kept the border closed to Canadian live cattle all that would have happened was that packing plants would have closed in America and moved up here, Processed Canadian beef and exported it as boxed beef.
Seems to me the biggest threat to the American producer is rcalf. RCALF is also a threat to Canadian producers as well because of their wreckless attempts to scare consumers away from beef because of BSE. We are not your enemy. R-CALF, Radical, Commies, Against, Liberty and Freedom is!
You give me an example of one nation on the face of the earth in the whole history of the earth that has taxed, regulated and sued its way to prosperity.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I think you're getting pretty wild, Roper.

Roper, "RCALFs web site says they want to clarify and enforce the Packers & Stockyards Act by banning packer ownership of livestock, requiring all forward contracts to include a firm base price, and by protecting the cash market from further "thinning." Just like Stalin they want the government to say who can own cattle and who cant, they want the government to tell a private company how much they have to pay someone for their product.

R-CALF isn't asking for anything that other markets don't have. Our financial markets understand the power of the "big boys" and extra regulations are put on them that are not on others. When having the fairest market is a priority, this is not only a common practice, but is expected.

I don't know where you came up with the statement about telling a private company how much they have to pay. I'll file that one along with your earlier claim that R-CALF compares Canada to China continually....

Roper, "RCALF says R-CALF USA is working hard to achieve meaningful trade safeguards for U.S. cattle producers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement to ensure fairness for U.S. cattle producers.
If they meant this they would be working towards a united North American beef industry instead of doing everything they can to exclude Canadian beef from the market, divideing producers and always working on the negative.

Explain to me what US producers have to gain by being lumped into a North American Beef Industry with a country that produces exponentially more beef than they can consume? Please convince me there's something in it for us.

Roper, "RCALF has done everything in its power to be like Stalin and to stop trade."

Incorrect. When you were on our site, did you miss the headline about supporting the FTA with Korea? Would an outfit that wanted to stop trade support a FTA?

Roper, "By doing so RCALF wants to force American consumers to buy beef from American producers which is another slippery slope. Whats next you have to be an rcalf member to sell beef in America?"

That's rediculous, Roper. We certainly want American consumers to buy American beef, but where did the "force" come from?

Roper, "Plus all RCALF is doing is compouding your percieved troubles."

If the troubles are only perceived, there is nothing to compound.

Roper, "Why doesnt RCALF promote ideas that would actually help?"

You mean like opening up markets with countries that are beef importing nations? Promoting US producer's product over our competitors? Closing loopholes in the feed ban that could come back to haunt the industry? Enforcing existing laws that protect producers from price manipulation? Expanding BSE testing to enhance consumer confidence? Allowing US packers the basic right to meet a customer's requests which would benefit our export markets? You need to catch up on your reading, Roper. We're already doing all of these.

Roper, "If RCALF thinks there is so much money in the packing industry then why doesnt rcalf organize producers into getting together and forming co/op packing plants? Why not Capitalize on it? Why not look at it as an opportunity?"

I suggest you ask fellow Canuck Randy Kaiser how well that idea flies.

The rest of your post is really wild - I think your Molson is starting to kick in. :wink:
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
LOL Sandhusker :D :D
Well you have convinced me of one thing.
Canadian producers should stay away from any deals to intergrate with US producers if US producers are hell bent on sticking it to themselves.
Its actually hard to feel sorry for you guys if you screw up your own industry. Im just glad that it isnt really going to effect us in a negative way up north.
Wealth is created, there is no set amount that is divided.
Canada is open for business :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
LOL Sandhusker :D :D
Well you have convinced me of one thing.
Canadian producers should stay away from any deals to intergrate with US producers if US producers are hell bent on sticking it to themselves.
Its actually hard to feel sorry for you guys if you screw up your own industry. Im just glad that it isnt really going to effect us in a negative way up north.
Wealth is created, there is no set amount that is divided.
Canada is open for business :D


I'm just trying to keep you straight, Buddy! Pass me a Molson if you have any left. :wink:
 

hsiemens

New member
Come on Roper...They can't ship live animals to the US...

You talk so much about marketing.... The suppliers to your consumers know what they want and like....It's good old fashined Canadian beef.. Why else would the Alberta [ American] packers ship their best south and the old cow meat back to Manitoba.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hsiemens said:
Come on Roper...They can't ship live animals to the US...

You talk so much about marketing.... The suppliers to your consumers know what they want and like....It's good old fashined Canadian beef.. Why else would the Alberta [ American] packers ship their best south and the old cow meat back to Manitoba.

If Canadian beef is what US consumers want and like, wouldn't it make sense to label it as such and get a premium out of it?
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Country-of-Origin Labeling:

We are expecting, any day now, the USDA’s publication of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling cost-benefit analysis and proposed rule. The release of this rule will be followed by a comment period, where all interested parties and producers may respond. USDA will then take into account all of the comments and issue a final rule. Upon this release, NCBA will immediately review the proposed rule and cost-benefit analysis. Recent press coverage regarding the impending rule reports that the mandatory program could cost as much as $3.9 billion to implement in the first year alone. NCBA continues to meet with members of Congress to discuss pursuit of a market-driven, producer-friendly labeling program consistent with the policy NCBA members adopted at the summer board meeting. NCBA members Jamie Willrett and Lemmy Wilson were in Washington D.C. this week for meetings with members of Congress and the Administration on COL. Wilson is Chair of NCBA’s Livestock Marketing Council and Willrett is a member of the USDA’s Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets.
http://www.beefusa.org/NEWSCattlemensCapitolConcernsOctober23200310934.aspx

Just another reason for packers to relocate to Canada and just buy Canadian beef. No sorting out American stuff. Put it in a box, stick a label on it and send it all to America. :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
It seems to me that packers get cost analysis on all of the rules that affect them. I would like to see every GIPSA investigation have a cost analysis also as to the cost of the fraud on the producer and on the market as a whole.

Why should packers get all the advantages?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
It seems to me that packers get cost analysis on all of the rules that affect them. I would like to see every GIPSA investigation have a cost analysis also as to the cost of the fraud on the producer and on the market as a whole.

Why should packers get all the advantages?

I agree with all the cost analysis' done by the USDA. I'm looking for them to start doing a cost analysis on their own cost analysis'.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Country-of-Origin Labeling:

We are expecting, any day now, the USDA’s publication of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling cost-benefit analysis and proposed rule. The release of this rule will be followed by a comment period, where all interested parties and producers may respond. USDA will then take into account all of the comments and issue a final rule. Upon this release, NCBA will immediately review the proposed rule and cost-benefit analysis. Recent press coverage regarding the impending rule reports that the mandatory program could cost as much as $3.9 billion to implement in the first year alone. NCBA continues to meet with members of Congress to discuss pursuit of a market-driven, producer-friendly labeling program consistent with the policy NCBA members adopted at the summer board meeting. NCBA members Jamie Willrett and Lemmy Wilson were in Washington D.C. this week for meetings with members of Congress and the Administration on COL. Wilson is Chair of NCBA’s Livestock Marketing Council and Willrett is a member of the USDA’s Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets.
http://www.beefusa.org/NEWSCattlemensCapitolConcernsOctober23200310934.aspx

Just another reason for packers to relocate to Canada and just buy Canadian beef. No sorting out American stuff. Put it in a box, stick a label on it and send it all to America. :D


First of all, Roper, this is coming from some folks who are against COOL, so it has to be taken with a pretty healthy pinch of salt. Personally, I have to laugh at that estimate. Consider the facts;

All boxed beef that is imported is ALREADY LABELED.

Cattle from Mexico are branded "M" and cattle from Canada are branded "CAN" before they can cross the border.

As long as the fellas at the border do their job, most of the work is done! We know that packers can segregate product and label accordingly - they're already doing it with "Natural" product lines. I ask you, what is going to cost the 4 B?
 
Top