TimH said:An R-Calf spokesman talks to the media........
![]()
Hey folks.........It's "Billings Bob"!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Manitoba_Rancher said:Hey Tim isnt that Ot? :shock: :wink: :lol: :lol:
RoperAB said:TimH said:An R-Calf spokesman talks to the media........
![]()
Hey folks.........It's "Billings Bob"!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well RCult goes against what America was founded on, built on and stands for.
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
RoperAB said:LOL Sandhusker![]()
![]()
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![]()
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.
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?
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.![]()