• 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 on RFDTV

Help Support Ranchers.net:

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Watched the show tonight. I believe they answered questions that helped me see things more clearer than I did before. It was a good show.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,051
Reaction score
129
Location
Big Muddy valley
Did they say why the market in the US continued higher with the opening of the Canadian border and all those packer owned cattle that are used to manipulate the prices.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Did they say why the market in the US continued higher with the opening of the Canadian border and all those packer owned cattle that are used to manipulate the prices.

BMR, they would be higher without Canadian imports and stay higher longer. Go see the article I posted:Are Cattle Prices High Because of "Tight Supply"?

Now is not the time for price manipulation. Do you believe the line from SH and Agman that the use of marketing agreements means that packers ALWAYS manipulate the cattle markets? Your argument is with them if that is the case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Do you believe the line from SH and Agman that the use of marketing agreements means that packers ALWAYS manipulate the cattle markets?"

Another lie!

The line was A QUESTION, why do marketing agreements only PERIODICALLY manipulate markets?

You can't answer that just like you can't answer most questions. You make statements, not give explanations and provide facts. Your a phony!


Feeder did R-CULT explain how Canadian beef can be contaminated and U.S. beef "the safest in the world" when we both had BSE in our native herd and our precautionary measures are identical?

Did they explain why they have never won a court case?

Did they explain why the market climbed higher with the border opened to Canadian live cattle when they predicted a crash?

Did they provide the proof of market manipulation in Pickett vs. IBP, another of their many losses?

Did they explain how labeling 5% of our domestic beef consumption as a novelty item would help the U.S. producer?

Did they explain how CAFTA would negatively impact our markets when all it did was lower our export tarriffs?

Nah, they told packer victims and import blamers what they wanted to hear and provided facts to support none of it, just like they always do.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Do you believe the line from SH and Agman that the use of marketing agreements means that packers ALWAYS manipulate the cattle markets?"

Another lie!

The line was A QUESTION, why do marketing agreements only PERIODICALLY manipulate markets?

You can't answer that just like you can't answer most questions. You make statements, not give explanations and provide facts. Your a phony!


Feeder did R-CULT explain how Canadian beef can be contaminated and U.S. beef "the safest in the world" when we both had BSE in our native herd and our precautionary measures are identical?

Did they explain why they have never won a court case?

Did they explain why the market climbed higher with the border opened to Canadian live cattle when they predicted a crash?

Did they provide the proof of market manipulation in Pickett vs. IBP, another of their many losses?

Did they explain how labeling 5% of our domestic beef consumption as a novelty item would help the U.S. producer?

Did they explain how CAFTA would negatively impact our markets when all it did was lower our export tarriffs?

Nah, they told packer victims and import blamers what they wanted to hear and provided facts to support none of it, just like they always do.



~SH~

It is your and Agman's assertion that the existence of marketing agreements means there has to be market manipulation everytime there is marketing agreements, not mine.

Prove your own argument.

Robbers sometimes use guns to commit crimes. I have a gun. So by your reasoning, I must be a criminal. It is a non sequitor, SH. Get over it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "It is your and Agman's assertion that the existence of marketing agreements means there has to be market manipulation everytime there is marketing manipulation, not mine."

That doesn't even make sense!

There has to be market manipulation everytime there is marketing manipulation?????

What the heck is that supposed to mean????

It's frightening to think that statement makes sense to you.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "It is your and Agman's assertion that the existence of marketing agreements means there has to be market manipulation everytime there is marketing manipulation, not mine."

That doesn't even make sense!

There has to be market manipulation everytime there is marketing manipulation?????

What the heck is that supposed to mean????

It's frightening to think that statement makes sense to you.


~SH~

Thanks, SH. I'll fix that. My 5 year old was up all last night with a stomach virus and I have been working with her all morning. She is now watching Lion King. Boy I wish we had some real lions in the USDA.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
First of all, it is hard for me to remember all the exact wording from the program. They did explain alot about Cafta. They were impressed with the developement of the cattle industry in those countries. They will have free excess to our markets. So I guess everyone has their own opinions what that will do to the supply of cattle here. They did explain in detail why R-Calf was for or against many issues. I could go into detail about certain things but I think I'll pass. By now, most everyone has their own beliefs on the subjects. Being I've been sick for a week and my eyes are so infected with this cold crap it is hard to see the screen and type. Have a good day.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
If the PSA protections went along with NAFTA the Canadians would have had some protections against the actions of the packers in Canada. As it were, they paid them taxpayer money to got them out of a bind and then got raped.

I guess you could say they paid for their own raping. Jason says that is okay. I don't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
feeder: "They will have free excess to our markets."

These Central American countries had free access to our markets before CAFTA feeder. The problem with R-CULT is what they don't tell you. These countries were not meeting their quotas and were charging a 40% tarriff on our products yet they were exporting to the U.S. duty free. Is that fair? CAFTA leveled that playing field. R-CULT misunderstood the issue and deceived the producers again by not telling them the whole story.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
These countries were not meeting their quotas and were charging a 40% tarriff on our products yet they were exporting to the U.S. duty free.

Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to match the tarriff of the countries that were charging us to import?

When they drop their tarriffs, we drop ours. Been done for thousands of years. :???:

A tarriff imposed by these countries shows that "someone" wants their product here much more than they want ours. Wonder who that could be?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to match the tarriff of the countries that were charging us to import?"

Wouldn't that depend on the amount being imported vs. the amount being exported. If they were importing less than we were exporting, who would get hurt worse with a 40% tarriff?

Pretty obvious!


Mike: "A tarriff imposed by these countries shows that "someone" wants their product here much more than they want ours. Wonder who that could be?"

Ahhhh......the country importing the tarriff????

What did I win?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Mike: "Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to match the tarriff of the countries that were charging us to import?"

Wouldn't that depend on the amount being imported vs. the amount being exported. If they were importing less than we were exporting, who would get hurt worse with a 40% tarriff?

Pretty obvious!


Mike: "A tarriff imposed by these countries shows that "someone" wants their product here much more than they want ours. Wonder who that could be?"

Ahhhh......the country importing the tarriff????

What did I win?


~SH~

You won that one, SH, and if you keep skipping down the yellow brick road you might even get to meet the wizard of oz. You might even get a brain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Keep posting Conman!

I want the world to see you packer blamers for the phonys you are.


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Re. beef imports from CAFTA countries, I've read that the beef they send to the USA has to be cooked due to possible Foot and Mouth disease in those countries, and that it is low quality manufacturing beef.

Does anyone know if that is currently (within the past 3 years to now) true?

I do know that they have imported our high quality grain fed beef for their tourism and wealthy citizens who can afford it.

Which doesn't sound like a bad trade since they have cut the tarrifs they imposed on our beef. They have the same deal they had before on sending their low cost lean beef north, while we have a much better deal on sending our high priced fed beef south.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
~SH~ said:
Mike: "Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to match the tarriff of the countries that were charging us to import?"

Wouldn't that depend on the amount being imported vs. the amount being exported. If they were importing less than we were exporting, who would get hurt worse with a 40% tarriff?
Pretty obvious!
Mike: "A tarriff imposed by these countries shows that "someone" wants their product here much more than they want ours. Wonder who that could be?"
Ahhhh......the country importing the tarriff????
What did I win?
~SH~

You win nothing. In the scenario I laid out, whats fair is fair, no matter what the amount is being imported/exported.

Tarriffs are not imposed for profit. Tarriffs are to make the playing field level for the industry in the country that is being inundated with imports.

Why wouldn't the U.S. impose a tarriff on them? Because we have a "cheap food" policy that has been subsidized by the government for years.

Cafta was enacted to keep the price of food down here in the U.S.

Not to sell more product to others. It's a whitewash.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
feeder: "They will have free excess to our markets."

These Central American countries had free access to our markets before CAFTA feeder. The problem with R-CULT is what they don't tell you. These countries were not meeting their quotas and were charging a 40% tarriff on our products yet they were exporting to the U.S. duty free. Is that fair? CAFTA leveled that playing field. R-CULT misunderstood the issue and deceived the producers again by not telling them the whole story.


~SH~

SH, this is a lie. Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA.

Why do you think the sugar lobby was against it and almost killed it?

The problem here is not about R-Calf. It is about the lies you spread constantly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike,

What is best for the U.S. is no tarriffs either way. That is what CAFTA provided for the beef industry. If the tarriff is set at 40% both ways and we are exporting more than we are importing from these countries, we get hurt.

CAFTA was enacted to allow us duty free access to Central American countries without paying a 40% tarriff while they exported to the U.S. duty free.


Conman: "Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA."

I'm talking about "BEEF" you moron.

In beef they most certainly did. The Central American countries were not meeting their export quotas ON BEEF and were entering the U.S. DUTY FREE!

In contrast, we were paying a 40% tarriff to export our beef to them.

One more example of your ignorance.


Conman: "The problem here is not about R-Calf. It is about the lies you spread constantly."

You haven't corrected anything I have stated yet. You are unquestionably the biggest phony to ever corrupt this site.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Mike,

What is best for the U.S. is no tarriffs either way. That is what CAFTA provided for the beef industry. If the tarriff is set at 40% both ways and we are exporting more than we are importing from these countries, we get hurt.

CAFTA was enacted to allow us duty free access to Central American countries without paying a 40% tarriff while they exported to the U.S. duty free.


Conman: "Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA."

I'm talking about "BEEF" you moron.

In beef they most certainly did. The Central American countries were not meeting their export quotas ON BEEF and were entering the U.S. DUTY FREE!

In contrast, we were paying a 40% tarriff to export our beef to them.

One more example of your ignorance.


Conman: "The problem here is not about R-Calf. It is about the lies you spread constantly."

You haven't corrected anything I have stated yet. You are unquestionably the biggest phony to ever corrupt this site.


~SH~

SH, I can't tell the difference when you are talking about beef, sheep, or your girlfriend. Maybe you should be a little more specific. CAFTA was not just a beef issue.

One more example of your ignorance.

You are unquestionably the biggest phony to ever corrupt this site.
 

Latest posts

Top