Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
I also forgot to tell you that you don't mention Sheep and girlfriends on this site in the same post. Things digress rather quickly and you could find your self banned from posting. :cowboy:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
R-Calf on RFDTV
- Thread starter feeder
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Big Muddy rancher said:I also forgot to tell you that you don't mention Sheep and girlfriends on this site in the same post. Things digress rather quickly and you could find your self banned from posting. :cowboy:
Thanks, BMR. I think the CAFTA backdoor imports have been posted on this forum enough to make the assertion that it could potentially be a real big problem. I was talking to a Dominican whose family is big in banking and they were not too happy with CAFTA. They saw it as a threat of big U.S. business getting their way in their country. I guess you have had enough experience with that one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "I was talking to a Dominican whose family is big in banking and they were not too happy with CAFTA. They saw it as a threat of big U.S. business getting their way in their country. I guess you have had enough experience with that one."
Hahaha! So now you are making a case against CAFTA based on how it might hurt those in the Dominican????
HAHAHAHAHA!
Keep posting Conman, you're hilarious!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "I was talking to a Dominican whose family is big in banking and they were not too happy with CAFTA. They saw it as a threat of big U.S. business getting their way in their country. I guess you have had enough experience with that one."
Hahaha! So now you are making a case against CAFTA based on how it might hurt those in the Dominican????
HAHAHAHAHA!
Keep posting Conman, you're hilarious!
~SH~
They made that case to me. It has also been voiced by a great many organizations that work in these countries.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mexico had the same concerns about NAFTA because they knew it would benefit the U.S. producer more than them. Whose producers are you representing?
BTW, hope your daughter is feeling better.
~SH~
BTW, hope your daughter is feeling better.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Quote:
Conman: "Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA."
SH, "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! "
Can you explain why you would have a quota if you have free access? Wouldn't free access do away with quotas? Who is the moron?
Conman: "Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA."
SH, "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! "
Can you explain why you would have a quota if you have free access? Wouldn't free access do away with quotas? Who is the moron?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Can you explain why you would have a quota if you have free access? Wouldn't free access do away with quotas?"
They hadn't met their quotas so they still had free access. They were not restricted by quotas or tarriffs because they never met those quotas (ie "free access").
Sandbag: "Who is the moron?"
You and Conman and thanks for asking!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "Can you explain why you would have a quota if you have free access? Wouldn't free access do away with quotas?"
They hadn't met their quotas so they still had free access. They were not restricted by quotas or tarriffs because they never met those quotas (ie "free access").
Sandbag: "Who is the moron?"
You and Conman and thanks for asking!
~SH~
You don't know what "free access" means. :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
I know what I meant by "free access".
~SH~
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:I know what I meant by "free access".
~SH~
Well then, you should be able to communicate very well with yourself. The rest of us use a different meaning for "free access".
Having a bad day, buddy?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Ok, I should have said "unfettered" or "unhindered" access rather than "free access". Your point is taken. Happy now?
~SH~
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Ok, I should have said "unfettered" or "unhindered" access rather than "free access". Your point is taken. Happy now?
~SH~
Happier. Thanks
rees said:per capita income of the 6 CAFTA nations is @ $4000/yr
how much of our high priced fed beef are they going to buy
In the Dec 9, 2005 edition of the Sandhills Cattle News, Ronna has an article about her attendance at the recent Range Cow Beef Symposium in Rapid City. She quotes Dr Gary Smith of Colo State, who said during a presentation that by the year 2030, developing countries will consume 42% more meat.
I'd prefer they buy beef, wouldn't you? May not be tenderloin or T bones, but we have lots of parts and pieces to sell them at a price that works.
Beefman
Beefman said:rees said:per capita income of the 6 CAFTA nations is @ $4000/yr
how much of our high priced fed beef are they going to buy
In the Dec 9, 2005 edition of the Sandhills Cattle News, Ronna has an article about her attendance at the recent Range Cow Beef Symposium in Rapid City. She quotes Dr Gary Smith of Colo State, who said during a presentation that by the year 2030, developing countries will consume 42% more meat.
I'd prefer they buy beef, wouldn't you? May not be tenderloin or T bones, but we have lots of parts and pieces to sell them at a price that works.
Beefman
Maybe 8 cent trim?
A
Anonymous
Guest
rees: "per capita income of the 6 CAFTA nations is @ $4000/yr
how much of our high priced fed beef are they going to buy"
I have heard this argument many times. Johnny Smith also says, "you can't trade with countries that don't have any money". Sounds good on the surface doesn't it? What Johnny and many like him fail to realize is that many times this beef is being sold in foreign hotels and restraunts to tourists who do have money. Same thing in Central America.
Does Mexico have a lot of money? Well why did we export far more dollars worth of beef to Mexico than we imported pre BSE? Why did Mexico file a dumping case against the U.S. when R-CULT was filing a dumping case against Canada? So much for that argument.
The thing to remember about imports vs. exports is that we are in a global market. The imports we ban will replace our exports on the world market. Our competition is poultry and pork, not imports. The only new money to this industry will come from the consumer, not from within this industry. While R-CULT's focus is on suing packers, blaming imports, and regulating packers and retailers, NCBA's focus is on the consumer and expanding our export markets.
~SH~
Our competition is poultry and pork, not imports
And the current packers have done a poor job in that competition. They have used the beef markets to make more money in pork and poultry. When they get the market control in beef that they have in poultry, the producer surplus will be wrung out of the industry, and you are helping them, SH. Sure, more beef will be sold, but the benefits of those extra sales will go to packers, not cattlemen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "They have used the beef markets to make more money in pork and poultry."
That is absolutely untrue!
No business is going to allow one of their entities to gain at the expense of another WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY PACKERS OUT THERE BUYING CATTLE. Your first falacy of the day.
PROVE IT! BRING THE ACTUAL PROOF!
Watch the dance folks...................
Conman: "When they get the market control in beef that they have in poultry, the producer surplus will be wrung out of the industry, and you are helping them, SH."
How can they gain control of the packing industry when they have less than 30% of the market share now?
Miraculously, ibp sold to Tyson and Tyson even tried to get out of that deal, remember. Oh, you didn't know that either did youi? ibp was going to CONTROL THE INDUSTRY TOO as was WILSON, SWIFT, ARMOUR, CUDAHEY, and MORRIS before them and most of those names aren't around anymore.
Your second falacy of the day.
Conman: "Sure, more beef will be sold, but the benefits of those extra sales will go to packers, not cattlemen."
Packers are margin operators, they pay for cattle what they get for boxed beef. You're not smart enough to realize that live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices, LONG TERM and they are tracking with boxed beef in Canada now that slaughter capacity is equal to cattle numbers again.
Prove me wrong. You can't!
That's your third falacy of the day.
Three lines of bullsh*t in your first post of the day and you have nothing to back any of it other than cheap talk!
NEXT!
~SH~
rees said:per capita income of the 6 CAFTA nations is @ $4000/yr
how much of our high priced fed beef are they going to buy
There are probably quite a lot of VERY wealthy people in those countries.....and they have a tourist industry for which they need high quality beef.
Who would go to the expense of taking the US beef down there if there was no market????
MRJ
No business is going to allow one of their entities to gain at the expense of another WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY PACKERS OUT THERE BUYING CATTLE. Your first falacy of the day.
Why did it just happen, SH? Agman claims that packer margins are low and sometimes negative. Poultry and Pork sides of these businesses are raking in the big bucks for the processors.
Do you deny this is happening? I have already posted proof of this.
