R-Calf on RFDTV

[Econ101]

How sweet! One phony defending another!

Sandbag: "He just said that the prices they paid for beef were higher than they should of been."

He's wrong! Consumers have many protein choices. If consumers are paying more for beef IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, not because some phony imagined market manipulation conspiracy forced their prices higher as Conman has eluded to.

Besides that, he contradicts himself again because he previously stated that higher prices were due to "tightened supplies", now he's claiming it was "market manipulation" that led to the higher prices.

Like I said, liars can't keep their stories straight and you'd be well advised not to try to defend a blatant liar just because he's singing your blaming song.

~SH~

Yes, SH, you are right. They have chicken and pork to buy. Both are the main substitutes for beef and Tyson has positions in both of them. When you go onto a car ot and are offered different choices of cars to buy, but you have to buy from that car lot, there is no "real" choice. Competition means that there are other companies out there with competing car lots, not one company with different cars.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Your phony analogy doesn't apply because this industry has multiple car lots with numerous cars to choose from.

The fact that Tyson is involved in poultry and pork is irrelevant to the fact that each entity has to be profitable and they still have to compete with Excel and Swift to get those cattle bought along with many other packers.

You don't know crap about this industry and you confirm it with every post you make.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Each entity does NOT have to be profitable. One of the reasons for diversification of product lines (or crops in the case of a farmer) is that you KNOW at times certain lines will not be profitable and certain ones will. You diversify to take out the highs and lows and even out your cash flow.

 

[Mike]

Tyson Foods' chicken business remains its financial strength. It had operating income of $247 million in the first six months of fiscal 2005. Conversely, beef had a loss of $35 million. Pork had operating income of $34 million, and prepared foods earned $32 million.

The company predicts beef operations to be profitable in the second half of 2005 because of a seasonal increase in demand and larger live cattle supplies, according to Tyson. Its earnings guidance at the end of June was for it to earn between $1.05 and $1.20 per share in fiscal 2005. Steve Kay is editor and publisher of Cattle Buyers Weekly, Petaluma, Calif.

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

Your phony analogy doesn't apply because this industry has multiple car lots with numerous cars to choose from.

The fact that Tyson is involved in poultry and pork is irrelevant to the fact that each entity has to be profitable and they still have to compete with Excel and Swift to get those cattle bought along with many other packers.

You don't know crap about this industry and you confirm it with every post you make.


~SH~

SH, I think everyone knows your mantra about the cattle business being competitive. Pickett proved it was not to a jury of its peers.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Each entity does NOT have to be profitable. One of the reasons for diversification of product lines (or crops in the case of a farmer) is that you KNOW at times certain lines will not be profitable and certain ones will. You diversify to take out the highs and lows and even out your cash flow."

The issue is not whether each entity HAS TO BE PROFITABLE for Tyson to stay afloat, the issue here is whether Tyson INTENTIONALLY sacrifices profit in one entity to gain in another or whether Tyson wants each entity to be profitable.

To suggest that Tyson would intentionally allow their beef profits to slip while they gained in other proteins is absolute insanity. Another baseless unsupported conspiracy theory to add to an already never ending list.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The only absolute insanity is demonstrated with each of your posts.

Here's a real life scenario for you - although you will probably retort that it doesn't apply because it isnt' cattle. :roll: ; When I worked for Vickers Manufacturing, we had two lines - piston pumps and vane pumps. Piston pumps are simpler and cheaper than vane pumps. We made three times as much money on each vane pump than we made on piston pumps. We had orders for each type and work to be done, but we pulled one cell (group of machines) off of piston and made vane parts. This put the piston line behind and we even had to rebate some orders because we couldn't deliver on time, but we more than made up for it by getting more vanes out the door quicker.

Now don't give us any of your ignorant nonsense about a company not sacrificing one line for the greater good. I was involved in it myself. Stick to what you know, trapping gophers.

 

[Jason]

Sandhusker they switched production to a more valuable product. They never forced customers to buy the more expensive pump. There was enough demand there they could sell all the extra pumps or there was no point in doing it.

By switching to a more profitable line, they never lost money with the cheaper pumps demanded by some customers.

If customers revolted and stopped buying the higher priced pumps they would have switched the lines the other way. That is just a business example.

If packers make more money killing cows instead of steers can they do that if they are set up for that? Same thing.

 

[Sandhusker]

I think you're trying to argue just for the sake of argueing. You've been hanging around SH too long.

Jason, "Sandhusker they switched production to a more valuable product. They never forced customers to buy the more expensive pump. There was enough demand there they could sell all the extra pumps or there was no point in doing it."

What is your point? What is Tyson forcing anybody to buy?

Jason, "By switching to a more profitable line, they never lost money with the cheaper pumps demanded by some customers."

Wrong. You missed where I mentioned we had to reimburse customers because we missed shipping deadlines. Our piston line financials looked like crap for quite some time.

Jason, "If customers revolted and stopped buying the higher priced pumps they would have switched the lines the other way. That is just a business example."

Yes, but what are you trying to prove? My point in the story is that we did take it in the shorts on one line in order to make a bigger profit in the other. Which line was sacrificed for the other doesn't matter.

Jason, "If packers make more money killing cows instead of steers can they do that if they are set up for that? Same thing."

So what is your arguement?

 

[Econ101]

Sandhusker they switched production to a more valuable product. They never forced customers to buy the more expensive pump. There was enough demand there they could sell all the extra pumps or there was no point in doing it.

By switching to a more profitable line, they never lost money with the cheaper pumps demanded by some customers.

If customers revolted and stopped buying the higher priced pumps they would have switched the lines the other way. That is just a business example.

If packers make more money killing cows instead of steers can they do that if they are set up for that? Same thing.

And that reasoning is exactly why they are selling more chicken at higher prices. Go back and look at the data, Jason. It proves the point.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Here's a real life scenario for you - although you will probably retort that it doesn't apply because it isnt' cattle. ; When I worked for Vickers Manufacturing, we had two lines - piston pumps and vane pumps. Piston pumps are simpler and cheaper than vane pumps. We made three times as much money on each vane pump than we made on piston pumps. We had orders for each type and work to be done, but we pulled one cell (group of machines) off of piston and made vane parts. This put the piston line behind and we even had to rebate some orders because we couldn't deliver on time, but we more than made up for it by getting more vanes out the door quicker."

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TYSON WOULD LET BEEF PROFITS SLIP TO GAIN IN POULTRY AND PORK??????

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You truly are an idiot.

You example is within the same plant. Tyson is not the only beef packer nor are they the only pork packer. For them to allow their beef packing plant to suffer WILL BE SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN.

That's what you crazy conspiracy theorists simply cannot get through your heads. TYSON HAS TO COMPETE WITH OTHER COMPANIES.

The only way you can do that in multiple proteins is to make each entity profitable because your loss will be SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN!

You really don't have a clue Sandbag. I take it you were the only one who applied for your bank job?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TYSON WOULD LET BEEF PROFITS SLIP TO GAIN IN POULTRY AND PORK?????? WAHAHAHAHAHA! You truly are an idiot. You example is within the same plant. Tyson is not the only beef packer nor are they the only pork packer. For them to allow their beef packing plant to suffer WILL BE SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN.

That's what you crazy conspiracy theorists simply cannot get through your heads. TYSON HAS TO COMPETE WITH OTHER COMPANIES.

The only way you can do that in multiple proteins is to make each entity profitable because your loss will be SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN!

You really don't have a clue Sandbag. I take it you were the only one who applied for your bank job?


~SH~

You don't know much about business, do you? Did you ever stop to think that Vickers wasn't the only one selling pumps, either? They had to compete with other companies as well for all lines.

Ooops, silly question. Of course you didn't realize Vickers also had competition. You didn't think before you typed. Your modus operandi.

 

[Jason]

Maybe you should post financials from Vickers to prove they lost money on the pumps.

 

[Sandhusker]

Maybe you should post financials from Vickers to prove they lost money on the pumps.

What reason do you have to not believe me, Jason? Is my example too wild to believe?

 

[Jason]

Maybe for the same reason you don't take kill volumes and average cost per head as proof of losses in slaughter facilities.

 

[Sandhusker]

Maybe for the same reason you don't take kill volumes and average cost per head as proof of losses in slaughter facilities.

I don't take that because it doesn't answer the question. Jason, if someone makes a statement that X made/lost more money than Y, isn't it just common sense that any questions would be answered in dollar figures? Why not answer the question directly instead of tangenting off? Responding with anything other than a dollar figure is not worth resonding at all because you're not answering the dang question - you're simply admitting you don't know the answer.

Example; Have you ever had to state your income in getting a loan, doing taxes, getting a credit card etc...? Did you tell them "$x", or did you say, "well, I have 312 cows and 37 heifers - had a calf crop of 93% - gas was kinda high this year....." Same dang thing.

My grandpa passed a lot of good wisdom down. He once told me, "You run with clowns and you'll be a clown". I think that would apply to chat room allies as well as real life buddies.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Here's a real life scenario for you - although you will probably retort that it doesn't apply because it isnt' cattle. ; When I worked for Vickers Manufacturing, we had two lines - piston pumps and vane pumps. Piston pumps are simpler and cheaper than vane pumps. We made three times as much money on each vane pump than we made on piston pumps. We had orders for each type and work to be done, but we pulled one cell (group of machines) off of piston and made vane parts. This put the piston line behind and we even had to rebate some orders because we couldn't deliver on time, but we more than made up for it by getting more vanes out the door quicker."

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TYSON WOULD LET BEEF PROFITS SLIP TO GAIN IN POULTRY AND PORK??????

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You truly are an idiot.

You example is within the same plant. Tyson is not the only beef packer nor are they the only pork packer. For them to allow their beef packing plant to suffer WILL BE SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN.

That's what you crazy conspiracy theorists simply cannot get through your heads. TYSON HAS TO COMPETE WITH OTHER COMPANIES.

The only way you can do that in multiple proteins is to make each entity profitable because your loss will be SOMEONE ELSE'S GAIN!

You really don't have a clue Sandbag. I take it you were the only one who applied for your bank job?


~SH~

SH, although the cattle markets are highly concentrated in the processing, and there is market power, the processors are still only part of the delivery chain. They still have constraints due to market forces. That is not evidence that they can not exert market power and inflict damage to the market as you suggest.

I do not say that Tyson economists intentionally lose money on any of their product lines as you suggest I say. It is a natural reaction of market forces. They know this. You don't. It is still no defense to the accusations of market manipulation. It is about like saying the pervert that abused kids was a model boy scout leader. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Jason]

SH, although the cattle markets are highly concentrated in the processing, and there is market power, the processors are still only part of the delivery chain. They still have constraints due to market forces. That is not evidence that they can not exert market power and inflict damage to the market as you suggest.

I do not say that Tyson economists intentionally lose money on any of their product lines as you suggest I say. It is a natural reaction of market forces. They know this. You don't. It is still no defense to the accusations of market manipulation. It is about like saying the pervert that abused kids was a model boy scout leader. One has nothing to do with the other.

You say "That is not evidence that they can not exert market power and inflict damage..." (did you attend grammar school?), but neither is it proof of market power.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of the American legal system.

Proof has not been presented.

Oh yeah, we are just supposed to trust you.

A used car salesman says the same thing when unloading a lemon.

Proof of market manipulation cannot be supplied when it doesn't exist. Normal buying and selling exert pressure on markets. Unless all buying and selling is fully regualted under some kind of supply control scheme normal fluctuations will occur.

It is not in a producers best interest to blame big business for harsh economic realities when in fact better management can avert most negative consequences.

Better skills to understand business are in the best interest of producers.

 

[Econ101]

SH, although the cattle markets are highly concentrated in the processing, and there is market power, the processors are still only part of the delivery chain. They still have constraints due to market forces. That is not evidence that they can not exert market power and inflict damage to the market as you suggest.

I do not say that Tyson economists intentionally lose money on any of their product lines as you suggest I say. It is a natural reaction of market forces. They know this. You don't. It is still no defense to the accusations of market manipulation. It is about like saying the pervert that abused kids was a model boy scout leader. One has nothing to do with the other.

You say "That is not evidence that they can not exert market power and inflict damage..." (did you attend grammar school?), but neither is it proof of market power.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of the American legal system.

Proof has not been presented.

Oh yeah, we are just supposed to trust you.

A used car salesman says the same thing when unloading a lemon.

Proof of market manipulation cannot be supplied when it doesn't exist. Normal buying and selling exert pressure on markets. Unless all buying and selling is fully regualted under some kind of supply control scheme normal fluctuations will occur.

It is not in a producers best interest to blame big business for harsh economic realities when in fact better management can avert most negative consequences.

Better skills to understand business are in the best interest of producers.

Can you paraphrase it and still allow it to make sense?

I don't expect you to be an expert on U.S. jurisprudence, but you don't have to claim be one.

 

[Jason]

No one can paraphrase your conspiracies, you deny what you say, claim you didn't mean it, then blame Tyson for all the evils.

You have been exposed as a complete fraud and have no credibility with anyone here except a small group that believes what r-calf spouts.