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.
Conman: "Do you believe the line from SH and Agman that the use of marketing agreements means that packers ALWAYS manipulate the cattle markets?"
~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~
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."
~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~
feeder: "They will have free excess to our markets."
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.
Mike: "Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to match the tarriff of the countries that were charging us to import?"
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?"
~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~
~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!
Ahhhh......the country importing the tarriff????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?"
What did I win?
~SH~
~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~
Conman: "Central American countries did not have free access to our markets before CAFTA."
Conman: "The problem here is not about R-Calf. It is about the lies you spread constantly."
~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~