R-Calf on RFDTV

[Anonymous]

Conman: "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."

Heck no I don't deny this is happening. What I deny happening is that Tyson is intentionally allowing their beef sales to stagnate at the benefit of pork and poultry. Packer profit margins are based on what they have to pay for cattle and what they can turn around and sell the beef for. When they pay X amount of dollars for live cattle, they are not always assured of the boxed beef price they need to breakeven. They have to come back and bid cattle cheaper to make up for the reduced price of boxed beef but they have no control over what the consumers are willing to pay and when.



~SH~

 

[pointrider]

Those of you who are thinking about that $4,000 per capita income stuff, don't forget that half of those folks are going to be living here in the U.S. before too long and making a lot more money. About half of that money goes back home to "supplement" income back at home. That's more money to use to buy beef. How 'bout that! The money and the beef going down at the same time. The money is wired, so it easily gets there first. The meat won't spoil. Ha!

Seriously, we are adding one net person to the population of the U.S. every 10 SECONDS!!!!!!! Vicente Fox just said in an interview about his soon-to-end presidency of Mexico that he is real disturbed about the beefing up of security at the U.S./Mexico border. Mexico has already sent so many people up here that they are actively recruiting Indians from remote Mexico locations to come and work at the jobs being vacated by those who have gone north, and they are getting a lot of the Indians. With that is coming discrimination, etc. in the villages. A lot of problems. Yet he wants us to let the flow continue because they cannot provide for them at the wage rates they want to pay down there. Maybe it will slow down after they hire all the Indians.

According to some, we will have 500 million people in the U.S. by 2100 with half of those people being immigrants and their descendents who aren't even here yet if the present trends continue.

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman: "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."

Heck no I don't deny this is happening. What I deny happening is that Tyson is intentionally allowing their beef sales to stagnate at the benefit of pork and poultry. Packer profit margins are based on what they have to pay for cattle and what they can turn around and sell the beef for. When they pay X amount of dollars for live cattle, they are not always assured of the boxed beef price they need to breakeven. They have to come back and bid cattle cheaper to make up for the reduced price of boxed beef but they have no control over what the consumers are willing to pay and when.



~SH~

Tyson is in business to make money. They don't care if it comes from beef, chicken, or pork - that's why they diversify. They've got a hand in each game. If they can sacrifice 50 cents on beef to make a buck on chicken, they'll do it.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

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?

If they buy enough it might become 16 cent trim

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Tyson is in business to make money. They don't care if it comes from beef, chicken, or pork - that's why they diversify. They've got a hand in each game. If they can sacrifice 50 cents on beef to make a buck on chicken, they'll do it."

Each entity has to make money or there is no reason to have it.

Explain how they can sacrifice 50 cents on beef to make $1.00 on chicken?

Whether or not they lose 50 cents on beef has nothing to do with anything they did in regards to chicken. Besides, Tyson is not the only packer buying cattle. Excel has no connection to other meats.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Tyson is in business to make money. They don't care if it comes from beef, chicken, or pork - that's why they diversify. They've got a hand in each game. If they can sacrifice 50 cents on beef to make a buck on chicken, they'll do it."

Each entity has to make money or there is no reason to have it.

Explain how they can sacrifice 50 cents on beef to make $1.00 on chicken?

Whether or not they lose 50 cents on beef has nothing to do with anything they did in regards to chicken. Besides, Tyson is not the only packer buying cattle. Excel has no connection to other meats.


~SH~

And Excel will do the same thing if they can, too. Each entity does not nor is expected to make money every quarter, year, etc..... That is why they diversify? Do you know why farmers diversify? Same thing.

If beef can sacrifice 50 cents so chicken can make a buck, it is making money for the bottom line.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "And Excel will do the same thing if they can, too."

How will Excel do the same thing when they are not slaughtering chicken or pork?

That doesn't even make sense.

Sandbag: "Each entity does not nor is expected to make money every quarter, year, etc..... That is why they diversify?"

That's not the issue. The issue is not whether they "DO" or "EXPECT TO" make money every quarter, the issue is whether they play MARKET POWER GAMES and let one entity suffer at the expense of another entity SHORT TERM for LONG TERM BENEFIT as Conman and you have implied.

The issue is clearly whether they "INTENTIONALLY" allow one entity to suffer at the expense of another to manipulate markets as has been suggested by the conspiracy crowd.

Sandbag: "If beef can sacrifice 50 cents so chicken can make a buck, it is making money for the bottom line."

AGAIN, explain how they can "SACRIFICE" 50 cents on beef to make $1.00 on chicken?

SACRIFICE means "INTENTIONAL".

Explain it Sandbag!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Heck no I don't deny this is happening. What I deny happening is that Tyson is intentionally allowing their beef sales to stagnate at the benefit of pork and poultry. Packer profit margins are based on what they have to pay for cattle and what they can turn around and sell the beef for.

You are right about that, SH. Thank you for your admission. I never said Tyson is intentionally "allowing" their beef sales to stagnate at the benefit of pork and poultry. They would screw everyone and make money on everything if they could. The beef markets are not yet totally whipped yet, but it is on its way with the help of the good ole USDA.

"Intentions" have nothing to do with anything. You can not get a conviction on "intentions". I look at the facts as they are played out. That is what the law requires, not good intentions or bad intentions. If that were the case, there would never be any settlements on automobile accidents. No one "intends" to have an accident. You insult the intelligence of everyone on this board by that kind of talk, SH. Just because you are a little slow, doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "They would screw everyone and make money on everything if they could."

But they can't. Competition won't allow it.

Conman: "The beef markets are not yet totally whipped yet, but it is on its way with the help of the good ole USDA."

What's that supposed to mean?

"yet totally whipped yet"????



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "They would screw everyone and make money on everything if they could."

But they can't. Competition won't allow it.

Conman: "The beef markets are not yet totally whipped yet, but it is on its way with the help of the good ole USDA."

What's that supposed to mean?

"yet totally whipped yet"????



~SH~

It is an oligopsony, SH. There is limited competition. If there were real competition, there would be no difference between what is paid in the cash market and the formula markets. Your "backwards" contracting theory for the formula base price is a joke.

If the USDA can not stop market power from being exerted, the cattle markets will become captive to the market power exercised. It has already happened in the poultry business and much of the hog business. GIPSA has not excercised its authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to stop the market power abuses in those proteins. Why would they do it in beef?

Tyson powers political corruption with its money and influence. That is why it gets away with what it does in poultry and to a lesser degree hogs. The USDA and GIPSA have about much balls as my nuetered female cat (based on their history with the poultry industry abuses and complaints).

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "It is an oligopsony, SH. There is limited competition."

There is adequate competition in the packing industry. When the 5 largest packers are slaughtering cattle for an average per head profit of $3.88 per head through the nineties, competition can't get any stiffer. The margins are as tight as they are going to get. You will offer nothing to refute this fact other than more empty statements.

Conman: "If there were real competition, there would be no difference between what is paid in the cash market and the formula markets. Your "backwards" contracting theory for the formula base price is a joke."

WRONG AGAIN!

This week's cash market and last week's formula market are based on supply and demand factors for seperate weeks. They aren't going to be the same.

Conman: "If the USDA can not stop market power from being exerted, the cattle markets will become captive to the market power exercised. It has already happened in the poultry business and much of the hog business. GIPSA has not excercised its authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to stop the market power abuses in those proteins. Why would they do it in beef?"

Any market power that is being exerted is one packer paying more for cattle than another packer due to their better efficiencies which means more money for producers. Your empty "market power" bullsh*t theories are just that, empty. UNSUPPORTED FACTUALLY!

The poultry industry is not the beef industry. Tyson, Excel, Swift, etc. does not have the equity to control the beef industry. They don't have the land, livestock, or machinery. Integration is occuring from the bottom up in the beef industry (USPB), not from the top down. You are totally backwards in your thinking. Typical blamer!

GIPSA, like Pickett, cannot find market manipulation THAT DOESN'T EXIST!

Conman: "Tyson powers political corruption with its money and influence. That is why it gets away with what it does in poultry and to a lesser degree hogs. The USDA and GIPSA have about much balls as my nuetered female cat (based on their history with the poultry industry abuses and complaints)."

Typical anti-corporate liberal mantra.

"regulate prosperity"
"punish achievement"
"How dare you be successful if I'm not"

You can't find what isn't there to find!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

This week's cash market and last week's formula market are based on supply and demand factors for seperate weeks. They aren't going to be the same.

Sounds like backwards contracting to me, SH. There was no ascertainable difference between when the supply was contracted or delivered. You are dealing in a little doublespeak here.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "If there were real competition, there would be no difference between what is paid in the cash market and the formula markets.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT THIS!

The formula cattle and cash market cattle that are slaughtered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks so their price is not going to be the same unless the supply and demand factors were the same for both weeks.

A difference between the cash cattle market and the formula market tells you nothing because they are priced based on supply and demand factors from seperate weeks.

Conman: "There was no ascertainable difference between when the supply was contracted or delivered."

That is a damn lie!

Anyone that has sold cattle on formulas or the cash market for delivery within the same week knows they were priced on seperate weeks.

You couldn't be more wrong!


Keep posting your ignorance Conman!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "If there were real competition, there would be no difference between what is paid in the cash market and the formula markets.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT THIS!

The formula cattle and cash market cattle that are slaughtered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks so their price is not going to be the same unless the supply and demand factors were the same for both weeks.

A difference between the cash cattle market and the formula market tells you nothing because they are priced based on supply and demand factors from seperate weeks.

Conman: "There was no ascertainable difference between when the supply was contracted or delivered."

That is a damn lie!

Anyone that has sold cattle on formulas or the cash market for delivery within the same week knows they were priced on seperate weeks.

You couldn't be more wrong!


Keep posting your ignorance Conman!



~SH~

Backwards pricing leads to backwards thinking. SH, you have proven your mastery of that subject.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, were they priced on the same week or seperate weeks?

Answer the question please!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, were they priced on the same week or seperate weeks?

Answer the question please!


~SH~

That statement is the strongest case for the fact that formula cattle are based on backwards pricing. The fact that all of the packers went along with that type of pricing in some form or another shows collusion.

 

[Anonymous]

It wasn't a statement Conman, it was a question that you diverted.


When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, were they priced on the same week or seperate weeks?

Answer the question or prove that you can't!

Conman: "That statement is the strongest case for the fact that formula cattle are based on backwards pricing."

Producers initiated formula pricing, not packers.

Conman: "The fact that all of the packers went along with that type of pricing in some form or another shows collusion."

That's another lie!

Collusion my ash. Producers willingly initiated and entered into formula pricing arrangements. Every feeder has numerous pricing options with numerous packers available to them if they are concerned about formula pricing that uses a weekly weighted average base price which would include grid pricing with fixed base prices and the cash market alternative.

CORRECTED AGAIN!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Producers initiated formula pricing, not packers.

Why do you keep bringing this up? If Fidel Castro initiated forumla pricing it would not make a difference in the case. The question is not about forumula pricing except to the extent that it was used to gain supply so the cash market could be discriminated against.

Do you own any guns? I do. Just because I own guns does not mean that I am a criminal. Owning a gun (having formula pricing) has no relevance to whether or not I am a criminal. If I use the gun in a crime, it has relevance. Since we are talking about the formula price being used to commit market fraud, it has relevance. It doesn't matter if your grandma came up with the idea.

When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, were they priced on the same week or seperate weeks?

They were bought in the same week but not priced in the same week. That is the problem. One was based on a backwards pricing of the cash market. How many times do I have to say that?

You really are backwards, SH.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "They were bought in the same week but not priced in the same week. That is the problem."

That's not a problem OR FEEDERS WOULD NOT SELL THAT WAY, WOULD THEY??????

Conman: "One was based on a backwards pricing of the cash market. How many times do I have to say that?"

This so called "backwards pricing" of the cash market can work in a producer's favor or against him depending on which way the cash market moves. A producer knows that when he agrees to deliver the cattle based on this arrangement. He doesn't need an arrogant !@$%^@!$^ like you telling him what is best for him.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "They were bought in the same week but not priced in the same week. That is the problem."

That's not a problem OR FEEDERS WOULD NOT SELL THAT WAY, WOULD THEY??????

Conman: "One was based on a backwards pricing of the cash market. How many times do I have to say that?"

This so called "backwards pricing" of the cash market can work in a producer's favor or against him depending on which way the cash market moves. A producer knows that when he agrees to deliver the cattle based on this arrangement. He doesn't need an arrogant !@$%^@!$^ like you telling him what is best for him.


~SH~

It can also be used with captive supplies to put a lid on the cash market. I am not telling any feeder what they must do, the law stipulates what packers must do. Oh-- I forgot, you are for voluntary laws.