A
Anonymous
Guest
Did you have anything you wanted to contradict me on regarding the "ALL CHOICE" retail beef price or are you just here to wave your pom poms again?
~SH~
~SH~
Sandman: "You need to pose your first question to the reporter. You need to pose the rest to Bullard himself. However, as Haymaker has pointed out, whenever the R-CALF rodeo is in town, you won't ride."
Sandman: "He's simply telling it like it is. If you think he's incorrect, I would think you would take advantage of the many opportunities you have had to confront him directly."
Sandman: "Judging by the polls concerning you, not many believe anything YOU say."
Sandman: "The only reason you "havn't been refuted" is because you simply won't acknowledge when you're proved wrong - others do, however. You've been proved wrong more than Carter's has pills. You're not fooling anyone except a few - and the regulars on this board know who they are."
RK: "Back your position then SH."
RK: "Quit you gopher trapping job and prove that it is posible in your packer loving world that you can survive without it."
RK: "Lemmings like yourself can study the numbers all you like, spew your bias on the web, and then go back to your government paying job and feel like you won something."
RK: "Open your eyes SH, look for something in other peoples posts other than searching for ways to DEFEND THE PACKERS. Or go back to trapping gophers in the real world and put your Packer Super Hero cape on whenever you visit ranchers.net."
RK: "Show us how packer ownership of cattle helps the producers of your country and ours."
RK: "If packer ownership does nothing for the packers, why do they own cattle?"
First packers should have as much right to own cattle as anyone else. Banning packers from owning cattle borders on communism as far as I'm concerned.
Second, when packers buy your feeder cattle, obviously they bought them at a higher price than the next bidder which means more dollars for producers for their feeder calves. Go ahead Randy, try refuting that fact.
Third, packers feed cattle to fill seasonal marketing voids to maintain uniform slaughter schedules. By maintaining plant efficiency, they are more profitable. By being more profitable, they have more money to spend on cattle.
I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not be able to refute either argument but I know it doesn't fit your thumbsucking packer blaming bias so be my guest and try.
1). Are you saying that certain states in the American Union are communist SH? Or are they democratic by asking the citizens to vote on an issue that they consider might be asking for a fair and level playing field. Your opinion that it is their right to own cattle. Fair enough SH. You have an opinion. I am not going to say that banning ownership without a democratic vote is proper, but I will say that if it is the will of the people, allowing packer ownership of cattle by a government who does not ask the people is as Red as blood.
2). When the packers buys cattle, there is always a buyer less than a cent back. There are a lot of cattle bought in North America SH. If the packers were only in the business of packing. More buyers would be in the marketplace as no one buyer would ever have the magnitude of either Tyson or Cargill. More buyers may mean more competion. That is, as long as the price for fats at the packer level was, or is never changed by the ability of packers to own cattle as you suggest.
3). Your third point is a joke. Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it. Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop.
RK: "Packer ownership of cattle was number one SH."
RK: "You have admitted that it does not help the producer accept for your phoney void filling comment."
I'm saying banning anyone from owning cattle is a step towards communism.
"PWEASE GOVAHMENT, SAVE US WHINY PACAH BWAMERS FROM OURSELVES".
What a bunch of pathetic whining whelps!
That's your opinion because you are a joke. Packers buy feeder calves and feed them to fill seasonal marketing voids in available fat cattle. That is a fact!
Randy: "Uniformity could still be achieved in a market without packer ownership, and you know it."
RK: "Forward contracts and integration between feeders and packers is not going to stop."
RK: "You are pathetic SH. Your Fact is more than a joke. It's another one of your Fairy Tales."
rkaiser said:When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.
So where are we so far SH?
Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.
SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.
Whatever. Were we to expect any more.
Let's move on, as I said earlier.
How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?
Simle question SH. Just like the last one.
MRJ said:rkaiser said:When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.
So where are we so far SH?
Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.
SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.
Whatever. Were we to expect any more.
Let's move on, as I said earlier.
How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?
Simle question SH. Just like the last one.
With all the talk about "excessive profits", I'm wondering what you all think is proper profit levels for packers, or any business, for that matter? What is proper return on investment, or any other means of measuring how well a company is performing?
Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants? Hopefully, you won't still depend upon them buying and eating beef!
I still recall the freeze on beef prices back some years, and the devastation to ranchers that resulted.
MRJ
Econ101 said:MRJ said:rkaiser said:When talking of uniformity SH, I meant that crap about the packers having a constant supply to acheive ultimate production. They could have this in a world without packer ownership as well. They would simply have to organise things a bit better, or PAY the producer if they didn't.
So where are we so far SH?
Randy asked how how packer ownership helped the primary producers of North America.
SH came up with three lame opinions easily challenged by some one even as ignorant of beef marketing as Randy and SH says Randy has brought nothing.
Whatever. Were we to expect any more.
Let's move on, as I said earlier.
How did the fact that Cargill and Tyson made excessive profits in Canada due to the closed border AND cash in on a huge government cheque at the same time HELP THE PRIMARY PRODUCER ?
Simle question SH. Just like the last one.
With all the talk about "excessive profits", I'm wondering what you all think is proper profit levels for packers, or any business, for that matter? What is proper return on investment, or any other means of measuring how well a company is performing?
Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants? Hopefully, you won't still depend upon them buying and eating beef!
I still recall the freeze on beef prices back some years, and the devastation to ranchers that resulted.
MRJ
MRJ,
Would you care to expand on that freeze on beef prices some years ago? What happened?
Sandhusker said:MRJ, "Who among you is willing to tell the investors, including elderly widdows, that they are making too much money off their investments in packing plants?"
Would that be easier than telling tax payers, including elderly pensioner widows, about giving these US companies millions of Canadian tax dollars?