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.
Reading for Jason and SH
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
PORKER
Well-known member
Its the PRODUCER and the trucker in most cases that lost as they CAN"T pass their costs plus their needed profit on to the packer or buyer as they have to take what was bidded or is the current price that is available even if its below labor and material costs.
Cheap food policy,Is MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption and a poorer infrastructure for the country.Just look at how many Walmart worker family's depend on food stamps and welfare while the little towns have dried up and disappered.[/b]
Cheap food policy,Is MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption and a poorer infrastructure for the country.Just look at how many Walmart worker family's depend on food stamps and welfare while the little towns have dried up and disappered.[/b]
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
PORKER said:Its the PRODUCER and the trucker in most cases that lost as they CAN"T pass their costs plus their needed profit on to the packer or buyer as they have to take what was bidded or is the current price that is available even if its below labor and material costs.
Cheap food policy,Is MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption and a poorer infrastructure for the country.Just look at how many Walmart worker family's depend on food stamps and welfare while the little towns have dried up and disappered.[/b]
Why is the Trucker included in this. He provides a service. he does buy and sell the cattle. Competion has kept trucking rates low. That looks like it is coming to a end.
Econ101 said:PORKER said:One more thought here ,the parity price of cattle in the fiftys-sixtys could buy and keep a ranch family in the business .Today he needs twice - ten times the same animals just to meet and keep a ranch family in the business .I'd say the answer lies in Harlan Hughe's data of a $250 per head difference between the low cost and high cost producer. Yup At WHO"S COST and livelyhood including the infrastructure of a country.
Cheap food policy.
Isn't MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption? Has consumption increased 10 times per capita since the real cost of beef has gone down?
Cheap food policy.
Econ, typipcally, you single out one food item, beef, to "prove" that a cheap food policy hasn't caused consumption of that item to increase. Not being a lofty "economist" like yourself, I may not be completely accurate, but it appears to me that DEMAND for beef has risen WHILE the price of that particular product also has risen to one of, if not the highest priced items in the food basket.
You certainly cannot argue that overall "consumption" of all consumer goods has NOT increased while we have had this cheap food policy.
However, I don't recall that I said lower prices create more consumption, since my point re. cheap food policy is usually that "government" believes voters will favor their party if they keep food costs low.
MRJ
MRJ said:Econ101 said:PORKER said:One more thought here ,the parity price of cattle in the fiftys-sixtys could buy and keep a ranch family in the business .Today he needs twice - ten times the same animals just to meet and keep a ranch family in the business .I'd say the answer lies in Harlan Hughe's data of a $250 per head difference between the low cost and high cost producer. Yup At WHO"S COST and livelyhood including the infrastructure of a country.
Cheap food policy.
Isn't MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption? Has consumption increased 10 times per capita since the real cost of beef has gone down?
Cheap food policy.
Econ, typipcally, you single out one food item, beef, to "prove" that a cheap food policy hasn't caused consumption of that item to increase. Not being a lofty "economist" like yourself, I may not be completely accurate, but it appears to me that DEMAND for beef has risen WHILE the price of that particular product also has risen to one of, if not the highest priced items in the food basket.
You certainly cannot argue that overall "consumption" of all consumer goods has NOT increased while we have had this cheap food policy.
However, I don't recall that I said lower prices create more consumption, since my point re. cheap food policy is usually that "government" believes voters will favor their party if they keep food costs low.
MRJ
Single out beef? How about corn, wheat, dairy products, pork, soybeans, and almost every other crop.
MRJ, my wife and I have thrown out more useless stuff this winter from this "consumption" you are talking about than my grandmother threw out in years. What good is it? Have we hired more Chinese to make these goods? Have we hired more Mexicans? How about more kids?
The funny thing is that we didn't really need all that stuff. Never needed it. Half of it we didn't even buy on purpose. My 5 year old had stuffed toys coming out the ...... I would have much rather had an economy that valued the things in life that are invaluable. You have even hinted on those things yourself. Don't cattle ranchers deserve as good a life as the city folk? Don't you deserve to eat a Steak and Shake (went there this weekend) if you are in town?
A cheap food policy cheapens one of God's greatest gifts. Food, and the company that comes with it. Remember that the next time you say a prayer over the next meal.
PORKER
Well-known member
Why is the Trucker included in this.*****When the external prices a trucker has to pay did not match their incomes they left in droves to find other jobs to feed their familys.
He provides a service. he does buy and sell the cattle. *****See ,he's not just trucking as he needed other forms of income to surive.
*Competion has kept trucking rates low. That looks like it is coming to a end.***** Always happens when more leave a industry to find working conditions with better pay rates.Of course you could buy all the failing truckers out and raise the truck rates as only a few were left and the competition was gone.Seems to have happened in the packing industry and the Walmart sector.
He provides a service. he does buy and sell the cattle. *****See ,he's not just trucking as he needed other forms of income to surive.
*Competion has kept trucking rates low. That looks like it is coming to a end.***** Always happens when more leave a industry to find working conditions with better pay rates.Of course you could buy all the failing truckers out and raise the truck rates as only a few were left and the competition was gone.Seems to have happened in the packing industry and the Walmart sector.
Jason
Well-known member
And as trucking profits rise more trucks are bought and competition increases lowering margins again.
If/when packers are consistintly making good profits, there will be new money looking to invest.
If/when packers are consistintly making good profits, there will be new money looking to invest.
Jason said:And as trucking profits rise more trucks are bought and competition increases lowering margins again.
If/when packers are consistintly making good profits, there will be new money looking to invest.
All of these industries have what are called barriers to entry. As I mentioned before on the oil and gas industry, OPEC was formed to make sure they metering the supply onto the markets to get the most money for their assets. If prices jumped too much, they would open the spigots to bring prices down. Why would they do this? To keep other forms of energy from being developed and keep control of the energy markets. Same thing with all industries. It is the economics of industries that drives strategic decisions.
Econ101 said:MRJ said:Econ101 said:Cheap food policy.
Isn't MRJ's argument that lower prices create more consumption? Has consumption increased 10 times per capita since the real cost of beef has gone down?
Cheap food policy.
Econ, typipcally, you single out one food item, beef, to "prove" that a cheap food policy hasn't caused consumption of that item to increase. Not being a lofty "economist" like yourself, I may not be completely accurate, but it appears to me that DEMAND for beef has risen WHILE the price of that particular product also has risen to one of, if not the highest priced items in the food basket.
You certainly cannot argue that overall "consumption" of all consumer goods has NOT increased while we have had this cheap food policy.
However, I don't recall that I said lower prices create more consumption, since my point re. cheap food policy is usually that "government" believes voters will favor their party if they keep food costs low.
MRJ
Single out beef? How about corn, wheat, dairy products, pork, soybeans, and almost every other crop.
MRJ, my wife and I have thrown out more useless stuff this winter from this "consumption" you are talking about than my grandmother threw out in years. What good is it? Have we hired more Chinese to make these goods? Have we hired more Mexicans? How about more kids?
The funny thing is that we didn't really need all that stuff. Never needed it. Half of it we didn't even buy on purpose. My 5 year old had stuffed toys coming out the ...... I would have much rather had an economy that valued the things in life that are invaluable. You have even hinted on those things yourself. Don't cattle ranchers deserve as good a life as the city folk? Don't you deserve to eat a Steak and Shake (went there this weekend) if you are in town?
A cheap food policy cheapens one of God's greatest gifts. Food, and the company that comes with it. Remember that the next time you say a prayer over the next meal.
Econ, you put the focus on beef! You asked "has consumption increased 10 times per capita since the real cost of beef has gone down?" Has the "real cost of beef" actually gone down?
BTW, who forced you and your wife to contribute so much to over-consumption? Why do we blame government and those nasty corporations for our over-consumption? Maybe it is easier than looking in the mirror to find who really is to blame.
Our grandparents never had much to throw out either, and they saved everything they had......so we have inherited quite a bit of "stuff" that has value only to family members and only because it belonged to people precious to us.
Consider that our "cheap food policy" you hate so much has enabled the common person to have and do more than if they had to spend 25 to 75% of their income on food as people in many countries do. I don't believe politicians do that out of the kindness of their hearts, but go curry favor with the huge numbers of voters. Nor do I believe farm programs to subsidize farmers in order to keep those food prices low is to be nice to farmers. And it all probably came about more due to bumbling and stumbling to keep the food coming than by real designed and intended plotting. Could be right......could be wrong about that.
BTW, I do not believe any of us "deserve" a "good life". We DO have the God given right to WORK to achieve the life we want. I also believe most ranchers have a far better life than most "city" people.......even if it is on a shoestring and seems more like a sentence to hard labor much of the time.
MRJ
Jason
Well-known member
How come the cheap oil policy isn't being attacked?
Gasoline prices in North America are far lower than in Europe.
Gasoline prices in North America are far lower than in Europe.
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
Because there isn't a cheap oil policy. Most European nations are paying big dollars for their gasoline and fuel because they don't have refining capabilities nor do they have the raw supply of crude needed for their needs.
On the other hand, North America refines a healthy chunk of its own gasoline, fuel and oil. We also supply a fair chunk of our own crude oil.
Rod
On the other hand, North America refines a healthy chunk of its own gasoline, fuel and oil. We also supply a fair chunk of our own crude oil.
Rod
Jason said:How come the cheap oil policy isn't being attacked?
Gasoline prices in North America are far lower than in Europe.
The Europeans and Japanese have also made better strategic economic decisions. Since they know they do not control this limited resource, they have put on taxes on their conusumption to make the prices higher (the U.S. has high taxes on gas also, it is just per gallon, not per dollar spent and is lower than that in Europe). Ford just announced a lot of layoffs due to this difference in energy policy. The Japanese autos and European ones that have adjusted to higher prices will take market share from the automakers that kept up the high gasoline consumption vehicles with no new models that have higher prices of oil as a reality. Add to that the fact that the Japanese plants have a relatively younger work force and you have some real reasons why Ford can not compete in the market.
Jason
Well-known member
Then we could surmise there are just more taxes on European food to support farmers, and North American hasn't got a cheap food policy at all.
Jason said:Then we could surmise there are just more taxes on European food to support farmers, and North American hasn't got a cheap food policy at all.
Is that how all your thinking goes, Jason?
Jason
Well-known member
Conman go back and read your own post. YOU state the energy tax in the US is less so that accounts for the cheaper price at retail.
If there are 2 choices and someone says it's not #1 it must be #2. DUH!
If there are 2 choices and someone says it's not #1 it must be #2. DUH!
Jason said:Conman go back and read your own post. YOU state the energy tax in the US is less so that accounts for the cheaper price at retail.
If there are 2 choices and someone says it's not #1 it must be #2. DUH!
What does that have to do with European food policy? Have you been drinking fuel or something? Is this an example of the "logic" you employ, Jason? Having a cheap food policy does not help producers. Having a cheap energy policy allows companies like Ford and other domestic producers to make auto models that fit into that kind of policy. The Japanese and other foreign players have a strategic advantage in that market (as Ford has realized) because they have been producing for a known energy dependence and subsequent supply shocks due to the volatility of producing nations.
If you can only think of two choices when you make decisons Jason, the possibilities are beyond your reach.
Have a nice day.
