• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rule2 one step closer.

Ben Roberts said:
Yes Rod, Safeway,Costco,Wal-Mart,Albertson,Kroger all dictate prices to the packers.

With all due respect Ben, only within a certain range of values. Otherwise Safeway, Wally World, et al. would simply dictate 50 cents/lb. Contract pricing is still a negotiation in which either side can simply walk away.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Ben Roberts said:
Yes Rod, Safeway,Costco,Wal-Mart,Albertson,Kroger all dictate prices to the packers.

With all due respect Ben, only within a certain range of values. Otherwise Safeway, Wally World, et al. would simply dictate 50 cents/lb. Contract pricing is still a negotiation in which either side can simply walk away.

Rod


Rod,have you ever had any dealings with the retailers? I have.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
Sandcheska: "Why is it that you never accept any proof that you don't want to?"

Bring me the proof that packer concentration negatively impacts our markets.

Don't you think everyone can see that you are intentionally diverting the issue AGAIN?

As I've stated many times before and this just confirms it again. You simply cannot back your views with supporting facts. Like the lemming you are, you just repeat the R-CULT mantra because you don't have the ability to think for yourself.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PACKER CONCENTRATION NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OUR MARKETS????

See ankle biter run, run ankle biter run!

He'll just keep diverting and diverting and diverting. Anything to avoid the debate and make little unsupported statements instead.


Sandcheska: " You sure about that, Ben? We've been told on this board not to worry about verticle integration because packers would never even get into feeding. Don't tell me we were BSed again!"

Yet another lie.

Show me where anyone on this board said packers would never get into feeding Sandcheska!

BRING IT!

Watch the diversion again folks............

Packers are already feeding cattle you idiot.


Rod: "And by the way, I was talking about OUR market. We don't have 5 major bidders. If one major bidder gets taken out of the marketplace, or reduces bids, it affects the entire market."

Rod: "Obviously Canadian producers ship south, but I doubt you have any idea how that compares to our slaughter capacity up north."


First you said Canadian feeders didn't have 5 major bidders and now you say Canadian producers ship south.

How many bidders do they have when they ship south Rod? Hmmmm???

Do Canadian producers only have 2 packer options or do they have the same packer options US producers do when they ship South?

Which way is it Rod? Are you changing your story again?



~SH~
 
RobertMac said:
TimH said:
Oldtimer wrote-

".....why not limit Packers to ownership of cattle for only 14 days"?

Why not??? Well,for starters, that would make it impossible for producer owned packing ventures to operate. Wouldn't it??

Tim, I own my cattle when I take them to the processor. I own the meat when the processor is finished. The processor never owns my cattle. If I owned the processing plant, what difference would that make?

RobertMac, you are very close to the simple(not easy) solution of taking back control of the cattle industry.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
Ben Roberts said:
RobertMac said:
TimH said:
Oldtimer wrote-



Why not??? Well,for starters, that would make it impossible for producer owned packing ventures to operate. Wouldn't it??

Tim, I own my cattle when I take them to the processor. I own the meat when the processor is finished. The processor never owns my cattle. If I owned the processing plant, what difference would that make?

RobertMac, you are very close to the simple(not easy) solution of taking back control of the cattle industry.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

As I see it, the barrier to producers taking back any control is that Tyson, ConAgra, and Cargill own ~80% of fed cattle processing...unless you think they can be convinced to custom process???
 
Rod: "1) You and SH appear to feel that demand is an on/off switch. Tell me MWJ, if beef rises 10 cents/lb how much does this affect demand? Safeway is going to move X thousands of lbs of beef each week, and they know it from week to week. If they have to pay more for it, they simply raise the price at the meat counter. Once the price is raised too high, and other proteins are more attractive to consumers, their demand will drop. Tell me MWJ, do you really believe that Safeway dictates prices to the packers?"

Appear to feel that demand is an on/off switch? Where the hell did that come from?

Demand is a function of both quantity and price. In order to measure demand, you have to measure both quantity and price. Rising demand is selling the same amount of beef at a higher price not selling a reduced supply of beef at a slightly higher price.

Retailers do not have the luxury of just raising the price of beef at the meat counter. IF IT DOESN'T SELL, IT'S DISCARDED. Instead, if beef movement is slowing, the only way retailers can get beef to move off the shelf before it spoils is to offer beef at featured prices. If the price they receive for beef is lowered, the price they pay the packer is lowered. It's never been any different. Damn right they dictate price to the packer. They do it every week.
You really don't have a clue do you?


Rod: "2) Another question for you MWJ. How much beef makes it across the border on a daily basis? Can you compare that to our own slaughter capacity up north? We have two major packers with a combined slaughter capacity ten TIMES all the other others combined. Do you really believe that if one of those two major packers have their bids removed from the system for a day that it won't affect prices? Really? And if you do, explain how when JGL stops bidding at Saskatoon, the prices drop 5 cents? Please explain that to me."

Why are you asking MWJ all these questions instead of providing some answers yourself? Just like always you want someone else to do your research for you.

You just got done saying Canadian producers had the option of shipping South so why are you still trying to convince everyone that Canadian producers only have 2 bidding options???


Rod: "5) a) Feedlot doesn't know when those animals that the packer owns are going to hit market, so he's now got an unknown as to when he wants to finish his own fats. He finishes at the wrong time, he loses money. He needs to hedge his own risk, so he drops his bids on weaned and backgrounded cattle. Producer suffers."

What a crock!

You honestly believe feeders form their buying decisions around when they believe packer fed cattle will finish?? You're crazy!

You just got done admitting that Canadian producers ship cattle south. So if they ship cattle South and have those marketing options, what the hell does packer fed cattle have to do with anything?


Rod: "5) b) Producer with fats probably doesn't have a clue that the Packer has several thousand head on feed. Loses money while waiting for grids to rebound after the packer takes care of his own stock."

The fact that Canadian producers can ship cattle south and have the same marketing options as US producers blows this stupid baseless conspiracy theory right out of the water.


Rod: "So what we end up with is a packer with fore knowledge of the market that others do not. It ends up hurting producers. I wouldn't have a problem with packer owned cattle IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPORT HOW MANY THEY HAD ON FEED AND WHEN THEY EXPECTED THEM TO SHIP. Just like the feedlots are required to do. Total transparency so that informed producers can make adequate marketing decisions. If they don't report them, and play fair, then I say take away the privelege of allowing them ownership."

Packer owned cattle are totally irrelevant.

Rod, let's just play your conspiracy game for a minute and assume that Canadian producers didn't have the US plants as a marketing option. Tell me, what percent of the Canadian fed cattle are packer owned?

Let's hear it.............


Rod: "Really, I'm surprised that you would be against such a thing SH. Same as you MWJ. There is nothing wrong with transparency in the system so that all can make money. Maybe you guys should sell some of your stock in packing houses and become livestock producers again."

Don't own any stock in packing houses. Another lie.


Rod: "BTW, SH, in response to your idiotic question see my response to MWJ above. Can the idiotic yes/no questions too. This isn't some cheap courtroom TV show."

So your version of an "idiotic question" is a question that you don't want to answer because it will reveal how ignorant you are.

That's why you keep arguing as if Canada doesn't have the same marketing options as the US. You conspiracy theorists simply cannot grasp reality.


~SH~
 
RM: "As I see it, the barrier to producers taking back any control is that Tyson, ConAgra, and Cargill own ~80% of fed cattle processing...unless you think they can be convinced to custom process???"

What does that have to do with anything?

Doesn't matter if 20 companies each had a 5% market share. Producers still wouldn't be any closer to controlling their own destiny. 80% market share is irrelevant to producers taking back any control. Most producers don't want to get into the retail beef business. They just want to raise cattle and bench about packers.


~SH~
 
SH, "Just like always you want someone else to do your research for you."

SH,"BTW Ben, in regards to concentration in the packing industry, tell us what market share Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, Morris and Armour had when they were the "BIG FIVE". You've done that research haven't you?""

Do you even care that you're a hypocrite, SH? Do you have any pride at all? What is the glory in being a 100 mph horses arse?
 
Sandcheska: "There plenty of examples where the privilidge of ownership has been revoked due to criminal activity."

There is also plenty of examples where the privelage of ownership was not revoked because the charges were baseless conspiracy theories unsupported by fact in a court of law.


Rod: "Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual."

What a telling statement!

Corporations should have the same rights as anyone else. Liberal!


Rod: "With all due respect Ben, only within a certain range of values. Otherwise Safeway, Wally World, et al. would simply dictate 50 cents/lb. Contract pricing is still a negotiation in which either side can simply walk away."

The only way that statement would be true is if there was no competition between Safeway, Walmart, Krogers, Albertsons, ect.

Don't tell me you are going to try to suggest that there is collusion in the retail beef industry too? The conspiracies never end!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sandcheska: "There plenty of examples where the privilidge of ownership has been revoked due to criminal activity."

There is also plenty of examples where the privelage of ownership was not revoked because the charges were baseless conspiracy theories unsupported by fact in a court of law.


Rod: "Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual."

What a telling statement!

Corporations should have the same rights as anyone else. Liberal!


Rod: "With all due respect Ben, only within a certain range of values. Otherwise Safeway, Wally World, et al. would simply dictate 50 cents/lb. Contract pricing is still a negotiation in which either side can simply walk away."

The only way that statement would be true is if there was no competition between Safeway, Walmart, Krogers, Albertsons, ect.

Don't tell me you are going to try to suggest that there is collusion in the retail beef industry too? The conspiracies never end!


~SH~


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:roll:
 
~SH~ said:
Corporations should have the same rights as anyone else. Liberal!
~SH~

You need to consult a lawyer!!!

For instance, corporations are not allowed to vote. Corporations don't go to jail. Court decisions have already distinguished the "civil rights" of corporations from the rights individuals have. They are different.
 
~SH~ said:
Most producers don't want to get into the retail beef business. They just want to raise cattle and bench about packers.


~SH~

SH- Its a good thing you aren't in the cattle business since you hold them in such low esteem- wouldn't want your extreme eminance and brilliance brought down by being associated with such low lives as most cattlemen.... :roll: :shock:

What an arrogant piece of ----.....................
 
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
Corporations should have the same rights as anyone else. Liberal!
~SH~

You need to consult a lawyer!!!

For instance, corporations are not allowed to vote. Corporations don't go to jail. Court decisions have already distinguished the "civil rights" of corporations from the rights individuals have. They are different.

He needs to consult a shrink! Talk about issues...
 
OCM: "For instance, corporations are not allowed to vote. Corporations don't go to jail. Court decisions have already distinguished the "civil rights" of corporations from the rights individuals have. They are different."

Corporations do vote through the individuals that make up the corporations. Play on words.

Corporations do go to jail through individuals that make up the corporations being convicted of crimes. ENRON! Play on words.

You're such an anti-corporate liberal ocm!

I'll bet your just anxiously awaiting R-CULT's march on Washington now that they have all their anti-corporate liberal friends in power. Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, ......let the anti-corporate games begin.


~SH~
 
OT: "SH- Its a good thing you aren't in the cattle business since you hold them in such low esteem"

Another damn lie!

I am in the cattle business and have been my entire life. Any other lies you'd like to try?

I hold blamers like you in low esteem because all you do is piss and moan and blame everything under the sun for lower cattle prices.

The cattlemen I associate with are not blamers and I hold them in highest regards. They're not spending all their time bitching about packers and bitching about imports and bitching about USDA and bitching about the checkoff and all the other things you blamers bench about.


OT: "wouldn't want your extreme eminance and brilliance brought down by being associated with such low lives as most cattlemen...."

It's a damn fact that most cattlemen are not interested in the retail beef industry particularly you R-CULT blamers who claim NOT TO BE in the beef industry but rather the cattle industry.

Most cattlemen are not blamers like you OT and I hold them in highest regard. You can't lie on this site and get away with it. Why do you keep trying?


OT: "What an arrogant piece of ----....................."

You most certainly are!



~SH~
 
Sandhusker said:
SH, "Just like always you want someone else to do your research for you."

SH,"BTW Ben, in regards to concentration in the packing industry, tell us what market share Swift, Wilson, Cudahey, Morris and Armour had when they were the "BIG FIVE". You've done that research haven't you?""

Do you even care that you're a hypocrite, SH? Do you have any pride at all? What is the glory in being a 100 mph horses arse?

You just ignore and move on, eh? You've got no pride, SH, no scruples what-so-ever.
 
Sandcheska: "You just ignore and move on, eh? You've got no pride, SH, no scruples what-so-ever."

Oh, I get it. So if I ask Ben a question on concentration, that justifies your inability to back any of your positions with supporting facts.

GEE, GLAD WE CLEARED THAT UP!

You are so damn empty handed all you can do is spin and divert...spin and divert. What a sad case you are.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sandcheska: "You just ignore and move on, eh? You've got no pride, SH, no scruples what-so-ever."

Oh, I get it. So if I ask Ben a question on concentration, that justifies your inability to back any of your positions with supporting facts.

GEE, GLAD WE CLEARED THAT UP!

You are so damn empty handed all you can do is spin and divert...spin and divert. What a sad case you are.


~SH~

No, you don't get it. You're a hypocrite. Hypocrites aren't held in high esteem by anybody.

Why don't you settle down and act like a man?
 
Rod said "Corporations were never intended to have ALL the rights and priveleges as an individual."

Can you tell us just how many family farms and ranches have been incorporated to take advantage of the Corporation laws? Why would anyone incorporate if the laws that govern them will limit their individual rights and privileges? :???:


ocm says "For instance, corporations are not allowed to vote. Corporations don't go to jail. Court decisions have already distinguished the "civil rights" of corporations from the rights individuals have. They are different."

Does incorporating your farm or ranch automatically revoke your right to vote? if you incorporate do you automatically recieve a get out of jail free card? Are the Laws for family farm and ranch Corporations different from those of other large corporations? If large corporations should not be allowed to own cattle then should small family corporations have to follow that same rule? :?
 
~SH~ said:
Do Canadian producers only have 2 packer options or do they have the same packer options US producers do when they ship South?

Which way is it Rod? Are you changing your story again?[/b]

We don't have the same options you fool, as there isn't enough trucking space available to overcome one of our big packers exiting the market. Exports are NOT some big bottomless well that we can dip into whenever we feel like it. :roll: I realize that you seem to work in a black and white arena, like those cheap courtroom shows on the boob tube, but the world isn't black and white.

Hey SH, why haven't you answered the other thread yet? Are you unable to?

Rod
 

Latest posts

Back
Top