Socialism?

[Anonymous]

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) co-sponsored the Captive Supply Reform Act, HR 4257. The bill was introduced yesterday by all three Representatives. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock. Your calls of thanks are needed to show your support for this important bill.



I am all for a fair price for our livestock, but how do you require such, short of socialism, where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?

This makes no sense to me. Looks like they even got a republican suckered in on the deal. She must be up for election next cycle. This is not free enterprise in my book.[/quote]

 

[Econ101]

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) co-sponsored the Captive Supply Reform Act, HR 4257. The bill was introduced yesterday by all three Representatives. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock. Your calls of thanks are needed to show your support for this important bill.



I am all for a fair price for our livestock, but how do you require such, short of socialism, where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?

This makes no sense to me. Looks like they even got a republican suckered in on the deal. She must be up for election next cycle. This is not free enterprise in my book.

[/quote]

What is the matter with it, Jake? You could still have formula pricing in an auction. Maybe market operators who have 20% of the market share would be required to obtain cattle this way.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ 101, I just don't want to live it Herseth's (democrats) world where you have to drag the top down to treat them equal to the rest. How in the world would you regulate what a "fair price" is?

Smacks of socialism to me, as I already said.

 

[Anonymous]

BTW, this was from the WORC, which is a leftwing outfit in the first place, so I am not surprised by it.

 

[Econ101]

Buyers and sellers agreeing to a price with all information available is fair. Buyers using market power to push prices down is not fair. Buyers using strategic pricing that has no correlation to the product being sold is the problem. It creates market inefficiencies and cheats some people for no reason than it was in the best interest of the ones exercising market power.

 

[ocm]

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) co-sponsored the Captive Supply Reform Act, HR 4257. The bill was introduced yesterday by all three Representatives. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock. Your calls of thanks are needed to show your support for this important bill.



I am all for a fair price for our livestock, but how do you require such, short of socialism, where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?

This makes no sense to me. Looks like they even got a republican suckered in on the deal. She must be up for election next cycle. This is not free enterprise in my book.

"where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?"

Nowhere and in no manner is this a part of the bill. It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party, kind of like an auction, only it doesn't require an auction.

Such openness is not a part of either socialism nor fascism.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunlight is the best of all disinfectants." This is a very good American open market principle.

A price can be determined as "fair" when nobody will buy for more money and nobody will sell for less for a particular quality at a given moment--absent any kind of collusion, active or passive.

When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible.

 

[Tam]

It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party,.........
When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible.

Kind of sounds like you think the producers should make a deal in the coffee shop so all his neighbors can witness it for him and make sure he doesn't get taken. If the producers wanted the neighbors to know the details of their cattle deals they would just go to the auction. Those that make individual transactions probably do so, so their neighbors don't know what kind of deal they made. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party,.........
When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible.

Kind of sounds like you think the producers should make a deal in the coffee shop so all his neighbors can witness it for him and make sure he doesn't get taken. If the producers wanted the neighbors to know the details of their cattle deals they would just go to the auction. Those that make individual transactions probably do so, so their neighbors don't know what kind of deal they made. :roll:

What have you got against your neighbors, Tam? Are you always looking for some better deal for the same thing than they? How would you know if you got a better deal than the average if you didn't know the average? Do you trust salesmen?

Insider stock sales are illegal for a reason. Ask Martha Stewart (I personally think that there are a lot worse crooks out there than ole Martha; someone wanted to show that they were "doing something" about white collar crime on wallstreet -- diversion)

 

[ocm]

It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party,.........
When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible.

Kind of sounds like you think the producers should make a deal in the coffee shop so all his neighbors can witness it for him and make sure he doesn't get taken. If the producers wanted the neighbors to know the details of their cattle deals they would just go to the auction. Those that make individual transactions probably do so, so their neighbors don't know what kind of deal they made. :roll:

This is the way it is done on Wall Street in all of the stock exchanges. You think that is a bad pattern to follow? Got something against sunlight?

 

[Anonymous]

The real jake,

You got it exactly right. That's what it is, SOCIALISM!

The arrogant Livestock Marketing Police saving the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms after trying to save the producers from their own self help program. TYPICAL!

There is nothing the Livestock Marketing Police want more than to carve more comission dollars out of cattle. This law will be shot down in flames. Make no mistake about that. When a group of arrogant producers start telling others how they will market their cattle and who will own those cattle, that's worse than "socialism", that's a step towards communism. All based on a wild unsupported allegation about market manipulation. Call you senators and urge them to vote against this "socialistic" form of cattle marketing.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The real jake,

You got it exactly right. That's what it is, SOCIALISM!

The arrogant Livestock Marketing Police saving the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms after trying to save the producers from their own self help program. TYPICAL!

There is nothing the Livestock Marketing Police want more than to carve more comission dollars out of cattle. This law will be shot down in flames. Make no mistake about that. When a group of arrogant producers start telling others how they will market their cattle and who will own those cattle, that's worse than "socialism", that's a step towards communism. All based on a wild unsupported allegation about market manipulation. Call you senators and urge them to vote against this "socialistic" form of cattle marketing.


~SH~

Sh, you are just so full of it. Secrecy allows the tools of market manipulation to be applied without protest. Only those who are benefitting at the expense of others (captive supply) and those who are trying to extract value out of market power win with more secrecy.

The average producer wants his fair share of the economic pie and doesn't want to have to play all the little games necessary to get undue advantage a system of secrecy develops. They work hard for their money with labor and investment. They deserve it.

Save your erroneous uses of the terms socialism and communism. You are just trying to make a shadow for market power hide in.

They don't need to be cheated by some concentrtionist charleton masquerading as a person working for the cattle producer.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible."

The conspiracy theorists in this industry would simply find another conspiracy theory. The last one was CME futures manipulation which caused a huge investigation only to find out that the feeders had far more long positions than the packers. Another conspiracy shot down in flames but did that stop the conspiracy theorists? Of course not, they went from that to this captive supply bullsh*t theory they cannot prove. BLAMERS WILL FIND SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TO BLAME. When one conspiracy is shot down they move to another.

Bottom line, it's none of your damn business what I get for my fat cattle. That's between me and my buyer, NOT YOU!

DAMN SOCIALIST!


~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Econ if I want to I can sell fat cattle at the auction. Nothing stopping me .Why do I need a law passed that would limit my options?

What do you produce that you make you living form? How is your worth determined?

 

[Econ101]

OCM: "When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible."

The conspiracy theorists in this industry would simply find another conspiracy theory. The last one was CME futures manipulation which caused a huge investigation only to find out that the feeders had far more long positions than the packers. Another conspiracy shot down in flames but did that stop the conspiracy theorists? Of course not, they went from that to this captive supply bullsh*t theory they cannot prove. BLAMERS WILL FIND SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TO BLAME. When one conspiracy is shot down they move to another.

Bottom line, it's none of your damn business what I get for my fat cattle. That's between me and my buyer, NOT YOU!

DAMN SOCIALIST!


~SH~

If that investigation was anything like the one with Hillary and her commodity trades, no wonder it got nowhere. The blame on that one should be pinned directly on a regulatory agency that was either dumbed down or politically influenced to not collect timely and accurate information that could be used as evidence in proving the fraud. People are getting tired of seeing this kind of fraud while the regulatory agencies wink at the industry committing the frauds.

People that are being brought in from industry (like NCBA'rs) supposedly have the experience to catch these frauds but more and more it seems that they are facilitating them.

 

[Anonymous]

This is so typical of socialist conspiracy theorists such as yourself elementary.

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS!

PATHETIC !Q^(#*&@(@#!

I don't need you socialists to tell me how to market my cattle based on your stupid unproven conspiracy theories of market manipulation. If I think packers are making too much money off my back, I'LL INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. This is still America unless you socialists have your way. This will be a bloody fight because I'll be damned if I am going to let socialistic market manipulation conspiracy theorists tell me how to sell my fat cattle.

The CME investigation was thorough. They had total access to ibp's CME trading information. It didn't turn out the way conspiracy theorists like you thought it should so you blame GIPSA for the investigation. Typical of pathetic blamers like you, the scourge of this industry.

Elementary: "The average producer wants his fair share of the economic pie and doesn't want to have to play all the little games necessary to get undue advantage a system of secrecy develops. They work hard for their money with labor and investment. They deserve it."

MOST PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

I sure as hell don't need a conspiracy theorist like you saving me from my fat cattle pricing mechanisms based on your unproven conspiracy theories. Keep you socialistic views out of our industry.

This socialistic law will be shot down in flames, WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

This is so typical of socialist conspiracy theorists such as yourself elementary.

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS!

PATHETIC !Q^(#*&@(@#!

I don't need you socialists to tell me how to market my cattle based on your stupid unproven conspiracy theories of market manipulation. If I think packers are making too much money off my back, I'LL INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. This is still America unless you socialists have your way. This will be a bloody fight because I'll be damned if I am going to let socialistic market manipulation conspiracy theorists tell me how to sell my fat cattle.

The CME investigation was thorough. They had total access to ibp's CME trading information. It didn't turn out the way conspiracy theorists like you thought it should so you blame GIPSA for the investigation. Typical of pathetic blamers like you, the scourge of this industry.

Elementary: "The average producer wants his fair share of the economic pie and doesn't want to have to play all the little games necessary to get undue advantage a system of secrecy develops. They work hard for their money with labor and investment. They deserve it."

MOST PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

I sure as hell don't need a conspiracy theorist like you saving me from my fat cattle pricing mechanisms based on your unproven conspiracy theories. Keep you socialistic views out of our industry.

This socialistic law will be shot down in flames, WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~

That "theory" was proven to 12 jurors who understood the economic concepts much better than the judges who reviewed the case.

SH, you are simply the 5th column of market concentration. The current system, with payments by governments in the form of tax breaks and other concessions, is already socialism. Big business influence on legislators to get these goodies and to get away with market power plays is fascism. Is it your argument that the average of socialism and fascism is capitalism? Sorry-it doesn't work that way. That seems to be your argument.

Invest in a packing plant if I don't like packers breaking the economic protections of Section 202? Sounds like your solution to people pointing out abuses of packers is for them to be a packer owner. My, what a convenient and self serving argument. I guess if you didn't like the way Arthur Anderson was helping Enron cook the books, your solution is to join Arthur Anderson. That argument didn't fly with Pres. Bush's social security argument and it doesn't fly here. "Help, help, save social security from the mess of borrowing that congress has used on our ss surplus, privatize it." What a bunch of hogwash. People are tired of being taken advantage of by self serving politicians and their cronies.

Unlike you, when people cheated in class, I did not. Cheating gives the ILLUSION of doing better but it really only redefines the standards. Didn't I mention the example before where Tyson was using arsenic in their poultry feed and it was later found out through independent studies that more arsenic was left in the chicken than Tyson or the manufactoror claimed? What was Tyson's response? Increase the daily recomended allowable limits. Yes, Tyson has a team of people like you to move the goal posts for them. Cheat a little here but redefine the standards so the foxes can get away with the fraud. Sell that to your friends who can not think for themselves.

SH:

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

Stop trying to divide everyone but the packers (who are already undividable). Abuse of those mechanisms to the feeders reduces the chances that those feeders will stay in business and be able to compete for the cattle producer's (like BMR and Jason) product. You may be so self centered as to not look at any of the abuses around you except the ones that are played on you, but I am not. I am well aware of the fact that looking out for the least of these also helps all of us in our society. If you want to have an aristocratic society that only looks out for the top, go live in Mexico or any number of other countries in the world.

 

[RobertMac]

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) co-sponsored the Captive Supply Reform Act, HR 4257. The bill was introduced yesterday by all three Representatives. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock. Your calls of thanks are needed to show your support for this important bill.



I am all for a fair price for our livestock, but how do you require such, short of socialism, where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?

This makes no sense to me. Looks like they even got a republican suckered in on the deal. She must be up for election next cycle. This is not free enterprise in my book.

Jake, please explain how "all [cattle] receive the same price irregardless of quality"? Does that mean us Southerners are going to receive the same prices as you Northerners?

I believe that "public" companies should operate in the "public" under the light of truth. I don't believe this law will result in "fair prices" for producers. If producers want a larger share of the consumer's dollar, they are going to have to take it by being involved in around 50% of marketed beef. That means making sure that the producer's calves are marketed through an independent "BEEF ONLY" processor or producer owned processor/marketer. The Tyson's have proven that vertical integration is the plane that competition will be fought. You have three options...you can complain about it and try to fight it with legislation and/or court action(but who has the lobbying power?)...or, like Steve Cornett believes, turn over the marketing of our product to the players that have taken our market share, Tyson and the multi-species packers, and accept what they see fit to give producers(which will eventually be world market prices)...or more producers can grow some balls and support those that are already working to establish companies that are developing processing and marketing for beef producers.

 

[Econ101]

Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) co-sponsored the Captive Supply Reform Act, HR 4257. The bill was introduced yesterday by all three Representatives. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and ranchers who raise that livestock. Your calls of thanks are needed to show your support for this important bill.



I am all for a fair price for our livestock, but how do you require such, short of socialism, where all receive the same price irregardless of quality?

This makes no sense to me. Looks like they even got a republican suckered in on the deal. She must be up for election next cycle. This is not free enterprise in my book.

Jake, please explain how "all [cattle] receive the same price irregardless of quality"? Does that mean us Southerners are going to receive the same prices as you Northerners?

I believe that "public" companies should operate in the "public" under the light of truth. I don't believe this law will result in "fair prices" for producers. If producers want a larger share of the consumer's dollar, they are going to have to take it by being involved in around 50% of marketed beef. That means making sure that the producer's calves are marketed through an independent "BEEF ONLY" processor or producer owned processor/marketer. The Tyson's have proven that vertical integration is the plane that competition will be fought. You have three options...you can complain about it and try to fight it with legislation and/or court action(but who has the lobbying power?)...or, like Steve Cornett believes, turn over the marketing of our product to the players that have taken our market share, Tyson and the multi-species packers, and accept what they see fit to give producers(which will eventually be world market prices)...or more producers can grow some balls and support those that are already working to establish companies that are developing processing and marketing for beef producers.

Well said, Robert Mac. It does bring new meaning to the term "nuts".

 

[Tam]

It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party,.........
When many eyes are on the individual transactions it is much more difficult to manipulate them, though not impossible.

Kind of sounds like you think the producers should make a deal in the coffee shop so all his neighbors can witness it for him and make sure he doesn't get taken. If the producers wanted the neighbors to know the details of their cattle deals they would just go to the auction. Those that make individual transactions probably do so, so their neighbors don't know what kind of deal they made. :roll:

What have you got against your neighbors, Tam? Are you always looking for some better deal for the same thing than they? How would you know if you got a better deal than the average if you didn't know the average? Do you trust salesmen?

Insider stock sales are illegal for a reason. Ask Martha Stewart (I personally think that there are a lot worse crooks out there than ole Martha; someone wanted to show that they were "doing something" about white collar crime on wallstreet -- diversion)

Aren't we all that is what competition is isn't it.
Econ when you sign a contract to teach at a school do you have the rest of the teachers and a few students sit in on your meeting when the school and you are negotiating your salary?
ocm described it this way "It only requires that contracts be done in such a way as to be witnessed by any interested party",
If I was interested in what you got paid could I come and sit in on the meeting, I promise I would sit quietly well unless I thought you or the school were getting taken for a ride then it would be my obligation to save one or the other from a bad deal now wouldn't it? I'm sure you think you salary is none of my business so why is my calf check any of yours or any other interested parties business.

 

[OK Jeanne]

Let's do call it courage/persistance or even being an capitalist!

In 1995 when we sold a batch of calves through the sale barn,
I promptly realized there was no relationship between that price
and the price of beef in the grocery store. That's when we started
changing genetics, developing sales literature, developing a
marketing plan. IMO the commodity system of producing beef
is a rigged game---no matter what rules/regs are passed
(and likely not enforced even if passed). Your tax dollars and
ag foundation money should be being spent(not to mention
land-grant colleges) in developing production and marketing
systems by and for producers, i.e. coops in the manner of
rural electrification years ago. But no: our politicians and
university systems are controlled by the big money.