TELL IT LIKE IT IZ BOYS

[Econ101]

Gee Conman can't you understand when a guy knows the answers and asks rhetorical questions?

Too bad you can't refute the truth with your conspiracies.

Facts must drive you insane.

They would if you had any. You recently stated that the packing industry was not an oligopsony or oligopoly. It is both. I wish you were either a little more humble in your ignorance or a little more knowledgable in your posts. Either way, you have no qualifications for the conclusive names and words you use.

More lies from conman.

I said the packers were not an oligopoly, nor did he have an ogilopoly in water (his phony New Orleans scenario). He said he never said the packers were an oligopoly, but an oligopsony. Now he is claiming he said they are both.

Prove they are, if you can.

But facts don't agree with conspiracy, or is it he can't provide the details here, or is it his medications ran out? Whatever no proof will be forthcoming.

Jason, the packers are oligopolists with their relationship to the wholesale beef market. They are oligopsonists with their relationship to the cattlemen and or feeders. Do you understand the terminology yet? You might do well to look it up for yourself. In Canada this situation holds true much more so than in the U.S. There is an oligopoly with respect to the wholesale market. There is an oligopsony with respect to the cattle markets. You are right to say that the packers are not an oligopoly as it is a term that denotes the economic structure of the industry. The industry is an oligopoly. The individual companies are oligopsonists and oligopolists. I don't have to prove it. It is a fact. If you don't believe it, go to the university and learn about it.

If you can not quote me or paraphrase me correctly, then I would ask you not to do it as you show your ignorance of the structure of this industry and the economic terminology every time you post on the subject.

Are any of these things lies? Why would you call someone a liar unless you just wanted to fight?

 

[Jason]

When you directly say one thing conman then say you never said it...that is a lie.

 

[Econ101]

When you directly say one thing conman then say you never said it...that is a lie.

What was it, Jason? You probably had a hard time understanding what I wrote. You have had that problem before. I will not say that I communicate the best all of the time, my wife reminds me of that continuously. If you misunderstand what I am saying then why don't you ask instead of going to kindergarten name calling? You are a lot smarter than that. Shall I go to name calling on you? To what purpose? Do you need more kids in your class?

 

[rkaiser]

This thread kinda started with a question about an organization representing cattlemen, did it not?

Not that Rcalf is that organisation, but NCBA and the Canadian equivalent packer infiltrated ass kissers are certainly not either.

What would be wrong with a voice representing cattle producers that did not include a contingent of Cargill and Tyson boys who's only interest is to buy catle as cheap as they can. And yes I agree that quality pays more, but who will argue that Cargill and Tyson do not want to own those cattle as cheap as they can as well?

 

[Jason]

This thread kinda started with a question about an organization representing cattlemen, did it not?

Not that Rcalf is that organisation, but NCBA and the Canadian equivalent packer infiltrated ass kissers are certainly not either.

What would be wrong with a voice representing cattle producers that did not include a contingent of Cargill and Tyson boys who's only interest is to buy catle as cheap as they can. And yes I agree that quality pays more, but who will argue that Cargill and Tyson do not want to own those cattle as cheap as they can as well?

No one has argued against packers wanting to buy cattle as cheap as possible.

However, without knowledge of their costs and where they get their income from, a person can't make an informed descision about his/her own marketing plans. I can assume rancher A makes $300 a head and he has 100 cows. He must pay tax on $30,000 a year.

How do I know if my assumption is right? The only way would be if the rancher tells me himself. We all know how likely that is.

Packers don't want to open their books either, but with some being public companies they have no choice but to offer most of the data. People like Agman that have studied the trends for many years can get very close on packer profits with a few marker numbers. Private companies will be very close in numbers as they share the same technology and are paying relatively the same prices.

The data has shown packers are not wildly profitable on a per head basis. Pickett showed a $26 profit over its time frame. Long term data has shown a $3.88 profit per head.

How many cows would you have to run to feed a family of 4 on a $26 margin?

So with that information, ($3.88 or $26) does that change how a producer would view the industry? Would you risk your life savings on a $26 margin?

Information is power. The more we know about a subject the better equiped we are to make descisions.

 

[Anonymous]

The data has shown packers are not wildly profitable on a per head basis. Pickett showed a $26 profit over its time frame. Long term data has shown a $3.88 profit per head.

How many cows would you have to run to feed a family of 4 on a $26 margin?

So with that information, ($3.88 or $26) does that change how a producer would view the industry? Would you risk your life savings on a $26 margin?

But Jason that is PROFIT-- put in your pocket money after all costs...

That means if you slaughter only 100 head a day you make between $388 and $2,600 per day- a yearly income of between $116,000 and $780,000....Most families of 4 I know can do quite well on those figures...And most packers kill many more than 100 head a day...

 

[Mike]

At one time, not too long ago, Tyson was slaughtering over 3800 head per day at Lakeside and profiting $281 per head. NET PROFIT!

That's over $1 MILLION per day. Net Profit. Plus, their investment would be a drop in the bucket compared to the all the cattle ranches/equipment/cows that supplied those cattle!

 

[Jason]

Are you ready to run 36500 cows Oldtimer?

100 cows per day x 365 days a year.

Mike those numbers have not been verified. As near as can be determined it was closer to $65 US per head BEFORE taxes. And that doesn't include the losses in the months right after BSE.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you ready to run 36500 cows Oldtimer?

100 cows per day x 365 days a year.

Mike those numbers have not been verified. As near as can be determined it was closer to $65 US per head BEFORE taxes. And that doesn't include the losses in the months right after BSE.

Love to if my PROFIT was $2,600 a day- even do it for a $388 a day PROFIT......

 

[mrj]

The data has shown packers are not wildly profitable on a per head basis. Pickett showed a $26 profit over its time frame. Long term data has shown a $3.88 profit per head.

How many cows would you have to run to feed a family of 4 on a $26 margin?

So with that information, ($3.88 or $26) does that change how a producer would view the industry? Would you risk your life savings on a $26 margin?

But Jason that is PROFIT-- put in your pocket money after all costs...

That means if you slaughter only 100 head a day you make between $388 and $2,600 per day- a yearly income of between $116,000 and $780,000....Most families of 4 I know can do quite well on those figures...And most packers kill many more than 100 head a day...

OT, aren't you comparing apples to oranges here? The big packer can easily process 100 head in a day to "make" that "clear" profit. What is the size of the average cow herd in your state? Most states are below 50 head. For ease of figuring, lets use 125 head. Say the rancher keeps 25 replacement hiefers, leaving 100 had to sell, assuming no death loss for the sake of ease of figuring. There is $388.00 to $2,600.00 per year "profit" or income for the ranch family to live on for a year. Can you do it? BTW, the rancher certainly should not be fully employed taking care of only 125 head, should he?
MRJ

 

[Econ101]

The data has shown packers are not wildly profitable on a per head basis. Pickett showed a $26 profit over its time frame. Long term data has shown a $3.88 profit per head.

How many cows would you have to run to feed a family of 4 on a $26 margin?

So with that information, ($3.88 or $26) does that change how a producer would view the industry? Would you risk your life savings on a $26 margin?

But Jason that is PROFIT-- put in your pocket money after all costs...

That means if you slaughter only 100 head a day you make between $388 and $2,600 per day- a yearly income of between $116,000 and $780,000....Most families of 4 I know can do quite well on those figures...And most packers kill many more than 100 head a day...

OT, aren't you comparing apples to oranges here? The big packer can easily process 100 head in a day to "make" that "clear" profit. What is the size of the average cow herd in your state? Most states are below 50 head. For ease of figuring, lets use 125 head. Say the rancher keeps 25 replacement hiefers, leaving 100 had to sell, assuming no death loss for the sake of ease of figuring. There is $388.00 to $2,600.00 per year "profit" or income for the ranch family to live on for a year. Can you do it? BTW, the rancher certainly should not be fully employed taking care of only 125 head, should he?
MRJ

This is precisely why the per head figure that the packers get in net profit can not be compared to the per head profit of the producer. The packer only has them for a day or two. The feeders and the cattlemen have them a lot longer.

OT has a point that the packers are really making the money here. Thier per day profit for your cattle is a lot higher than the feeder's or the cattleman's. Does anyone have any real figures on how long the packers actually have the cattle?

MRJ, if under the Pickett manipulation time period the packers made a profit of $26.00 per head and the long term calculated average was $3.88 per head, I would say there was ample evidence that the packers benefited from their price discrimination, wouldn't you?

 

[Econ101]

Are you ready to run 36500 cows Oldtimer?

100 cows per day x 365 days a year.

Mike those numbers have not been verified. As near as can be determined it was closer to $65 US per head BEFORE taxes. And that doesn't include the losses in the months right after BSE.

Jason, where did you go to school?

 

[Mike]

Are you ready to run 36500 cows Oldtimer?

100 cows per day x 365 days a year.

Mike those numbers have not been verified. As near as can be determined it was closer to $65 US per head BEFORE taxes. And that doesn't include the losses in the months right after BSE.

I stand corrected Jason. I got my numbers mixed up. There was a 281% profit increase after BSE.

Profit was only $216.52. Boy do I ever feel embarrassed! They didn't make NEARLY the money I thought they did! HA!

Profit (before interest and taxes) at three big packing companies, Cargill, Lakeside and XL Foods, rose by 281 per cent after the mad-cow crisis began in May 2003, Fred Dunn said.

The three packers made $79 a head in the before the crisis, and $216.52 a head after.

There had also been allegations "that the packers received program funds destined for the producers. These allegations are not true," the auditor general's website said.

The single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy discovered in Alberta in May 2003 slashed the Canadian price of cattle. Export markets closed, flooding the market in Canada and driving down the prices packers paid for cattle.

But consumer demand remained steady, so the packers didn't have to cut the price they charged for beef products. Dunn explained the differing price drops by saying "cattle prices form only a small part of the retail price."

 

[Sandhusker]

"But consumer demand remained steady, so the packers didn't have to cut the price they charged for beef products. Dunn explained the differing price drops by saying "cattle prices form only a small part of the retail price."

Hmmm, I think we should file that comment for future reference.

 

[Econ101]

"But consumer demand remained steady, so the packers didn't have to cut the price they charged for beef products. Dunn explained the differing price drops by saying "cattle prices form only a small part of the retail price."

Hmmm, I think we should file that comment for future reference.

I did not see the huge bargains at the stores when hogs went to 5 cents.

The packers and or retailers will do what ever they can get away with and they will have a little tribe of minions to explain it all away.

 

[rkaiser]

I see Jason took a break on this one. The numbers were obviously getting to hard on the old boy.

Maybe instead of spending money on that packer defender cape SH promised you Jason, you should invest in a calculator! :lol:

 

[mrj]

But Jason that is PROFIT-- put in your pocket money after all costs...

That means if you slaughter only 100 head a day you make between $388 and $2,600 per day- a yearly income of between $116,000 and $780,000....Most families of 4 I know can do quite well on those figures...And most packers kill many more than 100 head a day...

OT, aren't you comparing apples to oranges here? The big packer can easily process 100 head in a day to "make" that "clear" profit. What is the size of the average cow herd in your state? Most states are below 50 head. For ease of figuring, lets use 125 head. Say the rancher keeps 25 replacement hiefers, leaving 100 had to sell, assuming no death loss for the sake of ease of figuring. There is $388.00 to $2,600.00 per year "profit" or income for the ranch family to live on for a year. Can you do it? BTW, the rancher certainly should not be fully employed taking care of only 125 head, should he?
MRJ

This is precisely why the per head figure that the packers get in net profit can not be compared to the per head profit of the producer. The packer only has them for a day or two. The feeders and the cattlemen have them a lot longer.

OT has a point that the packers are really making the money here. Thier per day profit for your cattle is a lot higher than the feeder's or the cattleman's. Does anyone have any real figures on how long the packers actually have the cattle?

MRJ, if under the Pickett manipulation time period the packers made a profit of $26.00 per head and the long term calculated average was $3.88 per head, I would say there was ample evidence that the packers benefited from their price discrimination, wouldn't you?

Conman, I do not buy into your conspiracy theories and obviously the judge in the Pickett case didn't either.

Really, untill you identify yourself and with/for whom you work, so we may possibly understand your various and changing positions on the issues you discuss, it seems quite pointless to make the attempt.

MRJ

 

[Jason]

Anyone garanteed a profit would say they would run 36500 cows.

Are the packers garanteed a profit?

NO!

Start buying cows and land see how close to 36500 head you get.

Same thing for a packer that kills 100 head per day. Start building and see how long it takes to go broke or make money.

If it was easy everyone would do it.

I picked up 2 beef today and was informed the processing fees are climbing 10%. If I add 10% on the beef, sales will slow. Looks like my margin just got squeezed. To be fair processing is about 1/3 of the cost of the beef, so I only have to add 3-4% to cover the increase.

Packers don't call the shots, producers are responsible for the genetics and the majority of the quality in the animal, but consumers are the real power in the market.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason

Anyone garanteed a profit would say they would run 36500 cows.

Are the packers garanteed a profit?

NO!

Start buying cows and land see how close to 36500 head you get.

Same thing for a packer that kills 100 head per day. Start building and see how long it takes to go broke or make money.

If it was easy everyone would do it.

You are desperately OUT TO LUNCH Jason. You can't make a point when what you are saying doesn't even come close to making sense???? :roll:

Sure glad to see that you can so easily add 3 - 4% to your beef to cover your packers costs Jason. As long as the numbers work in your mind EH??????

 

[Econ101]

OT, aren't you comparing apples to oranges here? The big packer can easily process 100 head in a day to "make" that "clear" profit. What is the size of the average cow herd in your state? Most states are below 50 head. For ease of figuring, lets use 125 head. Say the rancher keeps 25 replacement hiefers, leaving 100 had to sell, assuming no death loss for the sake of ease of figuring. There is $388.00 to $2,600.00 per year "profit" or income for the ranch family to live on for a year. Can you do it? BTW, the rancher certainly should not be fully employed taking care of only 125 head, should he?
MRJ

This is precisely why the per head figure that the packers get in net profit can not be compared to the per head profit of the producer. The packer only has them for a day or two. The feeders and the cattlemen have them a lot longer.

OT has a point that the packers are really making the money here. Thier per day profit for your cattle is a lot higher than the feeder's or the cattleman's. Does anyone have any real figures on how long the packers actually have the cattle?

MRJ, if under the Pickett manipulation time period the packers made a profit of $26.00 per head and the long term calculated average was $3.88 per head, I would say there was ample evidence that the packers benefited from their price discrimination, wouldn't you?

Conman, I do not buy into your conspiracy theories and obviously the judge in the Pickett case didn't either.

Really, untill you identify yourself and with/for whom you work, so we may possibly understand your various and changing positions on the issues you discuss, it seems quite pointless to make the attempt.

MRJ

MRJ, do you want me to start calling you Hag Woman? I would appreciate it if you did not call me names. As I have told others, go ahead if you want. You may not like the results.

The judge was not the jury. You are not either. In this country, besides what you want to believe, jurors decide cases. When they do not, we are all in a lot of trouble.

You may see my positions as changing, but they have been very consistent. Not understood, misquoted, and mis paraphrased, yes. Those are actions by others than myself and I take no responsibility for those actions.

One day you will know who I am and why I have the point of view that I do. It is not today.