TELL IT LIKE IT IZ BOYS

[DiamondSCattleCo]

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

I'm a nub on these forums, and haven't read every single post from the past few years, but why is it important to know who the poster is, and who they work for? I see this request of Econ often, and am just curious, especially since he does appear to have a decent grasp on the realities of agricultural economics.

Or perhaps maybe he's a little on the conspiracy theory side, and that matches my general mindset :lol: But everyone here should remember that one of the basic foundations of a free market economy is self-interest. Everyone is going to operate to maximize their own gains, and with human nature being what it is and corporate enivronments being cut-throat, perhaps those conspiracy theories aren't far off the mark.

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but rather to toss in some food for thought. There was a comment made about packers making $3.88 per head, and how many critters it would take a producer to live on if our profit was $3.88, and it made me take notice. Has anyone ever really read up on agricultural history, specifically grain prices, co-operative history and the history of grain elevators?

Long story, short: 100 years ago, many, many independent line companies. Price per bushel: pretty fair, profit margin per bushel: very very very nice. These days, only a few line companies are left. Price per bushel:about the same as it was 50 years ago, some years even lower, profit margin per bushel: nil or negative if I'm the guy trying to grow it (I'm a horrible dirt farmer). So the old family farm is dying out. Its now extremely difficult for one man as a grain farmer to gain enough economy of scale to make a decent living. So the single operator and family farm is slowly but surely dying out and being replaced by corporate farms, with dozens or hundreds of employees.

Anyone see anything similar happening in the livestock market? Its not as bad as the grain market is, but the market signs are there if you know the history.

So, someone asked if they believed the packers would price to drive the producer out of business if they could? I dunno about the poster, but I know I do. A large packer corporation would love to see corporate cow/calf operations of tens of thousands of head. Economies of scale and corporate 'efficiency' would be the story of the day. Profit margin per animal could drop to $100/head or less (I'm too tired to work the numbers right now, and they'd only be theory anyway) without production suffering or significant loss rates.

Rod

 

[mrj]

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

I'm a nub on these forums, and haven't read every single post from the past few years, but why is it important to know who the poster is, and who they work for? I see this request of Econ often, and am just curious, especially since he does appear to have a decent grasp on the realities of agricultural economics.

Or perhaps maybe he's a little on the conspiracy theory side, and that matches my general mindset :lol: But everyone here should remember that one of the basic foundations of a free market economy is self-interest. Everyone is going to operate to maximize their own gains, and with human nature being what it is and corporate enivronments being cut-throat, perhaps those conspiracy theories aren't far off the mark.

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but rather to toss in some food for thought. There was a comment made about packers making $3.88 per head, and how many critters it would take a producer to live on if our profit was $3.88, and it made me take notice. Has anyone ever really read up on agricultural history, specifically grain prices, co-operative history and the history of grain elevators?

Long story, short: 100 years ago, many, many independent line companies. Price per bushel: pretty fair, profit margin per bushel: very very very nice. These days, only a few line companies are left. Price per bushel:about the same as it was 50 years ago, some years even lower, profit margin per bushel: nil or negative if I'm the guy trying to grow it (I'm a horrible dirt farmer). So the old family farm is dying out. Its now extremely difficult for one man as a grain farmer to gain enough economy of scale to make a decent living. So the single operator and family farm is slowly but surely dying out and being replaced by corporate farms, with dozens or hundreds of employees.

Anyone see anything similar happening in the livestock market? Its not as bad as the grain market is, but the market signs are there if you know the history.

So, someone asked if they believed the packers would price to drive the producer out of business if they could? I dunno about the poster, but I know I do. A large packer corporation would love to see corporate cow/calf operations of tens of thousands of head. Economies of scale and corporate 'efficiency' would be the story of the day. Profit margin per animal could drop to $100/head or less (I'm too tired to work the numbers right now, and they'd only be theory anyway) without production suffering or significant loss rates.

Rod

First, for Econ 101, you may notice I call you "Conman" when I believe you are way out of line. Example: you admitted you never read the transcript of that trial. You believed witnesses who had their theories shot full of holes, and you believe the jury was right and the judge wrong. I see your OPINIONS in those matters as biased, and that my opinions in the matter also reflect my bias against conspiracy theories about big business.........while you promote your opinions as the only truth. Fact: some juries will make bad decisions........some judges will make bad decisions........some will do so all the time........some will do so some of the time. You claim moral high ground on name calling.......while you say stupidly outrageous things about people and organizations.......how moral is that?

Diamond S CattleCo, I believe it important to know who someone is and is working for or with in order to better understand their point of view. Econ has made a big deal out of his/her mysterious "connections" and "insider knowledge", as well as indicating how impressed we all will be when he/she chooses to reveal his/her identity. If you are relatively new on this site, a bit of history may show you help you understand. Most of us who are anti-conspiracy on this site have had our identity exposed with intent to cause us some degree of harm. Few would know or care who I am which is fine with me, however, the intent to harm a business my family is a partner in reveals small minded and vindictive traits of those who did the deed. Similar tactics were used on SH, Agman and others.

Your history lesson is an interesting sidelight. I recall also the history that blamed the "big cattleman" as running over all the little farmers and sheepmen. Have to wonder how much real truth there is to that, knowing the history of my own small part of the world and some others where the larger operators actually helped the smaller ones to make it. Also recall the stories of the general store owner who ended up owning most of the land in his locale. Maybe he was simply giving homesteaders who had been fooled into believing that small plot of land actually could support families in "the Great American Desert", by purchasing his land so he could afford to leave for a better life elsewhere.

Times have changed. Especially the ability of anyone to get information which is necessary to make wise business decisions. Market structures are changing. There are great opportunities for those who will learn and base business decisions on practical realities rather than emotion and "doing it like dad or grandpa always did".

Could it be that packers, if you scenario is halfway true, would prefer those mega ranches so that they could buy "tens of thousands" of cattle with the uniformity and quality consumers demand, and which is STILL sadly lacking in the cattle today?

I'm not criticizing of you, and find your post thought provoking and interesting. I believe there is room for many viewpoints without making differences of opinion a reason to shoot someone down over it. So, welcome, and keep posting. More participants makes a more interesting site, IMO.

Fair warning: denial of facts and outright lies about the Beef Checkoff WILL cause me to "shoot down" the perpetrator with solid, verifiable facts!

MRJ

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) I recall also the history that blamed the "big cattleman" as running over all the little farmers and sheepmen.

2) base business decisions on practical realities rather than emotion and "doing it like dad or grandpa always did".

3) Could it be that packers, if you scenario is halfway true, would prefer those mega ranches so that they could buy "tens of thousands" of cattle with the uniformity and quality consumers demand, and which is STILL sadly lacking in the cattle today?

1) I remember reading stories and "historical" reference to the big cattlemen driving out the little fellas. Sometimes I wonder how much is accurate, as many of the accounts were simply "people who had done seen it happen". But in the case of the grain elevator companies, there isn't much doubt that they've mostly disappeared into the modern reality of the large corporation. Even in my own little town, grain farmers used to have the option of selling to one of 7 line elevator companies. Now my father has 1 when he sells his grain. And when the companies start building inland terminals, I wonder why they don't build them close together so that they actually have to compete with one another? I've been all over Saskatchewan, and can only think of a handfull of areas where there are more than 2 inland terminals to compete against one another.

2) Certainly. I think any cattle producer, or any producer of a raw product, is nuts if they don't adjust to modern realities. But I also think its sad when people are so disheartened by the current state of affairs that they don't attempt to change things for the better. There are days that I wish I'd been born 100 years ago. Maybe creature comforts were a little lacking, but my kids could go to school without worrying about having a knife stuck in their backs. And yes, I blame the modern world's quest for maximum profits for the sorry state our world is in right now. So I call my MLA and MP, and repeat to them over and over that this country is for me, and my children, not the multinational corporation.

3) The arguement that large herds would be more uniform has some merit, however I haven't seen any real evidence of that in the few large 1000+ animal herds that I've seen. But I look around here at the few other guys running black animals, and I see the beginnings of uniformity that weren't there before. And I'm not convinced that uniform herds are the answer, but rather uniform grading standards across borders and clear labelling of the grade of meat. Then the consumer knows exactly what he/she are buying.

Rod

 

[Clarence]

rod, MrJ I find your comments interesting. For some time I have been trying to sort out just how we established our ecconomic base here where I live.

The open range rancher came first. He really was just a large scale squatter. He used public land free of charge, never even paid taxes on it.
He tried to fence out the homesteader, yes he was right, in most cases the homesteader could not make it on 160 acres, but was he the one to judge. That didn't work so Range detectives (hired killers) were hired).
This is part myth, yes, but still the truth is not pretty. Some did help the homesteader, but maybe from a guilty consious. Isn't Ted Turner doing the same (he has foundations to help the area youth)

Looking at the grain thing: Back about 1830 it took 13 hours to cut an acre of grain with a cradle, then it still had to be bound, (stoop labor) shocked, threshed, and cleaned. Today we can do all of that in less than 7 minutes. They tell us people are leaving the Great Plains because it is really the desert, some claimed 150 years ago. Not so.
I put little stock in those who keep saying we try to do as our grandparents did. We are making rapid changes. The problem is that some of the changes are being made because some believe they are the panic button.

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "First, for Econ 101, you may notice I call you "Conman" when I believe you are way out of line. Example: you admitted you never read the transcript of that trial. You believed witnesses who had their theories shot full of holes, and you believe the jury was right and the judge wrong."

Did you read the transcript, MRJ?

 

[Econ101]

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

I'm a nub on these forums, and haven't read every single post from the past few years, but why is it important to know who the poster is, and who they work for? I see this request of Econ often, and am just curious, especially since he does appear to have a decent grasp on the realities of agricultural economics.

Or perhaps maybe he's a little on the conspiracy theory side, and that matches my general mindset :lol: But everyone here should remember that one of the basic foundations of a free market economy is self-interest. Everyone is going to operate to maximize their own gains, and with human nature being what it is and corporate enivronments being cut-throat, perhaps those conspiracy theories aren't far off the mark.

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but rather to toss in some food for thought. There was a comment made about packers making $3.88 per head, and how many critters it would take a producer to live on if our profit was $3.88, and it made me take notice. Has anyone ever really read up on agricultural history, specifically grain prices, co-operative history and the history of grain elevators?

Long story, short: 100 years ago, many, many independent line companies. Price per bushel: pretty fair, profit margin per bushel: very very very nice. These days, only a few line companies are left. Price per bushel:about the same as it was 50 years ago, some years even lower, profit margin per bushel: nil or negative if I'm the guy trying to grow it (I'm a horrible dirt farmer). So the old family farm is dying out. Its now extremely difficult for one man as a grain farmer to gain enough economy of scale to make a decent living. So the single operator and family farm is slowly but surely dying out and being replaced by corporate farms, with dozens or hundreds of employees.

Anyone see anything similar happening in the livestock market? Its not as bad as the grain market is, but the market signs are there if you know the history.

So, someone asked if they believed the packers would price to drive the producer out of business if they could? I dunno about the poster, but I know I do. A large packer corporation would love to see corporate cow/calf operations of tens of thousands of head. Economies of scale and corporate 'efficiency' would be the story of the day. Profit margin per animal could drop to $100/head or less (I'm too tired to work the numbers right now, and they'd only be theory anyway) without production suffering or significant loss rates.

Rod

First, for Econ 101, you may notice I call you "Conman" when I believe you are way out of line. Example: you admitted you never read the transcript of that trial. You believed witnesses who had their theories shot full of holes, and you believe the jury was right and the judge wrong. I see your OPINIONS in those matters as biased, and that my opinions in the matter also reflect my bias against conspiracy theories about big business.........while you promote your opinions as the only truth. Fact: some juries will make bad decisions........some judges will make bad decisions........some will do so all the time........some will do so some of the time. You claim moral high ground on name calling.......while you say stupidly outrageous things about people and organizations.......how moral is that?

Diamond S CattleCo, I believe it important to know who someone is and is working for or with in order to better understand their point of view. Econ has made a big deal out of his/her mysterious "connections" and "insider knowledge", as well as indicating how impressed we all will be when he/she chooses to reveal his/her identity. If you are relatively new on this site, a bit of history may show you help you understand. Most of us who are anti-conspiracy on this site have had our identity exposed with intent to cause us some degree of harm. Few would know or care who I am which is fine with me, however, the intent to harm a business my family is a partner in reveals small minded and vindictive traits of those who did the deed. Similar tactics were used on SH, Agman and others.

Your history lesson is an interesting sidelight. I recall also the history that blamed the "big cattleman" as running over all the little farmers and sheepmen. Have to wonder how much real truth there is to that, knowing the history of my own small part of the world and some others where the larger operators actually helped the smaller ones to make it. Also recall the stories of the general store owner who ended up owning most of the land in his locale. Maybe he was simply giving homesteaders who had been fooled into believing that small plot of land actually could support families in "the Great American Desert", by purchasing his land so he could afford to leave for a better life elsewhere.

Times have changed. Especially the ability of anyone to get information which is necessary to make wise business decisions. Market structures are changing. There are great opportunities for those who will learn and base business decisions on practical realities rather than emotion and "doing it like dad or grandpa always did".

Could it be that packers, if you scenario is halfway true, would prefer those mega ranches so that they could buy "tens of thousands" of cattle with the uniformity and quality consumers demand, and which is STILL sadly lacking in the cattle today?

I'm not criticizing of you, and find your post thought provoking and interesting. I believe there is room for many viewpoints without making differences of opinion a reason to shoot someone down over it. So, welcome, and keep posting. More participants makes a more interesting site, IMO.

Fair warning: denial of facts and outright lies about the Beef Checkoff WILL cause me to "shoot down" the perpetrator with solid, verifiable facts!

MRJ

MRJ, Do you want people to call you names when they think you are "way out of line?" Personally I think it is juvinile. I could oblige you in that as I have been around some very bad mouthed people when I was younger. Your post to the contrary should show that you don't agree with what I am saying. You don't need name calling.

The witnesses did not have their "theory" shot full of holes. In our country, 12 jurors decide cases, not judges. The 11th circuit had to change the legislation to support their view. If you can not read the filed decisions and understand that was the case, you really have no authority to question what I say about the trial because you just don't know. You don't need any of the trial transcripts to understand all of these items. The filed decisions suffice.

As far as calling everything I say a conspiracy, that is your word. It is sure being used in D.C. a lot nowdays. I hope you are not involved in any way with an illegal conspiracy.

 

[Jason]

Another double standard

The witnesses did not have their "theory" shot full of holes. In our country, 12 jurors decide cases, not judges. The 11th circuit had to change the legislation to support their view. If you can not read the filed decisions and understand that was the case, you really have no authority to question what I say about the trial because you just don't know. You don't need any of the trial transcripts to understand all of these items. The filed decisions suffice.

Untested theories would constitute a witness having his testimony shot full of holes.

Why do judges preside over jury trials if they are not necessary?

The 11th circuit agreed with Judge Strom overturning the case as per law allowed. It would be at the Supreme Court level if otherwise.

Tell Sandhusker only the descision is needed to understand a case as he is the one wanting to know if others read the transcripts.

You still haven't answered multiple questions about the trial, because of course they don't prop up your sagging conspiracy mindset.

 

[Econ101]

Another double standard

The witnesses did not have their "theory" shot full of holes. In our country, 12 jurors decide cases, not judges. The 11th circuit had to change the legislation to support their view. If you can not read the filed decisions and understand that was the case, you really have no authority to question what I say about the trial because you just don't know. You don't need any of the trial transcripts to understand all of these items. The filed decisions suffice.

Untested theories would constitute a witness having his testimony shot full of holes.

Why do judges preside over jury trials if they are not necessary?

The 11th circuit agreed with Judge Strom overturning the case as per law allowed. It would be at the Supreme Court level if otherwise.

Tell Sandhusker only the descision is needed to understand a case as he is the one wanting to know if others read the transcripts.

You still haven't answered multiple questions about the trial, because of course they don't prop up your sagging conspiracy mindset.

Jason, you are the last person to talk authoritatively on this issue.

 

[Jason]

Why conman because I can make a valid point without resorting to conspiracy and such?

 

[Econ101]

Why conman because I can make a valid point without resorting to conspiracy and such?

There was no valid point. You did not discuss any of the merits of the case.

 

[Soapweed]

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

If we guess right, will you tell us? Is there a prize for the winner?

Could it be: Mike Johanns? George W. Bush? Oprah Winfrey? Jeff Foxworthy? The Pope?

The suspense is killing me. :???: :?

 

[Econ101]

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

If we guess right, will you tell us? Is there a prize for the winner?

Could it be: Mike Johanns? George W. Bush? Oprah Winfrey? Jeff Foxworthy? The Pope?

The suspense is killing me. :???: :?

It is kind of funny.

 

[Soapweed]

Thanks for not being mad.

 

[mrj]

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

If we guess right, will you tell us? Is there a prize for the winner?

Could it be: Mike Johanns? George W. Bush? Oprah Winfrey? Jeff Foxworthy? The Pope?

The suspense is killing me. :???: :?

Right on, Soapweed! Humor truly is the best anti-dote to pomposity!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

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

If we guess right, will you tell us? Is there a prize for the winner?

Could it be: Mike Johanns? George W. Bush? Oprah Winfrey? Jeff Foxworthy? The Pope?

The suspense is killing me. :???: :?

Right on, Soapweed! Humor truly is the best anti-dote to pomposity!

MRJ

Spoken by the queen.