The Larger Economic Fraud

[Econ101]

Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1767
Location: TX

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Welllll.... Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
pknoeber wrote:
I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil


No, Phil, it is a little more complex than that. Tyson has beef and its substitutes. They can swing the market with the price manipulation tools they have. They are using these two markets to consolidate the meat markets. All consolidation allows more market power to "put the screws" to the producers and consolidate the meat industries under their control.

There are two distinct time periods:

1. Supply of meat proteins is relatively high. There is a lot of chicken on the market and there is a lot of beef on the market. By using the market manipulation tools in beef, they are able to drive the prices in beef down on the producer level. SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted. During this time, chicken prices were in the tank. Tyson was able to use the cash flow from the beef side to continue operating the poultry side in an oversupply situation with low prices. This drives out small competitors that do not have beef to subsidize their operations. If you are in poultry and do not play with the big boys, you get run out of the business. Consolidation in the poultry business.

Next time period:

2. Because of the low prices paid to producers in time period 1, the supply of beef reacts (this takes time) and you go into period 2. During this time period, beef prices are high. Packers do not operate at the same margins, as some have suggested, but operate under what Agman and SH call negative margins. They seem to be losing money on every head sold with this calculated negative margin. How do they remain profitable? The chicken side (and pork). As I have shown on a previous post, the poultry prices have been between 30 and 45% higher. Profit margins are anyone's guess. If the poultry dealers were making 5 cents per lb. when prices were 52 cents then at 70 cents they are making roughly 35 cents more per lb. If all costs are the same for production (grain went down fuel went up, etc... but we are assuming for the point) then the profits on poultry went up 700%. Where does Tyson get cash flow to pay for "negative" cash flow in beef processing? Not hard to figure out. During this period, beef processors are run out of the business because they do not have chicken business to keep them afloat with their cash flows.

Tyson does have one synergy with the chicken and beef markets. They are able to feed their animal by products in beef operations to chicken. Isn't this what initiated the BSE crises in the first place in the cattle markets?

Is this an efficient market or strategic planning? Tyson did not buy IBP for nothing. They want the whole market. If we remain stupid enough to let them have it, we deserve to not be paid for our products. I am afraid if things do not change, that is where we are heading.



_________________

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted."

The $26 per head was for Tyson ONLY during a period of time when Tyson was profitable.

The $3.88 per head profit was for the 5 major packers during the 90s.

Different packers and a different time period.

A 670% increase? Hahaha! you are such an idiot!


This entire post is nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric unsupported by any factual data. Totally worthless information.

You don't know anything about Tyson or the beef industry. You just make sh*t up.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted."

The $26 per head was for Tyson ONLY during a period of time when Tyson was profitable.

The $3.88 per head profit was for the 5 major packers during the 90s.

Different packers and a different time period.

A 670% increase? Hahaha! you are such an idiot!


This entire post is nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric unsupported by any factual data. Totally worthless information.

You don't know anything about Tyson or the beef industry. You just make sh*t up.



~SH~

Well, SH, I hope Tyson wasn't saying they were not profitable when they were making $26 per head.

Do you have problems with numbers? Those numbers came from you.

 

[Jason]

And conman misinterpreted those numbers the same way he misinterprets every number he has commented on.

The $3.88 was for a longer time frame, the $26 was for a small selected time period.

To average out to the $3.88 there were periods of sustained losses.

But they were setting things up to make that $26 right conman? It was in their best interest to lose money so they could make a little bit later. :roll:

 

[agman]

Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1767
Location: TX

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Welllll.... Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
pknoeber wrote:
I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil


No, Phil, it is a little more complex than that. Tyson has beef and its substitutes. They can swing the market with the price manipulation tools they have. They are using these two markets to consolidate the meat markets. All consolidation allows more market power to "put the screws" to the producers and consolidate the meat industries under their control.

There are two distinct time periods:

1. Supply of meat proteins is relatively high. There is a lot of chicken on the market and there is a lot of beef on the market. By using the market manipulation tools in beef, they are able to drive the prices in beef down on the producer level. SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted. During this time, chicken prices were in the tank. Tyson was able to use the cash flow from the beef side to continue operating the poultry side in an oversupply situation with low prices. This drives out small competitors that do not have beef to subsidize their operations. If you are in poultry and do not play with the big boys, you get run out of the business. Consolidation in the poultry business.

Next time period:

2. Because of the low prices paid to producers in time period 1, the supply of beef reacts (this takes time) and you go into period 2. During this time period, beef prices are high. Packers do not operate at the same margins, as some have suggested, but operate under what Agman and SH call negative margins. They seem to be losing money on every head sold with this calculated negative margin. How do they remain profitable? The chicken side (and pork). As I have shown on a previous post, the poultry prices have been between 30 and 45% higher. Profit margins are anyone's guess. If the poultry dealers were making 5 cents per lb. when prices were 52 cents then at 70 cents they are making roughly 35 cents more per lb. If all costs are the same for production (grain went down fuel went up, etc... but we are assuming for the point) then the profits on poultry went up 700%. Where does Tyson get cash flow to pay for "negative" cash flow in beef processing? Not hard to figure out. During this period, beef processors are run out of the business because they do not have chicken business to keep them afloat with their cash flows.

Tyson does have one synergy with the chicken and beef markets. They are able to feed their animal by products in beef operations to chicken. Isn't this what initiated the BSE crises in the first place in the cattle markets?

Is this an efficient market or strategic planning? Tyson did not buy IBP for nothing. They want the whole market. If we remain stupid enough to let them have it, we deserve to not be paid for our products. I am afraid if things do not change, that is where we are heading.



_________________

Your point on number #2 shows just how little you know about the market and your willingness to skew information to fit your bias. The $26.00 per head earned by Tyson during the said period is dramatically different from the $3.88 per head which I calculated for the entire industry average for a completely different period. Sorry Bud but you are just short on facts and long on opinion and rhetoric as usual.

How do you explain price changes in the marketplace before IBP merged with Tyson? How was the beef market manipulated as you claim in all those prior years? How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company? Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy? I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!! What an imagination you have!!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

So tell me something guys, all thoughts of market manipulation aside, do you really not see a problem with allowing a corporation to access multiple competing markets? Do you truly believe its good for the marketplace?

Lets just say for a moment that Company X is only involved in beef processing. If beef prices take a tumble, they're going to go to bat with producers and feeder associations to help raise beef demand. Remember the Eat Beef ads from a few years back? Would have been nice to have had some big packer help on those. We got packer help on those ads, but only from independent packers whose livelihoods depended on beef.

Now lets take the Company Y, whose involved in several markets, and maybe not just beef processing. If one of their ventures isn't profitable, they can use cash flow from another profitable venture to ensure their company remains viable. If they do a cost/benefit and determine it will be to the companies net benefit to 'ride out the storm', you can bet they'll do it instead of trying to help the market. This type of corporation also opens itself up to inefficiency, depending on the leadership. If they are profitable in a market, but perhaps not quite as profitable as they could be, they aren't as likely to increase efficiency as Company X, whose soul means of support is one industry. Scoff all you want, its true. Its human nature. They can also use a strong cash position in one market to buy their way into another. How is this efficient? They haven't had to compete, they just simply skipped onto the stage.

Let me ask a question of everyone: Whats the plus side of allowing a company to access multiple markets? Economies of scale doesn't wash. Once you get away from the single market, economies of scale has dimishing returns. Perhaps it would allow for a common admin function, but if the two markets that the company is involved in are huge, I doubt it.

I'm not asking to be a smart alek, or to be arguementative. I'd really like to know what others perceive as the benefits to our market.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't think there really is any plus side for the producer. It's just that you can't stop a company from expanding across product lines.

 

[Anonymous]

Bottom line,

We have 5 major packing companys none of which have over a 33% market share all competing for the same cattle. So what is wrong with that picture?

The packer blamers act like mergers and concentration is unique to the packing industry. For crying out loud look around you.

Ford - New Holland
Case - IH

Ring a bell?

Where was your pickett signs then?

If a packing company merges and this results in reducing processing costs per head and maximizing the profits for beef and beef by products, THEY PAY MORE FOR CATTLE.

The morons in this industry want to go back to the days when we had all kinds of packing companies which were less efficient, had higher per head processing costs, and didn't utilize all the aspects of the carcass. GUESS WHAT? THEY PAID LESS FOR CATTLE (all other things being equal).

We have the highest cattle prices ever recorded with 5 major packing companies and many level two packers like Creekstone, and Greater Omaha competing for the same cattle AND SOME ARE STILL BITCHING ABOUT.

Where's the logic?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1767
Location: TX

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Welllll.... Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
pknoeber wrote:
I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil


No, Phil, it is a little more complex than that. Tyson has beef and its substitutes. They can swing the market with the price manipulation tools they have. They are using these two markets to consolidate the meat markets. All consolidation allows more market power to "put the screws" to the producers and consolidate the meat industries under their control.

There are two distinct time periods:

1. Supply of meat proteins is relatively high. There is a lot of chicken on the market and there is a lot of beef on the market. By using the market manipulation tools in beef, they are able to drive the prices in beef down on the producer level. SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted. During this time, chicken prices were in the tank. Tyson was able to use the cash flow from the beef side to continue operating the poultry side in an oversupply situation with low prices. This drives out small competitors that do not have beef to subsidize their operations. If you are in poultry and do not play with the big boys, you get run out of the business. Consolidation in the poultry business.

Next time period:

2. Because of the low prices paid to producers in time period 1, the supply of beef reacts (this takes time) and you go into period 2. During this time period, beef prices are high. Packers do not operate at the same margins, as some have suggested, but operate under what Agman and SH call negative margins. They seem to be losing money on every head sold with this calculated negative margin. How do they remain profitable? The chicken side (and pork). As I have shown on a previous post, the poultry prices have been between 30 and 45% higher. Profit margins are anyone's guess. If the poultry dealers were making 5 cents per lb. when prices were 52 cents then at 70 cents they are making roughly 35 cents more per lb. If all costs are the same for production (grain went down fuel went up, etc... but we are assuming for the point) then the profits on poultry went up 700%. Where does Tyson get cash flow to pay for "negative" cash flow in beef processing? Not hard to figure out. During this period, beef processors are run out of the business because they do not have chicken business to keep them afloat with their cash flows.

Tyson does have one synergy with the chicken and beef markets. They are able to feed their animal by products in beef operations to chicken. Isn't this what initiated the BSE crises in the first place in the cattle markets?

Is this an efficient market or strategic planning? Tyson did not buy IBP for nothing. They want the whole market. If we remain stupid enough to let them have it, we deserve to not be paid for our products. I am afraid if things do not change, that is where we are heading.



_________________

1. Your point on number #2 shows just how little you know about the market and your willingness to skew information to fit your bias. The $26.00 per head earned by Tyson during the said period is dramatically different from the $3.88 per head which I calculated for the entire industry average for a completely different period. Sorry Bud but you are just short on facts and long on opinion and rhetoric as usual.

2. How do you explain price changes in the marketplace before IBP merged with Tyson? How was the beef market manipulated as you claim in all those prior years? How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company? Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy? I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!! What an imagination you have!!

Backup there Agman. Stop jumping to conclusions and please stop telling me what I think. You are no oracle.

1. I appreciate the fact that you take responsibility for the numbers, Agman. This is another example of a situation I brought to your attention on the time period making a difference in interpretting numbers. Haven't we already hashed that one out? Is this not similar to the point on your "demand" index? You claimed cross elasticities are known and calculated by the industry yet you failed to post them in "Econ vs. Agman" thread. You left everyone with the interpretation that the "demand" increase was due to consumer changes, not items under control of the packers with their substitutes. Little tricky don't you think.

As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation. Did you want me to compare Tyson profitabilty to the same time period of the $26 figure? I will give you a guess to what it is (the same number). Did the manipulation pay off? Can you compare numbers?

What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?


2. I have never stated that there are price changes due to normal factors in the market. Never. Is this another argument you want to have with yourself? Market power plays are always on top of normal supply and demand and price equilibriums. Always. I have already gone over price manipulation in different time periods that may only include IBP, IBP and Tyson and both together. Here it is again since you have a hard time with it:

Econ: "4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson."

Agman: " How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company?"

Econ: Who said they were? The market manipulation that I am talking about has to do with market power and its exercise. I never made the assertion that normal supply and demand or normal economies of scale are not in the industry. I also never made the assertion that IBP manipulated at other times. They very well may have. This is about like arguing that the bank robber caught in the bank was a good baby when he was 4 years old. That is your crazy little argument, not mine.

Agman:"Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy?"

Econ: Go read the Coke thread. Coke buyers were limited to their choices of the kind of coke offered by the company. Market power allows this to happen. Competitive markets do not. If coke had allowed all its distributors to compete with each other, this would not be the case. They have found it advantageous to break up the market and use their contracts and lawyers to back up their market power in that market so they can make more money. Same thing with Tyson. If you do not have the choice and you are a consumer, your effects on the market are limited by the choices you have. Rkaiser brought up a real beef example of this when he brought up Cargill signing on all the hotels and squeezing him out of the market. Proctor and Gamble has the same problem with Walmart. In all, it limits choices by consumers and consolidates market power into the "gatekeeper".

Agman:"I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!!"

Econ: As I have said before, you don't know what I think. You can't even get what I write correct so why would you even try? With NAFTA and CAFTA and totally free trade, they will have the power to do this. It is the same mercantilism that preceded the fall of Rome. I did not say they are doing it now, but in time they will have that power. It is being set up in the name of "globalization".

Agman: "What an imagination you have!!"

Econ: Just someone who sees what is happening in the world. Your "facts" and "figures" continue to back up my claims. Thank you for admitting to them.

 

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with you on one point here Conman, nobody can possibly know what you are thinking because you don't think. You just make sh*t up. You are a compulsive liar. Here's another lie....

Conman: "As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation.

It was a blatant misuse by you because you were comparing the profitability of one company through a few select years in the 2000's and the profitability of 5 companies through the 90's. Different time periods with different companies.

Here's exactly what you said.........

Conman: "You said, "SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted."

You didn't even know what you were comparing. You don't bring anything to the table nor can you understand anything that anyone else brings to the table.

A 670% increase???? Like I said, what an idiot!

Conman: "What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?"

You should stay clear of any calculations if you're not even smart enough to understand the numbers you are calculating.

You would be better advised to wear a safety helmet around the house.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I don't think there really is any plus side for the producer. It's just that you can't stop a company from expanding across product lines.

You can when it becomes anti-competitive.

I keep seeing this Pickett case mentioned and I'm not familiar with it. Can someone point me to actual case documents? Or are they available online?

Rod

 

[rkaiser]

Bottom line,

We have 5 major packing companies none of which have over a 33% market share all competing for the same cattle. So what is wrong with that picture?

The packer blamers act like mergers and concentration is unique to the packing industry. For crying out loud look around you.

Ford - New Holland
Case - IH

Ring a bell?

Where was your pickett signs then?

If a packing company merges and this results in reducing processing costs per head and maximizing the profits for beef and beef by products, THEY PAY MORE FOR CATTLE.

The morons in this industry want to go back to the days when we had all kinds of packing companies which were less efficient, had higher per head processing costs, and didn't utilize all the aspects of the carcass. GUESS WHAT? THEY PAID LESS FOR CATTLE (all other things being equal).

We have the highest cattle prices ever recorded with 5 major packing companies and many level two packers like Creekstone, and Greater Omaha competing for the same cattle AND SOME ARE STILL BITCHING ABOUT.

Where's the logic?


~SH~

Where is the logic all right. The problem with this group is that we argue about the industry from two separate countries.

WE have 2 major packing companies with 85% of the market share with very little competition for the same cattle. When packer owned cattle and contract cattle are added to the picture, there is virtually no competition for the producer owned fats. And of course BSE took out the word virtually all together.

Where were the pickett signs when Ford and NH merged Scott? The same place that Safeways pickett signs were when Cargill bought out Better Beef here in Canada. Farmers BUY tractors Scott! :roll:

We have the highest cattle prices ever recorded with 5 major packing companies and many level two packers like Creekstone, and Greater Omaha competing for the same cattle AND SOME ARE STILL BITCHING ABOUT.

This seems to be your favourite lately SH. Highest Cattle prices ever recorded. Do we not also see the highest retail prices, the highest land prices and the highest input prices. Come on Scott, you can come u with something better than this. Tell us about the highest standard of living that ranchers have ever had DUE to these Higher than ever prices.

 

[Econ101]

I have to agree with you on one point here Conman, nobody can possibly know what you are thinking because you don't think. You just make sh*t up. You are a compulsive liar. Here's another lie....

Conman: "As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation.

It was a blatant misuse by you because you were comparing the profitability of one company through a few select years in the 2000's and the profitability of 5 companies through the 90's. Different time periods with different companies.

Here's exactly what you said.........

Conman: "You said, "SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted."

You didn't even know what you were comparing. You don't bring anything to the table nor can you understand anything that anyone else brings to the table.

A 670% increase???? Like I said, what an idiot!

Conman: "What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?"

You should stay clear of any calculations if you're not even smart enough to understand the numbers you are calculating.

You would be better advised to wear a safety helmet around the house.


~SH~

SH, there were only two numbers to use in the comparison in my paragraph. Do you have a hard time with numbers? Maybe I was comparing an industry average number of $3.88 over the time period for the industry to $26 Agman, you and Jason stated as a per head figure during the time of Pickett manipulation. You should stay clear of any calculations if you are not smart enough to understand this post.

I think you are the problem with the head injury. Have you been advised to wear a helmet around your house?

It would be real nice if we could keep these posts substantive. I guess with you, SH, it is impossible.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Ford - New Holland
Case - IH

Ring a bell?

Sure does. I kicked up a stink about those mergers as well. But again, this is like the car market example you used a while back. There are more players in the game than you list here, all of whom ensure price competition. Plus we still have a huge used Ag equipment market that effectively suppresses new prices to some degree.

You want a great example of how concentration truly hurts? Take a quick peek at the grain industry. That industry is much closer to the cattle industry than the automotive market, the ag equipment market, or the soft drink market.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Randy the admitted packer blamer: "WE have 2 major packing companies with 85% of the market share with very little competition for the same cattle. When packer owned cattle and contract cattle are added to the picture, there is virtually no competition for the producer owned fats."

If Canadian producers only have 2 major packing companies to choose from, why do I see Canadian truckloads of fats backed up at the Swift packing Company in Greely, CO?

How do you explain an actual observation Randy?

Randy the admitted packer blamer: "This seems to be your favourite lately SH. Highest Cattle prices ever recorded. Do we not also see the highest retail prices, the highest land prices and the highest input prices. Come on Scott, you can come u with something better than this. Tell us about the highest standard of living that ranchers have ever had DUE to these Higher than ever prices."

So what's your point Randy?

Should those evil large packing companies forgo their $10 - $15 per head profits from selling every part of the carcass from the nose to the rectum so you can keep up with inflation?

Those high retail beef prices RESULTED IN HIGHER CATTLE PRICES.

Land prices are also reflected by the value of cattle.

What's your point as if you actually had one?

You really think Tyson and Cargill should be as efficient as they can possibly be and let you reap the rewards with another $10 per head on your cattle so you can be one step closer to keeping up with inflation.

Your attitude is so pathetic. POOR YOU!

Conman: "Maybe I was comparing an industry average number of $3.88 over the time period for the industry to $26 Agman, you and Jason stated as a per head figure during the time of Pickett manipulation."

There was no "MAYBE" to it. You were too ignorant to even know what you were comparing. You should stick to topics you understand which would require leaving this forum because you add nothing to it other than your baseless, unsupported "THEORIES".



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Randy the admitted packer blamer: "WE have 2 major packing companies with 85% of the market share with very little competition for the same cattle. When packer owned cattle and contract cattle are added to the picture, there is virtually no competition for the producer owned fats."

If Canadian producers only have 2 major packing companies to choose from, why do I see Canadian truckloads of fats backed up at the Swift packing Company in Greely, CO?

How do you explain an actual observation Randy?

Randy the admitted packer blamer: "This seems to be your favourite lately SH. Highest Cattle prices ever recorded. Do we not also see the highest retail prices, the highest land prices and the highest input prices. Come on Scott, you can come u with something better than this. Tell us about the highest standard of living that ranchers have ever had DUE to these Higher than ever prices."

So what's your point Randy?

Should those evil large packing companies forgo their $10 - $15 per head profits from selling every part of the carcass from the nose to the rectum so you can keep up with inflation?

Those high retail beef prices RESULTED IN HIGHER CATTLE PRICES.

Land prices are also reflected by the value of cattle.

What's your point as if you actually had one?

You really think Tyson and Cargill should be as efficient as they can possibly be and let you reap the rewards with another $10 per head on your cattle so you can be one step closer to keeping up with inflation.

Your attitude is so pathetic. POOR YOU!

Conman: "Maybe I was comparing an industry average number of $3.88 over the time period for the industry to $26 Agman, you and Jason stated as a per head figure during the time of Pickett manipulation."

There was no "MAYBE" to it. You were too ignorant to even know what you were comparing. You should stick to topics you understand which would require leaving this forum because you add nothing to it other than your baseless, unsupported "THEORIES".



~SH~


It was a little sarcasm, there, SH. See guys, sometimes it is hard to communicate on SH's level. You have to go down so far so he will understand.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't change what you wrote Conman and who do you think actually listens to you anyway?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

You can't change what you wrote Conman and who do you think actually listens to you anyway?


~SH~

I probably can't change your interpretations either, SH, but I can point out when they are just plain wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I probably can't change your interpretations either, SH, but I can point out when they are just plain wrong."

You always point out when you BELIEVE I am wrong but you never back it with supporting facts. You have nothing but cheap talk.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Packer Backer Super Hero says -

If Canadian producers only have 2 major packing companies to choose from, why do I see Canadian truckloads of fats backed up at the Swift packing Company in Greely, CO?

How do you explain an actual observation Randy?

Gee wiz Gopher trapper, you're the one whining about those added costs involved in getting cattle from Canada to the American plants.

So what's your point Randy?

Should those evil large packing companies forgo their $10 - $15 per head profits from selling every part of the carcass from the nose to the rectum so you can keep up with inflation?

Those high retail beef prices RESULTED IN HIGHER CATTLE PRICES.

Land prices are also reflected by the value of cattle.

What's your point as if you actually had one?

You really think Tyson and Cargill should be as efficient as they can possibly be and let you reap the rewards with another $10 per head on your cattle so you can be one step closer to keeping up with inflation.

Your attitude is so pathetic. POOR YOU!

It's more like POOR YOU Gopher man. Can't make a living from the industry he supposedly knows so much about; so he has to trap gophers. :lol:

My attitude is that there are problems with this industry from the grassroots up. Your figures concerning packer profits are laughable, but if they were true, this industry is in a bigger mess than even I think.

Ranchers can't squeek out a living unless they become corporate welfare players or gopher trappers on the side, and the packing industry only makes $3.88 per head. :lol: I laugh at that figure, but also wonder if we aren't heading to a complete soya meal diet if you and Agman are correct.

Can't change anything SH if you simply go along with the flow. Accept everything the packers do, and agree with Scott Huber's philosophy and we'll all be Trappin Gophers before long.