You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The REAL reason for CAFTA
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "So now you are an expert on CAFTA?"
If I have stated something that is inaccurate, bring the facts to the contrary or make meaningless little statements like you usually do.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "So now you are an expert on CAFTA?"
If I have stated something that is inaccurate, bring the facts to the contrary or make meaningless little statements like you usually do.
~SH~
SH, just about everything you post is inaccurate.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "SH, just about everything you post is inaccurate."
More cheap talk from the biggest phony on this site.
PROVE IT!
You can't prove me wrong on ONE THING let alone EVERYTHING.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:CAFTA never changed a damn thing regarding South American countries exporting through Central America. If South America wanted to and Central America was willing, South America COULD EXPORT THROUGH CENTRAL AMERICA NOW but they're not. Central America is not even reaching their export quotas now with South America having the ability to export through them.
CAFTA CHANGED NOTHING IN THIS REGARD!
Another worthless argument from the "free trade fear mongerers" blown to pieces by the facts.
~SH~
The can NOW, they couldn't before - remember that thing called a quota that is no longer?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "The can NOW, they couldn't before - remember that thing called a quota that is no longer?"
Wrong!
There was nothing to stop South American countries from exporting through Central America before CAFTA. They weren't doing it! CAFTA changed nothing.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "The can NOW, they couldn't before - remember that thing called a quota that is no longer?"
Wrong!
There was nothing to stop South American countries from exporting through Central America before CAFTA. They weren't doing it! CAFTA changed nothing.
~SH~
CAFTA does not benefit the American producer, it benefits big agribiz.
Cargill is a major importer of sugar.Does Cargill have any ties to the NCBA?
Tell all your sugar beat producing neighbors in MN,ND,MT,WY and NE you sold them out for a potential payoff in 25 yrs.
Cargill is a major importer of sugar.Does Cargill have any ties to the NCBA?
Tell all your sugar beat producing neighbors in MN,ND,MT,WY and NE you sold them out for a potential payoff in 25 yrs.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yeh that's what they said about NAFTA too while the 7 years prior to the BSE fiasco, we had a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade SURPLUS in the combined trade of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats and hides.
While R-CULT was filing their loser dumping case against Canada, Mexico was filing a dumping case against us that they also lost.
R-CULT in their deceptive charts show you what beef and live cattle trade was, what they don't show you is the trade of hides and beef variety meats that is also reported by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census along with beef and live cattle trade. Typical of their deceptive antics to paint a "gloom and doom" picture of trade to support their isolationist tendencies.
U.S. cattle producers are not just selling the beef, we are selling the liver, lungs, tongues, tripe, inedible ofal and hides. R-CULT won't tell you that. Perhaps they don't even realize it.
Stopping imports will not take foreign beef off the world market. Our competition is poultry and pork, not imports.
CAFTA will help U.S. cattle producers by reducing tarriffs on our beef exports to Central American countries. "Isolationism" hurts everyone.
~SH~
While R-CULT was filing their loser dumping case against Canada, Mexico was filing a dumping case against us that they also lost.
R-CULT in their deceptive charts show you what beef and live cattle trade was, what they don't show you is the trade of hides and beef variety meats that is also reported by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census along with beef and live cattle trade. Typical of their deceptive antics to paint a "gloom and doom" picture of trade to support their isolationist tendencies.
U.S. cattle producers are not just selling the beef, we are selling the liver, lungs, tongues, tripe, inedible ofal and hides. R-CULT won't tell you that. Perhaps they don't even realize it.
Stopping imports will not take foreign beef off the world market. Our competition is poultry and pork, not imports.
CAFTA will help U.S. cattle producers by reducing tarriffs on our beef exports to Central American countries. "Isolationism" hurts everyone.
~SH~
In my opinion CAFTA will have little effect on the cattle industry,they have nothing we want,we have nothing they can afford
That tourism argument is a bunch of crap! Who is planning a nice holiday vacation to Nicaragua?
Should we support a trade agreement that might benefit us when it is definitaly hurting US sugar producers? After all they are probably buying our beef now.
That tourism argument is a bunch of crap! Who is planning a nice holiday vacation to Nicaragua?
Should we support a trade agreement that might benefit us when it is definitaly hurting US sugar producers? After all they are probably buying our beef now.
~SH~ said:Yeh that's what they said about NAFTA too while the 7 years prior to the BSE fiasco, we had a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar trade SURPLUS in the combined trade of beef, live cattle, beef variety meats and hides.
While R-CULT was filing their loser dumping case against Canada, Mexico was filing a dumping case against us that they also lost.
R-CULT in their deceptive charts show you what beef and live cattle trade was, what they don't show you is the trade of hides and beef variety meats that is also reported by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Bureau of Census along with beef and live cattle trade. Typical of their deceptive antics to paint a "gloom and doom" picture of trade to support their isolationist tendencies.
U.S. cattle producers are not just selling the beef, we are selling the liver, lungs, tongues, tripe, inedible ofal and hides. R-CULT won't tell you that. Perhaps they don't even realize it.
Stopping imports will not take foreign beef off the world market. Our competition is poultry and pork, not imports.
CAFTA will help U.S. cattle producers by reducing tarriffs on our beef exports to Central American countries. "Isolationism" hurts everyone.
~SH~
So you do finally recognize the significance of pork and poultry to the current packers!! They are running the show right now. The president got laughed out of his little trip down south and took with it some of the respect of the office of president. If this president does not stop milking this country and the world for his good ole boys, we are going to be in a heap of trouble. I am a republican with almost all of the points of ideology, but this CAFTA deal is embarrassing as are the actions of the USDA towards producers and consumer safety as well as the lies being told of the benefits of CAFTA to trading partners.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "The can NOW, they couldn't before - remember that thing called a quota that is no longer?"
Wrong!
There was nothing to stop South American countries from exporting through Central America before CAFTA. They weren't doing it! CAFTA changed nothing.
~SH~
Did you understand what I wrote? ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE? There was a QUOTA prior to CAFTA, SH. How do you know we weren't getting South American product thru those countries?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "So you do finally recognize the significance of pork and poultry to the current packers!!"
So what? Excel doesn't slaughter either and Tyson and Swift are competing with them to buy the same cattle.
This dog won't hunt either. Only a complete idiot would believe that Tyson would invest in beef so they could control the competition for poultry and pork. Just one more of a long list of baseless conspiracy theories.
Conman: "They are running the show right now."
Interesting, considering how we are currently enjoying the highest cattle prices ever recorded.
Sandbag: "Did you understand what I wrote? ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE? There was a QUOTA prior to CAFTA, SH. How do you know we weren't getting South American product thru those countries?"
If South American countries were going to export their product through Central America, there was nothing to stop them from doing it before CAFTA. If these Central American countries were not meeting their beef export quotas to the United States, OBVIOUSLY SOUTH AMERICA WAS NOT EXPORTING ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BEEF THROUGH THEM. CAFTA changed nothing as far as South America. That was another of R-CULT's "sky is falling" scare tactics.
What good is a quota if it's never met Sandbag? But, but, but, it could be someday. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Living in fear!
What was important was to get rid of the 40% tarriff that we were paying rather than worry about a quota that wasn't being met.
Do you understand what I just wrote?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, " CAFTA changed nothing as far as South America. That was another of R-CULT's "sky is falling" scare tactics. What good is a quota if it's never met Sandbag? But, but, but, it could be someday. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Living in fear! "
CAFTA did change things as far as South America. The side door is now wide open for them - it wasn't before CAFTA. Anybody who's "only bias is the truth" would be able to recognize that. It's a pretty poor businessman who doens't recognize potential sources for problems. Sometimes you have to look past next week. It's not "living in fear", it's "preparing for possible problems". It's something businessmen do.
SH, "What was important was to get rid of the 40% tarriff that we were paying rather than worry about a quota that wasn't being met."
Oh, we got a hell of a deal. A bunch of countries that define what a high poverty rate is, and we got a tariff dropped on high-end cuts! No wonder the board gapped up on the news!
CAFTA did change things as far as South America. The side door is now wide open for them - it wasn't before CAFTA. Anybody who's "only bias is the truth" would be able to recognize that. It's a pretty poor businessman who doens't recognize potential sources for problems. Sometimes you have to look past next week. It's not "living in fear", it's "preparing for possible problems". It's something businessmen do.
SH, "What was important was to get rid of the 40% tarriff that we were paying rather than worry about a quota that wasn't being met."
Oh, we got a hell of a deal. A bunch of countries that define what a high poverty rate is, and we got a tariff dropped on high-end cuts! No wonder the board gapped up on the news!
SH:
SH, I am sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know diddley about why Tyson invested in IBP. Are you a mind reader now or did your friend at Tyson tell you that story?
SH:
And your argument is that their price manipulation did not hurt consumers. They are paying higher prices now, SH. Any varience from the competitive solution for the supply and demand equilibrium creates deadweight losses to society. Pickett proved it was happening and Tyson and the others did it so they could make money on the substitutes they own or import into the country. They are screwing all of the domestic producers when they do this. It doesn't matter if cattle prices are high now; it does not change that fact.
When are you going to ask Agman when his little meeting was? You two do like to play interference for each other.
This dog won't hunt either. Only a complete idiot would believe that Tyson would invest in beef so they could control the competition for poultry and pork. Just one more of a long list of baseless conspiracy theories
SH, I am sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know diddley about why Tyson invested in IBP. Are you a mind reader now or did your friend at Tyson tell you that story?
SH:
Quote:
Conman: "They are running the show right now."
Interesting, considering how we are currently enjoying the highest cattle prices ever recorded.
And your argument is that their price manipulation did not hurt consumers. They are paying higher prices now, SH. Any varience from the competitive solution for the supply and demand equilibrium creates deadweight losses to society. Pickett proved it was happening and Tyson and the others did it so they could make money on the substitutes they own or import into the country. They are screwing all of the domestic producers when they do this. It doesn't matter if cattle prices are high now; it does not change that fact.
When are you going to ask Agman when his little meeting was? You two do like to play interference for each other.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "CAFTA did change things as far as South America. The side door is now wide open for them - it wasn't before CAFTA. Anybody who's "only bias is the truth" would be able to recognize that. It's a pretty poor businessman who doens't recognize potential sources for problems. Sometimes you have to look past next week. It's not "living in fear", it's "preparing for possible problems". It's something businessmen do."
You're wrong!
There was nothing that changed about South American countries exporting through Central America under CAFTA.
Sandbag: "Oh, we got a hell of a deal. A bunch of countries that define what a high poverty rate is, and we got a tariff dropped on high-end cuts! No wonder the board gapped up on the news!"
Oh here we are again. Back to the old canned "you can't trade with countries who have no money" wore out argument.
THE TOURISM INDUSTRY DOES HAVE MONEY and that is what was being targeted, not the residents you moron.
NO WONDER!
Conman: "SH, I am sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know diddley about why Tyson invested in IBP. Are you a mind reader now or did your friend at Tyson tell you that story?"
What are you saying Conman, that Tyson bought ibp so they could control the beef market WITH LESS THAN 1/3 OF THE MARKET SHARE???
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You're such an idiot!
I don't have any friends at Tyson. I simply made a call to a Tyson representative.
You just can't find bias can you?
Conman: "And your argument is that their price manipulation did not hurt consumers."
There was no price manipualation.
Conman: "They are paying higher prices now, SH."
If they didn't want to pay higher prices for beef, THEY COULD EAT POULTRY AND PORK. Nobody is forcing them to pay higher prices. You're such an idiot!
Conman: "Any varience from the competitive solution for the supply and demand equilibrium creates deadweight losses to society."
Blah, blah blah!
The markets are competitive. If they weren't packers wouldn't go in the red occassionally.
Conman: "Pickett proved it was happening and Tyson and the others did it so they could make money on the substitutes they own or import into the country. They are screwing all of the domestic producers when they do this. It doesn't matter if cattle prices are high now; it does not change that fact."
Pickett proved nothing and neither have you!
Highest cattle prices ever recorded and packer margins have been in the red YET THEY'RE STILL SCREWING PRODUCERS.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Conman: "When are you going to ask Agman when his little meeting was?"
I don't give a damn when his meeting was. If you want to know, ASK HIM YOURSELF!
~SH~
SH:
I will give you another try at reading comprehension, SH. This is what I said:
Are you trying to argue with yourself again? As I said before, I will always let you win those arguments.
Believe me, they did, and at higher prices too. I actually posted profits from Tyson. What evidence did you bring to the table except your little loony tune statement?
SH:
What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? Your reasoning ability is about advanced as my cat's. May be you could write that up as an affirmative defense for those who manipulate markets--"If you are not successful at making money at manipulating markets all the time, then you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution." What a brainless scarecrow you are, SH.
What are you saying Conman, that Tyson bought ibp so they could control the beef market WITH LESS THAN 1/3 OF THE MARKET SHARE???
BWAHAHAHAHA!
I will give you another try at reading comprehension, SH. This is what I said:
Quote:
This dog won't hunt either. Only a complete idiot would believe that Tyson would invest in beef so they could control the competition for poultry and pork. Just one more of a long list of baseless conspiracy theories
SH, I am sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know diddley about why Tyson invested in IBP. Are you a mind reader now or did your friend at Tyson tell you that story?
Are you trying to argue with yourself again? As I said before, I will always let you win those arguments.
Conman: "They are paying higher prices now, SH."
If they didn't want to pay higher prices for beef, THEY COULD EAT POULTRY AND PORK. Nobody is forcing them to pay higher prices. You're such an idiot!
Believe me, they did, and at higher prices too. I actually posted profits from Tyson. What evidence did you bring to the table except your little loony tune statement?
SH:
The markets are competitive. If they weren't packers wouldn't go in the red occassionally.
What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? Your reasoning ability is about advanced as my cat's. May be you could write that up as an affirmative defense for those who manipulate markets--"If you are not successful at making money at manipulating markets all the time, then you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution." What a brainless scarecrow you are, SH.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "Believe me, they did, and at higher prices too. I actually posted profits from Tyson. What evidence did you bring to the table except your little loony tune statement?"
I am not refuting an increase in beef prices, I am refuting the reason for an increase in beef prices.
Your implication was that consumers are paying higher prices due to this "alleged" market manipulation that reduced supplies. You are wrong about that like you are with most things you vomit. The consumer is paying higher prices for beef because the demand has increased independent of any change in supplies.
Conman: "What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? Your reasoning ability is about advanced as my cat's. May be you could write that up as an affirmative defense for those who manipulate markets--"If you are not successful at making money at manipulating markets all the time, then you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution." What a brainless scarecrow you are, SH."
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Tell us what situations allow packers to "SUPPOSEDLY" manipulate markets at some times and not at others?
Time to dance again!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "Believe me, they did, and at higher prices too. I actually posted profits from Tyson. What evidence did you bring to the table except your little loony tune statement?"
I am not refuting an increase in beef prices, I am refuting the reason for an increase in beef prices.
Your implication was that consumers are paying higher prices due to this "alleged" market manipulation that reduced supplies. You are wrong about that like you are with most things you vomit. The consumer is paying higher prices for beef because the demand has increased independent of any change in supplies.
Conman: "What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? Your reasoning ability is about advanced as my cat's. May be you could write that up as an affirmative defense for those who manipulate markets--"If you are not successful at making money at manipulating markets all the time, then you have an affirmative defense against any prosecution." What a brainless scarecrow you are, SH."
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Tell us what situations allow packers to "SUPPOSEDLY" manipulate markets at some times and not at others?
Time to dance again!
~SH~
Agman's "theory" of a shift in demand is just that. I have already posted at least 2 sources that quote "tight supplies" by economists in the field but there are many, many others. "Demand shifts" are convienient scapegoats for the effects of the abuse of market power that Pickett showed.
Packers manipulate the prices paid to producers and therefore force consequences on the supply in the market whenever it fits their needs. They don't ever have to do it. They don't always do it. It is only when it fits their needs. I am glad you are finally starting to understand that concept.
Agman's theory and his posting of it on this site shows anyone who has an economic background that he is a fraud. Sorry to burst your little hero's bubble, SH.
Agman's theory and his posting of it on this site shows anyone who has an economic background that he is a fraud. Sorry to burst your little hero's bubble, SH.
I would challenge you to give Agman $100,000 of your hard earned "play" money ECON, and see what he could make you within a year!
That would be a good game here! Maybe we could get Macon to start a thread about investments etc.
We all start off with a set amount of "play money" and see where each of us is in a set period of time. We could hire an economist/market anaylsist for 10%, to make our money for us, or o it alone.
I wonder how many would put their money with Agman, and how many would put their money with you.
Are you game?
