The REAL reason for CAFTA

[Anonymous]

Conman: "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."

Conman, you are in way over your head. Don't forget, you are the idiot that thinks prices cannot go up unless supplies come down. As if the amount of money consumers have to spend on beef never changes.

Nobody said tight supplies didn't lead to higher prices but supplies is only half of the supply and demand equation. The demand side of the equation is what consumers are willing to pay for your product. For instance, when the flat iron steak was taken out of either the chuck or the round it increased consumer demand for that product because consumers started paying middle meat prices for a product that used to recieve ground beef prices. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TIGHT SUPPLIES. Same thing with the 10 minute microwavable products from the chuck and round that used to sell at ground beef prices. Same thing with the popularity of beef jerky. Priced any beef jerky lately? Beef is priced to clear the hurdle. Retailers raise or lower the price of beef to receive the highest price they can and still move the product because THEY SELL IT OR THEY SMELL IT. Beef prices have to be priced relative to competing meats. The price beef receives at the retail meat counter is based on the value of that product to consumers relative to competing meats. This in turn determines the price of boxed beef and what packers are willing to pay for fat cattle. Supplies is only one half of the supply and demand equation.

You get the "dumb sh*t of the year" award for your crazy statement indicating that the price can't go up unless the supplies come down. It's one thing to not understand an issue. It's quite another to think you know everything when you don't know anything. That's why you receive the treatment you do.

Pickett never proved market power. The Judge stated no violation of the PSA and the 11th circuit upheld that decision. YOU PACKER VICTIMS LOST, get over it.

Conman: "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."

Packers can't manipulate the markets because they are in competition with other packers for the same cattle. The market manipulation conpsiracy theory is nothing more than bullsh*t! You couldn't prove it in Pickett and you can't prove it here.

Conman: "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."

Hahaha!

You are the biggest fraud on this site and most everyone has got it figured out. You are not qualified to bring Agman a drink of water. If you weren't such a complete phony, you'd enter into the debate with him and disprove his demand theorys. Nah, you can't do that because it would reveal what a complete phony you are so you sit on the sidelines and lob grenades like the spineless coward you are.



~SH~

 

[mrj]

In developing countries with tourism spots, beef is not available although desired by tourists.

This is a whole new market (though other places have had tourism longer). As prosperity increases so does the amount of travel, those travelers want high quality beef and will tend to pay more on vacation that they normally would at home.

Looks like a smart business move to supply those with money with a product they are willing to pay for.

And a huge market it is and is going to be. :roll: Certainly worth opening a back door to South America for.

I'd like to know how many tourist hotel rooms there are in all those countries compared to say....Honolulu. Another thing that doesn't make sense - tourists are going to be at a sea-side resort and they're going to order beef? How many people go to Maine and order beef? How many people go to Oklahoma and order lobster?

The whole "supply the tourists with beef" deal is a laugher. It's a drop in the bucket and for that drop we open a door for our competition. We just got sold a tanker load of snake oil.

You conveniently forget those countries already ARE sending beef to the USA. Under CAFTA, we will get a better deal and the opportunity to send more beef there now and as their economies continue to improve. You don't have to send any there........those who understand marketing will take the advantage you disdain.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

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?

If life is just about money for you, Murgen, I pity you.

 

[mrj]

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.

What kind of sweetheart farm program subsidies do the sugar beet and cane producers in the USA have now?

When did farmers in ND, MN, MT, WY, and NE start producing sugar beets? Has it been a long history, or did they begin when it looked profitable to do so? Who did it harm when they started producing sugar beets in the north? Surely someone was making money producing sugar cane and that must have hurt their market when northerners started producing sugar. It is high time cattle producers got a break in marketing for export as in CAFTA.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

SH:

For instance, when the flat iron steak was taken out of either the chuck or the round it increased consumer demand for that product because consumers started paying middle meat prices for a product that used to recieve ground beef prices. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TIGHT SUPPLIES.

They must not have met Jim James 30 years ago. Sometimes it takes knuckle heads a little longer to catch on.

Are you still denying my "tight supplies" verbage? May be you could ask Agman what he thinks and go to bed.

 

[Anonymous]

When did farmers in ND, MN, MT, WY, and NE start producing sugar beets? Has it been a long history, or did they begin when it looked profitable to do so?

MRJ

MRJ- I can't tell you when they started raising sugar beets in Montana, but I know it was already a major crop back in the 1940's-- My uncle used to hire German and Italian prisoners from the local POW camp to top beets during World War II...

It is one of the top Ag industry's of the Yellowstone River Valley- and its loss will not only negatively effect the farmers, but also the trucking and rail industry, and the beet factories and all their employees...

 

[Sandhusker]

When did farmers in ND, MN, MT, WY, and NE start producing sugar beets? Has it been a long history, or did they begin when it looked profitable to do so?

MRJ

MRJ- I can't tell you when they started raising sugar beets in Montana, but I know it was already a major crop back in the 1940's-- My uncle used to hire German and Italian prisoners from the local POW camp to top beets during World War II...

It is one of the top Ag industry's of the Yellowstone River Valley- and its loss will not only negatively effect the farmers, but also the trucking and rail industry, and the beet factories and all their employees...

They grow a lot of beets in W. Nebraska - especially in the N. Platte Valley. Been doing it for as long as I know as well.

 

[mrj]

OK, guys, I was quite well aware that sugar beets have been grown in the north for quite some time.

Now, did the sugar cane farmers in the southeastern USA accuse those planting the "new" crop to make sugar from of stealing from them? I doubt it! Did they accuse those farmers who may have grown other crops previous to the beets of treating them (sugar cane farmers) unfairly? I doubt it! It looks to me like that is what "rees" was doing in his posts.....guess farmers are not so stalwart resourceful as they used to be. Too many need to find someone to blame when societal changes make their "like I've always done it" businesses and lives more difficult.

Econ, while I doubt your Jim James actually named that steak the Flat Iron, and am very sure he did not do research to learn how to economically remove some of those muscles from the tough fibrous attachments to make them a financially viable product, I'm absolutely CERTAIN that he did not take the knowledge national creating the potential for improved income from that shoulder clod. The Beef Checkoff did so by sharing the information with meat cutters, enticing retailers and food service and restaurants to promote the cuts. The consumers did their part, too, by choosing and requesting it on menus.

I'm surprised that someone of your self-proclaimed knowledge of the beef industry did not know that.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

OK, guys, I was quite well aware that sugar beets have been grown in the north for quite some time.

Now, did the sugar cane farmers in the southeastern USA accuse those planting the "new" crop to make sugar from of stealing from them? I doubt it! Did they accuse those farmers who may have grown other crops previous to the beets of treating them (sugar cane farmers) unfairly? I doubt it! It looks to me like that is what "rees" was doing in his posts.....guess farmers are not so stalwart resourceful as they used to be. Too many need to find someone to blame when societal changes make their "like I've always done it" businesses and lives more difficult.

Econ, while I doubt your Jim James actually named that steak the Flat Iron, and am very sure he did not do research to learn how to economically remove some of those muscles from the tough fibrous attachments to make them a financially viable product, I'm absolutely CERTAIN that he did not take the knowledge national creating the potential for improved income from that shoulder clod. The Beef Checkoff did so by sharing the information with meat cutters, enticing retailers and food service and restaurants to promote the cuts. The consumers did their part, too, by choosing and requesting it on menus.

I'm surprised that someone of your self-proclaimed knowledge of the beef industry did not know that.

MRJ

There is nothing of value to me in your post, MRJ. I am surprised someone like you with your self-proclaimed knowledge of the beef industry thinks that the NCBA came up with the cutting the flat iron out. I really don't care what you call it. Advertising sells and the only relevance that the term "flat iron steak" has is in product differentiation and advertising. That is all. Although I appreciate the advertising aspect of the evolution of the "flat iron", you should be careful about your giving credit to the NCBA. That credit should be given to the cattle ranchers who paid into the beef checkoff program as by your own posts you have stated that they paid for it. Why are you building the NCBA up with money from cattlemen through the checkoff?

 

[mrj]

OK, guys, I was quite well aware that sugar beets have been grown in the north for quite some time.

Now, did the sugar cane farmers in the southeastern USA accuse those planting the "new" crop to make sugar from of stealing from them? I doubt it! Did they accuse those farmers who may have grown other crops previous to the beets of treating them (sugar cane farmers) unfairly? I doubt it! It looks to me like that is what "rees" was doing in his posts.....guess farmers are not so stalwart resourceful as they used to be. Too many need to find someone to blame when societal changes make their "like I've always done it" businesses and lives more difficult.

Econ, while I doubt your Jim James actually named that steak the Flat Iron, and am very sure he did not do research to learn how to economically remove some of those muscles from the tough fibrous attachments to make them a financially viable product, I'm absolutely CERTAIN that he did not take the knowledge national creating the potential for improved income from that shoulder clod. The Beef Checkoff did so by sharing the information with meat cutters, enticing retailers and food service and restaurants to promote the cuts. The consumers did their part, too, by choosing and requesting it on menus.

I'm surprised that someone of your self-proclaimed knowledge of the beef industry did not know that.

MRJ

There is nothing of value to me in your post, MRJ. I am surprised someone like you with your self-proclaimed knowledge of the beef industry thinks that the NCBA came up with the cutting the flat iron out. I really don't care what you call it. Advertising sells and the only relevance that the term "flat iron steak" has is in product differentiation and advertising. That is all. Although I appreciate the advertising aspect of the evolution of the "flat iron", you should be careful about your giving credit to the NCBA. That credit should be given to the cattle ranchers who paid into the beef checkoff program as by your own posts you have stated that they paid for it. Why are you building the NCBA up with money from cattlemen through the checkoff?

Econ, you should stop ignoring the fact that NCBA is more than the membership organization. It is a combination of the membership group and the Federation of State Beef Councils. If you do not want the State Beef Councils to get the credit for the work they do in managing the contract work for the CBB, so be it. Your failure to believe, or to admit the Federation exists and is a separate division of NCBA, does not change the facts!

In all truth, maybe it is the researchers and the University where th work was done who should be given the credit. However, it was the cattle producers, members of many organizations as well as a few from NCBA, serving on the Operating Committee who made the decision to fund the research project. There are, as you may not know, members of R-CALF serving on those state Beef Councils, and also on the CBB. There is no lack of inclusiveness in Beef Checkoff entities. There is only a lack of admission of that fact by those who love to hate the membership division of NCBA.

I guess I'm guilty of thinking all of us who pay into the Beef checkoff are not so interested in getting the credit ourselves as we are in making sure the system keeps on increasing demand for beef. If ranchers do not take ownership and contact their beef council representatives with their ideas or points re. the checkoff, it is their own fault, IMO. Opportunities are there.

In reality, all involved, from the cattle owner paying the checkoff, to the board members making the decisions, to the staffers, to the researchers and others working to achieve results to improve the demand for our product, cattle and beef ARE the NCBA. Many people DO understand that NCBA is MORE than the membership organization. Members of MANY different cattle related organizations set it up that way because they believed it was for the good of our industry. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

MRJ
MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, the "flat iron" steak has always been on cattle and has been cut out seperately so that the pieces could be cooked differently long before NCBA came up with the idea. 30 years ago for me.

During the time of the checkoff beef consumption in relation to chicken has gone down. All you can talk about is a small part of the carcass, the "flat iron" steak. You and the NCBA need to realize that this has not increased beef consumption in relation to the substitutes. Can we expect the same results in the next 5 years? If you don't change, it is very likely.

 

[la4angus]

You guys are too funny ,how many rectums do you think ~SH~ has? at least 6 be my guess :wink: ..................good luck

Heck Hay Maker, as full of sht as you are I would expect you to be about 90% rectum.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "During the time of the checkoff beef consumption in relation to chicken has gone down."

WHAT'S YOUR POINT CONMAN???

That because consumer demand for beef decreased during that time period that the checkoff didn't do it's job??? Is that your shallow observation of the beef checkoff? Is this more testimony to your ignorance????

Had the checkoff not been in effect, CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN IT WAS. That is a fact!

What the hell did you expect for $1 per head? The checkoff can't lower the price of beef relative to competing meats but it can help with adding value to the parts of the carcass that are priced at ground beef value.

A big factor in consumer demand is the availability of consumer discretionary spending for beef. If consumer budgets are tight, they chose cheaper protein sources. Perhaps you don't remember but we were competing with $8 hogs during that era. Plug that into your shallow observation equation.

Sideline critics like you are a dime a dozen. Arrogantly perched on your throne of judgement telling those who are ACTUALLY DOING IT how they should be doing it when you don't have a clue about what the beef checkoff has done or anything else about this industry.

More testimony to your eternal ignorance.

I didn't see where MRJ was giving NCBA credit, I see her giving the beef checkoff credit while you make your single focused shallow observation regarding the checkoff's impact on beef demand during the era of $8 hogs. What a rocket scientist you are.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "During the time of the checkoff beef consumption in relation to chicken has gone down."

WHAT'S YOUR POINT CONMAN???

That because consumer demand for beef decreased during that time period that the checkoff didn't do it's job??? Is that your shallow observation of the beef checkoff? Is this more testimony to your ignorance????

Had the checkoff not been in effect, CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN IT WAS. That is a fact!

What the hell did you expect for $1 per head? The checkoff can't lower the price of beef relative to competing meats but it can help with adding value to the parts of the carcass that are priced at ground beef value.

A big factor in consumer demand is the availability of consumer discretionary spending for beef. If consumer budgets are tight, they chose cheaper protein sources. Perhaps you don't remember but we were competing with $8 hogs during that era. Plug that into your shallow observation equation.

Sideline critics like you are a dime a dozen. Arrogantly perched on your throne of judgement telling those who are ACTUALLY DOING IT how they should be doing it when you don't have a clue about what the beef checkoff has done or anything else about this industry.

More testimony to your eternal ignorance.

I didn't see where MRJ was giving NCBA credit, I see her giving the beef checkoff credit while you make your single focused shallow observation regarding the checkoff's impact on beef demand during the era of $8 hogs. What a rocket scientist you are.


~SH~

SH, it is time for you to put up or shut up on this one. How many lbs. of flat iron steak are taken off a 750 lb. carcasss and what is the difference of value on the wholesale level between cutting it out? You might want to go ask your Tyson friend on that one. Let us have some real numbers with some real data. Put up or shut up. NCBA did not make up the flat iron steak, God did. They just took credit for cutting it out, something many have been doing for years.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, it is time for you to put up or shut up on this one. How many lbs. of flat iron steak are taken off a 750 lb. carcasss and what is the difference of value on the wholesale level between cutting it out? You might want to go ask your Tyson friend on that one. Let us have some real numbers with some real data. Put up or shut up. NCBA did not make up the flat iron steak, God did. They just took credit for cutting it out, something many have been doing for years."

If you have a point, MAKE IT! I'm not playing your stupid games. The flat iron steak is only one example of adding value to the carcass. There is many others such as the 10 minute microwavable products that came from the chuck and round.

If you don't believe the checkoff contributed to reducing the decline in consumer spending on beef, I don't care. Your ignorance is not my problem.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "During the time of the checkoff beef consumption in relation to chicken has gone down."

WHAT'S YOUR POINT CONMAN???

That because consumer demand for beef decreased during that time period that the checkoff didn't do it's job??? Is that your shallow observation of the beef checkoff? Is this more testimony to your ignorance????

Had the checkoff not been in effect, CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN IT WAS. That is a fact!

What the hell did you expect for $1 per head? The checkoff can't lower the price of beef relative to competing meats but it can help with adding value to the parts of the carcass that are priced at ground beef value.

A big factor in consumer demand is the availability of consumer discretionary spending for beef. If consumer budgets are tight, they chose cheaper protein sources. Perhaps you don't remember but we were competing with $8 hogs during that era. Plug that into your shallow observation equation.

Sideline critics like you are a dime a dozen. Arrogantly perched on your throne of judgement telling those who are ACTUALLY DOING IT how they should be doing it when you don't have a clue about what the beef checkoff has done or anything else about this industry.

More testimony to your eternal ignorance.

I didn't see where MRJ was giving NCBA credit, I see her giving the beef checkoff credit while you make your single focused shallow observation regarding the checkoff's impact on beef demand during the era of $8 hogs. What a rocket scientist you are.


~SH~

The era of $8 hogs led to a settlement by Tyson for over 160 million dollars to hog farmers. I would not bring that one up if I were you, SH.

Just what were the margins on those hogs at that time? Did it have anything to do with an oversupply of hogs? Did supplies of hogs have to go down before the price of hogs went back up?

You are such a joke, SH. You don't know anything about the meats industry. Obviously Tyson made a $160 million dollar mistake in hogs. Maybe they know less than you about what kind of frauds they can get away with.

 

[Beefman]

Conman: "During the time of the checkoff beef consumption in relation to chicken has gone down."

WHAT'S YOUR POINT CONMAN???

That because consumer demand for beef decreased during that time period that the checkoff didn't do it's job??? Is that your shallow observation of the beef checkoff? Is this more testimony to your ignorance????

Had the checkoff not been in effect, CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN IT WAS. That is a fact!

What the hell did you expect for $1 per head? The checkoff can't lower the price of beef relative to competing meats but it can help with adding value to the parts of the carcass that are priced at ground beef value.

A big factor in consumer demand is the availability of consumer discretionary spending for beef. If consumer budgets are tight, they chose cheaper protein sources. Perhaps you don't remember but we were competing with $8 hogs during that era. Plug that into your shallow observation equation.

Sideline critics like you are a dime a dozen. Arrogantly perched on your throne of judgement telling those who are ACTUALLY DOING IT how they should be doing it when you don't have a clue about what the beef checkoff has done or anything else about this industry.

More testimony to your eternal ignorance.

I didn't see where MRJ was giving NCBA credit, I see her giving the beef checkoff credit while you make your single focused shallow observation regarding the checkoff's impact on beef demand during the era of $8 hogs. What a rocket scientist you are.


~SH~

SH, it is time for you to put up or shut up on this one. How many lbs. of flat iron steak are taken off a 750 lb. carcasss and what is the difference of value on the wholesale level between cutting it out? You might want to go ask your Tyson friend on that one. Let us have some real numbers with some real data. Put up or shut up. NCBA did not make up the flat iron steak, God did. They just took credit for cutting it out, something many have been doing for years.

Econ, you might want to check out the Dec / Jan '06 issue of CALF News. On page 29 there's an article about new beef cuts that've made it to local grocery stores. The muscle profiling study, which started in the late 90's, has paid off. Mike Miller of Cattle Fax is referenced as saying the new beef value cuts have added at least $50 to the value of each carcass.

Perhaps your local buddy / others did know about the flat iron earlier. Thanks to checkoff funding, the muscle profiling study is bringing the cuts and associated value to the marketplace.

Beefman

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The era of $8 hogs led to a settlement by Tyson for over 160 million dollars to hog farmers. I would not bring that one up if I were you, SH."

I did bring it up, because it was a huge factor in decreased consumer demand for beef. The decreased demand you blame on the checkoff not doing it's job because you are too damn ignorant to understand what factors actually contributed to decreased consumer demand during that era. THE RETAILERS WERE PRACTICALLY GIVING PORK AWAY. How did you expect the checkoff to ward that off FROM YOUR THRONE OF JUDGEMENT? That was the issue we were talking about until you tangented off in another Tyson blaming rant.

Conman: "You are such a joke, SH. You don't know anything about the meats industry."

Yeh you just keep telling yourself that. You've already proven that you can convince yourself of just about anything. Anyone can see you never prove me wrong on anything. All you have is "cheap talk".

I'm not the idiot that didn't know packers didn't grade their own cattle. I'm not the idiot that thought the trim would be free if we reduced the amount of fat.

You bet Conman, show us your depth of knowledge of the meat industry.........done already?


FACT: CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF DURING THE ERA IN QUESTION WAS DUE IN LARGE PART TO THE PRICE OF COMPETING MEATS.

Prove me wrong Mr. "free trim".


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

FACT: CONSUMER DEMAND FOR BEEF DURING THE ERA IN QUESTION WAS DUE IN LARGE PART TO THE PRICE OF COMPETING MEATS.

Prove me wrong Mr. "free trim".


~SH~

I was waiting for you to say that, SH. You are way too easy. Same for 2001 to 2003.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I was waiting for you to say that, SH. You are way too easy. Same for 2001 to 2003."

Now he agrees with me after just saying that I didn't know anything about the meat industries. Imagine that? Hahaha! Liars can never keep their stories straight.

Now tell me how the beef checkoff could reverse a decrease in consumer demand with retailers giving pork away?

Let's hear it you self proclaimed marketing wizard?



~SH~