• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

This just in - there's an empty plant in Gering Ne

Brad S

Well-known member
There is an empty plant in Gering Nebraska, so any commie morons that support "packer space as a public utility" can help their parasitic selves to hooks. I guess those expanding the public utilities missed the prosperity generated by the Reagan Revolution and all the benefits of the free market. And the poverty in France.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Or maybe the Rcalf members left with any sense could buy it, impliment testing for market access, and put another boat in the water beside Creekstone farms. The more boats the merrier boys, if we want to survive the shift in power to even more concentrated control of the North American packing industry.

Thanks Brad
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Or maybe the Rcalf members left with any sense could buy it, impliment testing for market access, and put another boat in the water beside Creekstone farms. The more boats the merrier boys, if we want to survive the shift in power to even more concentrated control of the North American packing industry.

Thanks Brad

The plant in Gering was built when George Washington was a boy. It's more liability than asset.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Brad S said:
There is an empty plant in Gering Nebraska, so any commie morons that support "packer space as a public utility" can help their parasitic selves to hooks. I guess those expanding the public utilities missed the prosperity generated by the Reagan Revolution and all the benefits of the free market. And the poverty in France.

If processing concentration to 5 packers processing +90% of fed cattle is more efficient and better for producers, would not ONE processor be even more efficient and more better for producers?????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A free market capitalistic system works much better the farther it is from a monopoly! Unregulated free markets favor the powerful, not the independent!
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Gering was closed by one of the big 3 and will be reopened when numbers dictate - a little retrofit is no step for capitalists, but I wouldn't expect the nationalization crowd to think of it. Certainly concentration issues concern all of us, but all the red ink in the processing biz the last 2 years leaves us trustbusters with an empty sack. The lesson taught about oligopoly/oligopsony competition is that you either get hyper competition or collusion. Red ink pretty well settles the issue for now. Perhaps a more fragmented processing sector would be more innovative even at the short term expense of efficiency. Certainly "public utility" status would drive innovation to ZERO.

RKaiser, I have to be sympathetic to Creekstone's pleas for freedom, but the balance of industry protection comes out against them. Sort of lessers of evil.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
A single mistake in any bse testing protocal by Creekstone could cost the industry more than Creekstone sells in a decade. So ya wanna test? I want the testers to indemnify against market losses due to all torts. NOBODY gonna write that for Creekstone. This bse testing is more sophisticated than the local meth labs.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
A single mistake in any bse testing protocal by Creekstone could cost the industry more than Creekstone sells in a decade. So ya wanna test? I want the testers to indemnify against market losses due to all torts. NOBODY gonna write that for Creekstone. This bse testing is more sophisticated than the local meth labs.

That makes no sense, Brad. What is Creekstone going to be taken to court for? How would any lawsuit against Creekstone effect you? Come on, man, you're getting carried away.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
It makes perfect sense. All it would take is a rumored false positive and inevitable sell off. What about those that would be critical of USDA methodology, think Creekstone could stand up to that? To suggest a tiny plant could invest in adequate testing facilities and do so profitably is what makes no sense.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Gering was closed by one of the big 3 and will be reopened when numbers dictate - a little retrofit is no step for capitalists, but I wouldn't expect the nationalization crowd to think of it. Certainly concentration issues concern all of us, but all the red ink in the processing biz the last 2 years leaves us trustbusters with an empty sack. The lesson taught about oligopoly/oligopsony competition is that you either get hyper competition or collusion. Red ink pretty well settles the issue for now. Perhaps a more fragmented processing sector would be more innovative even at the short term expense of efficiency. Certainly "public utility" status would drive innovation to ZERO.

RKaiser, I have to be sympathetic to Creekstone's pleas for freedom, but the balance of industry protection comes out against them. Sort of lessers of evil.

Does red ink in processing cattle prove to you there is no market power being exerted? If that is your belief, you are a fool. The previous court order regarding the beef trust in regards to substitutes admits the true threat. If you and GW had a sense of history, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in today. When will you stop with the packer talking points?

Why would having the ability to get your livestock killed for an average price to packers and retaining ownership and control of that carcass bring innovation to zero?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
A single mistake in any bse testing protocal by Creekstone could cost the industry more than Creekstone sells in a decade. So ya wanna test? I want the testers to indemnify against market losses due to all torts. NOBODY gonna write that for Creekstone. This bse testing is more sophisticated than the local meth labs.

Same test as the USDA uses. Are you going to sue the USDA for their meth lab test that cost you Brad when they tried to screw with the system on the first of what will be more Native American cases.

You better get Scotty to help you out with some of his mania here Brad. The testing issue is one you will not win. Let alone your silly talk of market protection due to competition - or lack of it. Come on bud - get a grip. Has Agman got your ear?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad S said:
It makes perfect sense. All it would take is a rumored false positive and inevitable sell off. What about those that would be critical of USDA methodology, think Creekstone could stand up to that? To suggest a tiny plant could invest in adequate testing facilities and do so profitably is what makes no sense.

Why in the world would Creekstone announce a false positive? That makes no sense. Brad, you're pulling a SH here. You've made up your mind that you're against testing and now your trying to find reasons.

Isn't it up to Creekstone to make their investment work? Unless you're a shareholder, you don't have a dog in that race.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Certainly "public utility" status would drive innovation to ZERO.

Brad, you are critical of "public utility" in the processing sector, but who do you think is in charge of BSE testing..."public utility"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't have it both ways.

Creekstone is innovation!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Brad S said:
It makes perfect sense. All it would take is a rumored false positive and inevitable sell off. What about those that would be critical of USDA methodology, think Creekstone could stand up to that? To suggest a tiny plant could invest in adequate testing facilities and do so profitably is what makes no sense.

Why in the world would Creekstone announce a false positive? That makes no sense. Brad, you're pulling a SH here. You've made up your mind that you're against testing and now your trying to find reasons.

Isn't it up to Creekstone to make their investment work? Unless you're a shareholder, you don't have a dog in that race.

Brad, it seems that you are less interested in false positive than what a true positive may bring. If this is the case, you have jumped off the integrity wagon and on to the propaganda wagon for your self interests.

I have a firm belief that when you take this route, you are not on the straight and narrow, you are just on the path that suits you best.


We must deal with the truth, whatever it is, and stop trying to suppress it. When we try to "manage it" instead of dealing with it, we are just fooling ourselves and in the process losing our integrity.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
"Why would having the ability to get your livestock killed for an average price to packers and retaining ownership and control of that carcass bring innovation to zero?"


Regulation as a public utility would kill innovation - we presently have the ability to process livestock and retain ownership its called USPB



"Brad, it seems that you are less interested in false positive than what a true positive may bring. If this is the case, you have jumped off the integrity wagon and on to the propaganda wagon for your self interests"

I am completely resigned to the position that we must stand the hit of true positives - I don't like them, but fortunately they're quite rare.



"Brad, you are critical of "public utility" in the processing sector, but who do you think is in charge of BSE testing..."public utility"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't have it both ways."

I can have it both ways, and that is the way it is now. I see a fundamental distinction between regulation of food supply and seizing packing space for which there is insufficient barrier to entry.



"Why in the world would Creekstone announce a false positive? That makes no sense. Brad, you're pulling a SH here. You've made up your mind that you're against testing and now your trying to find reasons.

Isn't it up to Creekstone to make their investment work? Unless you're a shareholder, you don't have a dog in that race."


Realize, Creekstone is in my backyard where I used toi live - I used to haul cows there before the retrofit - and I know most of management to some degree or another. Originally, I came down on freedom to test side until I realized the testing protocal couldn't be met by a small processor thus wouldn't be met, and I can't imagine news not leaking out. Any mistake would then fuel demogoging like we see with USDA. It would be an absolute mess - in the meantime the Opra selloff could be trivialized. My conclusions arise from nothing except honest analysis and I resent cheap conjecture to the contrary.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Does red ink in processing cattle prove to you there is no market power being exerted? If that is your belief, you are a fool. The previous court order regarding the beef trust in regards to substitutes admits the true threat. If you and GW had a sense of history, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in today. When will you stop with the packer talking points


First, being called a fool by Econ101 is high praise by double negation. Second, in all markets short of perfect competition, market power is exerted. GW and I are both accused of having too much sense of humor - you know the smartass fraternity charge. Packer concentration in the beef sector hasn't changed significantly during the Bush administration, and we're not in a mess. I will stop the packer talking points when I stop beating my wife - no wait I mixed argumentative falacies. I will stop packer talking points uh sometime after I begin them.


HELL YES PACKERS COMPETING OVER LIMITED SUPPLY TO THE POINT OF LOSING MONEY SUGGESTS THE OLIGOPOLY/OLIGOPSONY IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPETITIVE.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Does red ink in processing cattle prove to you there is no market power being exerted? If that is your belief, you are a fool. The previous court order regarding the beef trust in regards to substitutes admits the true threat. If you and GW had a sense of history, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in today. When will you stop with the packer talking points


First, being called a fool by Econ101 is high praise by double negation. Second, in all markets short of perfect competition, market power is exerted. GW and I are both accused of having too much sense of humor - you know the smartass fraternity charge. Packer concentration in the beef sector hasn't changed significantly during the Bush administration, and we're not in a mess. I will stop the packer talking points when I stop beating my wife - no wait I mixed argumentative falacies. I will stop packer talking points uh sometime after I begin them.


HELL YES PACKERS COMPETING OVER LIMITED SUPPLY TO THE POINT OF LOSING MONEY SUGGESTS THE OLIGOPOLY/OLIGOPSONY IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPETITIVE.


No, Brad, it does not. It means that at this time, absent the affects of substitutes, the packers may be competing in beef (you don't really know if packer margins are in the red, you are just taking someone else's word for it---guess whose word?). It does not mean that the packers are not employing market power because we do not have enough information.

Hyper competitiveness, as you call it, is almost always a precursor to consolidation and the gaining of more market power.

You need to read the book, "The Robber Barrons" that accurately described this phenomena during the latter half of the 19th century. This strategy was used by Rockefeller with his Standard Oil company as well as the Beef Trust, the Sugar Trust, the railroads, and many more industries. These abuses lead to labor strikes, the Pinkertons trying to do the corporation's bidding, labor laws, and the antitrust laws.

One of the hardest things to prove is collusion. You almost have to have a confession to prove this. You don't know that this is not happening currently, it is just your belief. It is an absolute certainty that Tyson is colluding with itself in the substitutes it has huge market shares in (poultry). Swift is probably in the same boat with pork. All of the big guys who are into foreign sources of beef are colluding with themselves over the foreign supplies they own. This is the problem with integration--the collusion between oneself, although anticompetitive at its core, is not looked on as being collusion. That is the reason past court orders have limited packer's ability to hold these substitutes, again, if you had a sense of history, you would know this.

As I said, if you had a sense of history, you would know these things. Instead, you use the same old arguments that held no water with past courts looking at market power and hence have bought into packer propaganda.

As I said before, Brad, you are a fool. I hope that is not a double negation for you.

A fool by choice is a fool indeed. You have had a chance to study these issues but have decided against informing yourself. Ripe grounds for packer propaganda.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Brad, "Realize, Creekstone is in my backyard where I used toi live - I used to haul cows there before the retrofit - and I know most of management to some degree or another. Originally, I came down on freedom to test side until I realized the testing protocal couldn't be met by a small processor thus wouldn't be met, and I can't imagine news not leaking out. Any mistake would then fuel demogoging like we see with USDA. It would be an absolute mess - in the meantime the Opra selloff could be trivialized. My conclusions arise from nothing except honest analysis and I resent cheap conjecture to the contrary."

The only people that have to worry about the testing protocol is Creekstone and their Japanese customers. Nobody else has a peg in that game. As far as leaks on a false positive, what would be the difference between leaks on any other test being done privately?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Brad, Creekstone proposed to use the newer testing methodology employed by the Japs and in Europe for quite a while. Those tests have no interpretive/subjective results like the test used by the USDA.

In fact, the USDA had not even recognized/approved ANY Rapid tests at the time of Creekstone's proposal, showing that they were behind the game light years and were against any tests that could not be manipulated by interpretation.

As far as announcing false positives, the USDA announced one that was proven to be an actual positive months after they announced it to be NEGATIVE by their flawed confirmatory testing!

If private testing of human diseases is the norm, why not private testing of cattle diseases? At least they have accountability.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad,

Stick to your guns. For Conman to call you a fool is not unlike being run over by a baby buggy. The guy is a complete idiot in every sense of the word. He goes on and on about "market power" but has never brought a stitch of proof to back his position yet. All he has is cheap talk. Ask him a question and he'll dance like a circus chicken. His posts are best ignored.

As far as Creekstone's testing, Creekstone's test of cattle under 24 months of age, by their own admission would not even reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age if they were present. Creekstone wanted to sell an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and USDA, justifiably, would not allow it. Don't think for a minute that if Tyson, Cargill, or Swift wanted to sell bse tested beef from cattle under 24 months of age with a test that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age that these Creekstone cheerleaders wouldn't be screaming bloody murder. It's symbolism over substance once again. Meanwhile, Japan is phasing out their own 100% bse testing program proving who was right but chronic bitchers need something to bitch about.


~SH~
 
Top