US trade deficit sets another record

[agman]

Agman, I'm intellectually with you, but emotionally I worry about an avalanche of $ coming back worthless.

I heard the US savings rate is -3.3%.Agman, at what point do you consider crisis level in consumer debt?

Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones.

 

[Jason]

Agman thanks for the insights into savings.

I have to add that the economy is in a very strange situation, at least in many areas. A shortage of workers like I have never seen before.

Some estimates in Alberta alone are 100,000 workers short in the next few years.

Currently there are many jobs advertised in the papers, anyone currently without work doesn't want work. Many of the jobs are decent pay too.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

The problem with "fair trade" is that every country is different with their laws and regulations. Canada, for instance, does not have a Packers and Stockyards Act. If it were enforeced (I am not saying the U.S. has a good record of enforcing it right now) on a NAFTA scale, the "salmon run" would never have happened or there would have been a lawsuit to correct the inequity of it. (Sorry SH, I have borrowed the term from rkaiser, but that is none of your busy body business). The Canadian divisions of Tyson and Cargill did not have to follow that law that protected producers, and hence they allegedly abused their supplies from Canada to help manipulate the price for U.S. producers.

Reply
As far as I know we now only have three packing companies in Canada. Well three in Alberta and AB pretty much is the beef industry in Canada.
Anyway all three of these packing outfits are American. They are all in collusion as far as prices go.
Years ago we had all kinds of local owned packers. The big American outfits ate em up like a Walmart does Mom and Pa businesses in a small town.
Anyway the big three had a monopoly on beef up here while that border was closed and they made a fortune off of it because they were the only ones who could sell in the US market since the border was closed to live cattle. But what are you talking about when you say Salmon run? I dont understand.

Roper AB , Tyson and Cargill are US owned but XL beef is owned by the Nielson Brthers from Alberta. Unless you know of another major packer that is US owned.
This Salmon run that Econ and R kaiser talk about was brought about by the border opening for boxed beef before live cattle. Maybe the packers did take advantage of the opportunity but it did help our markets. It was R-CALF that was wanting to keep it that way giving the packers more chance to take advantage of the "SALMON RUN".

 

[Sandhusker]

The problem with "fair trade" is that every country is different with their laws and regulations. Canada, for instance, does not have a Packers and Stockyards Act. If it were enforeced (I am not saying the U.S. has a good record of enforcing it right now) on a NAFTA scale, the "salmon run" would never have happened or there would have been a lawsuit to correct the inequity of it. (Sorry SH, I have borrowed the term from rkaiser, but that is none of your busy body business). The Canadian divisions of Tyson and Cargill did not have to follow that law that protected producers, and hence they allegedly abused their supplies from Canada to help manipulate the price for U.S. producers.

Reply
As far as I know we now only have three packing companies in Canada. Well three in Alberta and AB pretty much is the beef industry in Canada.
Anyway all three of these packing outfits are American. They are all in collusion as far as prices go.
Years ago we had all kinds of local owned packers. The big American outfits ate em up like a Walmart does Mom and Pa businesses in a small town.
Anyway the big three had a monopoly on beef up here while that border was closed and they made a fortune off of it because they were the only ones who could sell in the US market since the border was closed to live cattle. But what are you talking about when you say Salmon run? I dont understand.

Roper AB , Tyson and Cargill are US owned but XL beef is owned by the Nielson Brthers from Alberta. Unless you know of another major packer that is US owned.
This Salmon run that Econ and R kaiser talk about was brought about by the border opening for boxed beef before live cattle. Maybe the packers did take advantage of the opportunity but it did help our markets. It was R-CALF that was wanting to keep it that way giving the packers more chance to take advantage of the "SALMON RUN".

I agree with you that it was the opening to beef before cattle that started the salmon run. But, blaming R-CALF because it gave the packers more chance to screw you guys is absolutly rediculous. That's like blaming your neighbor for leaving the house unlocked to because it gave thieves more chance to rob them.

Until you actually put the blame for where it needs to be, you'll never solve your problems. R-CALF disappears tomorrow and what happens? Your packing industry will still be mostly owned by foreigners who call the shots with your government. You still won't be able to do anything the USDA doesn't want you to. Your millions of tax-payer dollars will still be in the pockets of wealthy and profitable US corporations who didn't need your money in the first place. Those packers will still refuse to open their books to Parliament. Need I go on?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Roper AB , Tyson and Cargill are US owned but XL beef is owned by the Nielson Brthers from Alberta. Unless you know of another major packer that is US owned.
This Salmon run that Econ and R kaiser talk about was brought about by the border opening for boxed beef before live cattle. Maybe the packers did take advantage of the opportunity but it did help our markets. It was R-CALF that was wanting to keep it that way giving the packers more chance to take advantage of the "SALMON RUN".

I agree with you that it was the opening to beef before cattle that started the salmon run. But, blaming R-CALF because it gave the packers more chance to screw you guys is absolutly rediculous. That's like blaming your neighbor for leaving the house unlocked to because it gave thieves more chance to rob them.

Until you actually put the blame for where it needs to be, you'll never solve your problems. R-CALF disappears tomorrow and what happens? Your packing industry will still be mostly owned by foreigners who call the shots with your government. You still won't be able to do anything the USDA doesn't want you to. Your millions of tax-payer dollars will still be in the pockets of wealthy and profitable US corporations who didn't need your money in the first place. Those packers will still refuse to open their books to Parliament. Need I go on?

Where did I say R-CALF was responsible for closing the border? I did say R-CALF wanted it kept that way and I feel that they did delay the opening with the threat of and a court challenge. Can you deny that they didn't go to court ?

 

[RoperAB]

Sorry I thought XL Foods was American. Haha Well even if they are Canadian owned there still just as bad as Cargill and Lakeside.
You see they are so big. They own the feedlots. Whenever the price starts to get good they can just stop buying and use their own beef.
Plus if the government does ever give out a subsidy it always goes to them.
Its crazy that we allow three companies to control everything.

 

[mwj]

Sorry I thought XL Foods was American. Haha Well even if they are Canadian owned there still just as bad as Cargill and Lakeside.
You see they are so big. They own the feedlots. Whenever the price starts to get good they can just stop buying and use their own beef.
Plus if the government does ever give out a subsidy it always goes to them.
Its crazy that we allow three companies to control everything.

If they own the lots and the cheap cattle why would they ever buy fats on the open market :???: Maybe you should be selling them feeders to refill there lots. What do they do with ''there'' cattle when the price goes down?

 

[agman]

Sorry I thought XL Foods was American. Haha Well even if they are Canadian owned there still just as bad as Cargill and Lakeside.
You see they are so big. They own the feedlots. Whenever the price starts to get good they can just stop buying and use their own beef.
Plus if the government does ever give out a subsidy it always goes to them.
Its crazy that we allow three companies to control everything.

Roper, that same claim was made here in the U.S. and all detailed records of purchases totally refute that false claim. Unless you have absolute facts to bring then you are perpetuatimg a rumor or untruth.

 

[Jason]

Roper don't buy into the packers control the whole system BS.

While the packers we have are large and do have some clout, they only own 11% of the supply of the slaughter cattle(from Alberta ag numbers).

That means they buy 89% of their needs from private individuals or companies.

Corr Van Raay Farms is the largest feeder in Canada and he is not packer owned. His inventory dwarfs that of the packers.

The big 3 in Alberta (XL only kills 8-900/day compared to 4000 ) Don't kill more than maybe 60-70% of the cattle combined. In the 70's Canada Packers killed 50% by themselves.

Rumors of plants making hundreds of dollars per head are not supported with facts, the facts indicate even during the so called "salmon run" profits were at about $65 US per head.

Think about where the Canadian industry would have been if packers didn't kill at 120% of normal during that time?

I don't know what you got or didn't get for BSE money, but ranchers that sold calves in 03 and 04 never saw much difference in price. In fact I know of guys that got more in 03 than they did in 02. Aid money that went to those who feed definately was passed on to cow/calf producers.

 

[RoperAB]

I have only a minute here before supper but here is a link. Go down to page 5 and start reading. Tell me what you think.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:B5XYJq9V45QJ:www.nfu.ca/briefs/National%2520Farmers%2520Union%2520submission%2520to%2520Competition%2520Bureau.pdf+Cargill,+Lakeside,+and+XL+foods+owners&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4

 

[Jason]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

 

[ocm]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

What makes you say Callicrate is struggling? Is your information possibly out of date?

 

[Jason]

He sure isn't making $400 per head and he sells through to retail.

 

[agman]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

What makes you say Callicrate is struggling? Is your information possibly out of date?

With the $50 dollars per head premium he pays producer suppliers versus what he charges for meat he makes everyone else in the beef business look like saints.

With several of the major packers now entering the Natural Beef market those short term economic profits will narrow considerably as they begin to supply a growing but limited market.

 

[ocm]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

What makes you say Callicrate is struggling? Is your information possibly out of date?

With the $50 dollars per head premium he pays producer suppliers versus what he charges for meat he makes everyone else in the beef business look like saints.

With several of the major packers now entering the Natural Beef market those short term economic profits will narrow considerably as they begin to supply a growing but limited market.

Sounds like you are confirming that he is not "struggling."

When he sells the meat at his restaurant isn't that "value added" that you talk about.

 

[Econ101]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

What makes you say Callicrate is struggling? Is your information possibly out of date?

With the $50 dollars per head premium he pays producer suppliers versus what he charges for meat he makes everyone else in the beef business look like saints.

With several of the major packers now entering the Natural Beef market those short term economic profits will narrow considerably as they begin to supply a growing but limited market.

Imitation is the best form of flattery.

 

[RoperAB]

Roper, I read the entire article and it doesn't use valid numbers.

It grabs a statement from Mike Callicrate about the $400 packers are taking from producers. This is a lie. He has started his own packing venture and actually retails the beef, the biggest premium he has given is $50 a head and he is charging a premium to consumers, yet he is struggling.

Even if the BSE subsidy numbers are correct, they calculate to 13.8% of the cattle owned, hardly the majority of cattle.

The situation of IBP (now Tyson) setting the price for all packers, that's ludicris. That would mean the other packers wait and buy what is left over after Tyson gets full. If that was the case why does the market got up? Why doesn't Tyson just say 50 cent flat rate on fats?

Thanks for the article, but remember to check their credibility.

Reply
Okay a question for you.
When the border was closed, old swing bags were selling for two cents a pound live weight. But we were still paying $2 to $3 a pound retail for hamburg? Why?
I dont know anything about dirt farming but its seems to be the same way for them. In other words the price they get for their wheat has nothing to do with the price of retail flour.
Who is making the money?
Its not the cow/calf guy. Everyone I know is either bankrupt or their wife has a good job and in lots of cases the husband has to work out to make ends meet.
Its not the auction marts.
I dont think its the small idependent feeders either.
Remember when the Alberta government tried to force the big three packers to open their books? Remember how they refused and the government was fineing them for everyday that they didnt comply. What ever happened with that anyway?

 

[Jason]

Okay a question for you.
When the border was closed, old swing bags were selling for two cents a pound live weight. But we were still paying $2 to $3 a pound retail for hamburg? Why?
I dont know anything about dirt farming but its seems to be the same way for them. In other words the price they get for their wheat has nothing to do with the price of retail flour.
Who is making the money?
Its not the cow/calf guy. Everyone I know is either bankrupt or their wife has a good job and in lots of cases the husband has to work out to make ends meet.
Its not the auction marts.
I dont think its the small idependent feeders either.
Remember when the Alberta government tried to force the big three packers to open their books? Remember how they refused and the government was fineing them for everyday that they didnt comply. What ever happened with that anyway?

Roper, burger was selling off trucks for 99 cents, over $1million was given free to food banks. Hundreds of barbeques for a buck a burger were put on to help move the beef.

At the same time the Canadian public wanted to help the beef industry they all were buying steaks instead of the mountians of ground beef.

With the limited slaughter capacity and increased demand for middle meats (11% of the carcass) Canada actually was running out of steaks much of the time. This demand forced steak prices up.

Packers operate on margins, the same as feeders and retailers. They don't have herds of cows standing there, if they can't buy their raw product cheap enough (calves, fats or beef as the case may be) what is the incentive for them to lose money?

The primary producer has the investment of land, cows, machinery and we are in a position of what do we do if we don't raise another calf crop? That being said, we can know if we are making money with each thing we do, if we have enough knowledge about the whole industry.

Some have chosen to go all the way to the consumer with their calves. Talk about an off farm job! Marketing 100 or 200 beef is a big job for an individual. I move about 20 and have no desire to jump to 100 any time soon.

The real point is that if you blame others for taking our profits, you don't invest the time in doing what it takes to survive the changes that come along.

 

[Econ101]

Okay a question for you.
When the border was closed, old swing bags were selling for two cents a pound live weight. But we were still paying $2 to $3 a pound retail for hamburg? Why?
I dont know anything about dirt farming but its seems to be the same way for them. In other words the price they get for their wheat has nothing to do with the price of retail flour.
Who is making the money?
Its not the cow/calf guy. Everyone I know is either bankrupt or their wife has a good job and in lots of cases the husband has to work out to make ends meet.
Its not the auction marts.
I dont think its the small idependent feeders either.
Remember when the Alberta government tried to force the big three packers to open their books? Remember how they refused and the government was fineing them for everyday that they didnt comply. What ever happened with that anyway?

Roper, burger was selling off trucks for 99 cents, over $1million was given free to food banks. Hundreds of barbeques for a buck a burger were put on to help move the beef.

At the same time the Canadian public wanted to help the beef industry they all were buying steaks instead of the mountians of ground beef.

With the limited slaughter capacity and increased demand for middle meats (11% of the carcass) Canada actually was running out of steaks much of the time. This demand forced steak prices up.

Packers operate on margins, the same as feeders and retailers. They don't have herds of cows standing there, if they can't buy their raw product cheap enough (calves, fats or beef as the case may be) what is the incentive for them to lose money?

The primary producer has the investment of land, cows, machinery and we are in a position of what do we do if we don't raise another calf crop? That being said, we can know if we are making money with each thing we do, if we have enough knowledge about the whole industry.

Some have chosen to go all the way to the consumer with their calves. Talk about an off farm job! Marketing 100 or 200 beef is a big job for an individual. I move about 20 and have no desire to jump to 100 any time soon.

The real point is that if you blame others for taking our profits, you don't invest the time in doing what it takes to survive the changes that come along.

So Jason, was it an American rancher in Canada that had the first BSE case or not? Someone else posted it and I want to see what you know.

 

[Mrs.Greg]

Jason,Roper asked you what happened when the Packing plants were asked to hand over thier books????You seem to really support the packing plants so this should be a question you can answer?