Do you think the local guy would have been bought out if he wasn't a threat of being "the competition". They bought him out so there wasn't any strong competition left. Do you think they are giving the other two markets in the South of Sask a fair chance to complete as big as they are. It is a very uneven ball field but the other two are still there and if they even look like a threat, they will probably be bought up or run out of business in the name of COMPETITION. You, Sandhusker said "Competition has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with one guy buying out another" The lack of strong competition didn't exsist in this case until they bought the competition
Vote here
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
As expected, Sandsomethingorother, you are too damn arrogant to admit when you are flat out wrong! Just like Bullard!
Sandhusker: "Competition has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with an outfit buying anybody else out."
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!
Just because there can be numerous reasons THAT PLAY INTO a larger more efficient packing company buying out a smaller packing company DOES NOT MEAN THAT COMPETITION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE REASONS.
You are making a complete ash out of yourself spinning, twisting, and diverting away from the statement you made that is absolutely untrue.
If R-CALF has done anything for you it is to convince you that deception and lies are ok.
YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE IS NOT TRUE!!!!!
YOU ARE TREED, PERIOD!!!!!
Quit R-CALFing and come clean for once!
~SH~
Sandhusker: "Competition has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with an outfit buying anybody else out."
THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!
Just because there can be numerous reasons THAT PLAY INTO a larger more efficient packing company buying out a smaller packing company DOES NOT MEAN THAT COMPETITION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE REASONS.
You are making a complete ash out of yourself spinning, twisting, and diverting away from the statement you made that is absolutely untrue.
If R-CALF has done anything for you it is to convince you that deception and lies are ok.
YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE IS NOT TRUE!!!!!
YOU ARE TREED, PERIOD!!!!!
Quit R-CALFing and come clean for once!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Tam said:
I got ya now, Tam. You and I are on two different wavelengths. You are saying that the buyouts are to stop competition. I'll agree that that would be a reason to buy someone out. You might want to be careful, though. You can use that example against SH and his quest to convice us that packer concentration is a good thing! :lol: Obviosly, sale barn concentration is a bad deal in your example.
My point is that a buyout does not necessarily mean there is a competitive market. SH would like us to believe it is a given (if buyout, then competition). As my 6 reasons show, there can be buyouts that are totally independant of whether the businesses are in a competitive market or not. We'll see if SH addresses those reasons or not. :wink:
I say most buy outs are an investment. If someone back east buys a ranch out west it is not because of competition, but because they have money to invest. Car dealers buy other car dealers to invest money, a dealership 500 miles away is not competition to them, but they see it as a way of getting a return on their money. What else are the big packers going to do with their money if not buy up more packing plants? They could buy car dealerships, but packing plants is their expertise.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
I"M too arrogant to admit when I'm wrong? :lol: :lol: :lol: Now that's the kettle calling the pot black!
OK, Twister, lets start alllll over again. You're trying to tell us that a buyout is proof there is competition and I just showed you six buyout reasons that have nothing to do with competition! All can happen in a competitive or noncompetitive market, and you know it! :roll: I proved you wrong not once, not twice, but SIX times! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Kinda torks you off, doesn't it? I know I'm getting you when you resort to name calling. Name calling and personal belittlement is a defense mechanism when your offense is inadequate.
Have a great day, SH! 8)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker FLIP: "Competition has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with an outfit buying anybody else out."
Sandhusker FLOP: "You are saying that the buyouts are to stop competition. I'll agree that that would be a reason to buy someone out."
TREED but still too arrogant to admit it!!!
Rancher,
Other examples may or may not be comparable to packer buyouts.
We are talking about large packers buying out small packers and the reasons for this.
Why have many smaller less efficient packing companies sold out to larger more efficient packing companies????
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T COMPETE WITH THEM
IF THEY COULDN't COMPETE WITH THEM, THERE IS COMPETITION
To suggest otherwise is wrong!
Can there be other reasons? Sure!
R-CALF has made the statement that smaller packing companies can't compete with the larger packing companies. Although that directly contradicts their statement that there is no competition, they still said it.
Well, if the smaller companies couldn't compete, THERE IS COMPETITION!!!
It's another classic example of R-CALF's conflicting arguments and the clones that repeat them without thinking about them.
~SH~
Sandhusker FLOP: "You are saying that the buyouts are to stop competition. I'll agree that that would be a reason to buy someone out."
TREED but still too arrogant to admit it!!!
Rancher,
Other examples may or may not be comparable to packer buyouts.
We are talking about large packers buying out small packers and the reasons for this.
Why have many smaller less efficient packing companies sold out to larger more efficient packing companies????
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T COMPETE WITH THEM
IF THEY COULDN't COMPETE WITH THEM, THERE IS COMPETITION
To suggest otherwise is wrong!
Can there be other reasons? Sure!
R-CALF has made the statement that smaller packing companies can't compete with the larger packing companies. Although that directly contradicts their statement that there is no competition, they still said it.
Well, if the smaller companies couldn't compete, THERE IS COMPETITION!!!
It's another classic example of R-CALF's conflicting arguments and the clones that repeat them without thinking about them.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker Pot: "OK, Twister, lets start alllll over again."
Sandhusker Kettle: "I know I'm getting you when you resort to name calling".
You just can't win today can you? Hahaha!
Ok, I'm feeling generous about your inability to admit when you are wrong, so I won't badger you with it anymore.
Instead, I'll take your bait and delve into your "assumed" comfort zone.
Sandhusker: "You're trying to tell us that a buyout is proof there is competition and I just showed you six buyout reasons that have nothing to do with competition! All can happen in a competitive or noncompetitive market, and you know it! I proved you wrong not once, not twice, but SIX times!"
You haven't proven me wrong once on this topic let alone the 6 times you dreamed about which would still only be once IF YOU PROVED ME WRONG with your 6 examples.
I never said that an inability or difficulty for a small packing plant to compete with a larger more efficient packing plant, was the ONLY REASON for smaller packing companies being bought out by larger packing companies.
The fact remains, an inability or difficulty in competing with larger more efficient packing companies has been a major reason for many of these packer acquisitions in history. That is a fact!
There is many examples of small packing companies selling out to larger companies due to the difficult in competing with larger more efficient packing companies.
Your beloved R-CALF has even spoke about the inability or difficulty of smaller packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient packing companies.
THAT IS AN ADMISSION THAT THERE IS COMPETITION
Treed again!
~SH~
Sandhusker Kettle: "I know I'm getting you when you resort to name calling".
You just can't win today can you? Hahaha!
Ok, I'm feeling generous about your inability to admit when you are wrong, so I won't badger you with it anymore.
Instead, I'll take your bait and delve into your "assumed" comfort zone.
Sandhusker: "You're trying to tell us that a buyout is proof there is competition and I just showed you six buyout reasons that have nothing to do with competition! All can happen in a competitive or noncompetitive market, and you know it! I proved you wrong not once, not twice, but SIX times!"
You haven't proven me wrong once on this topic let alone the 6 times you dreamed about which would still only be once IF YOU PROVED ME WRONG with your 6 examples.
I never said that an inability or difficulty for a small packing plant to compete with a larger more efficient packing plant, was the ONLY REASON for smaller packing companies being bought out by larger packing companies.
The fact remains, an inability or difficulty in competing with larger more efficient packing companies has been a major reason for many of these packer acquisitions in history. That is a fact!
There is many examples of small packing companies selling out to larger companies due to the difficult in competing with larger more efficient packing companies.
Your beloved R-CALF has even spoke about the inability or difficulty of smaller packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient packing companies.
THAT IS AN ADMISSION THAT THERE IS COMPETITION
Treed again!
~SH~
SH a friend told me last night about rule number one and I think it applies here PEOPLE ARE STUPID
How many times do you have to point out the words of someone are wrong before he will admit it and go away.
What part of ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING do you think Sandhusker doesn't understand?
What part of COMPETITION doesn't he understand?
Maybe if we could understand what he THINKS these to terms mean then maybe we could understand him. :roll: :roll:
How many times do you have to point out the words of someone are wrong before he will admit it and go away.
What part of ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING do you think Sandhusker doesn't understand?
What part of COMPETITION doesn't he understand?
Maybe if we could understand what he THINKS these to terms mean then maybe we could understand him. :roll: :roll:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
OK, kids, lets back up and see the comment that started it all. I quote Mr. Huber; "Chief, If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies???
Hmmmmm???? Typical packer blaming contradiction!" Let's just focus on the first statement and ignore the smart-ash finale.
SH, If you're not saying that a buyout is proof there is competition, what else can you be saying? I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion. I stand by my statement, and proved it six ways. YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION. YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!
Now back to Huber's question to "Chief". SH, "If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies???" YOUR ANSWER; PICK ANY OF THE SIX EXAMPLES I GAVE YOU! :x
Hmmmmm???? Typical packer blaming contradiction!" Let's just focus on the first statement and ignore the smart-ash finale.
SH, If you're not saying that a buyout is proof there is competition, what else can you be saying? I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion. I stand by my statement, and proved it six ways. YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION. YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!
Now back to Huber's question to "Chief". SH, "If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies???" YOUR ANSWER; PICK ANY OF THE SIX EXAMPLES I GAVE YOU! :x
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sand: "SH, If you're not saying that a buyout is proof there is competition, what else can you be saying?"
That competition was a factor in the sale of many smaller less efficient packing companies to larger more efficient packing companies.
Sand: "I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion."
And you are wrong, as usual!
Sand: "YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION."
Yes, you can have a buyout without competition but that was not the case in many smaller packing companies selling out to larger packing companies.
You were wrong!
Sand: "YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!"
I'll take your "OR NOT" as an admission that you cannot reach a conclusion that competition is not a factor in buyouts unless you know the factors that influenced that buyout.
You are boring me!
~SH~
That competition was a factor in the sale of many smaller less efficient packing companies to larger more efficient packing companies.
Sand: "I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion."
And you are wrong, as usual!
Sand: "YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION."
Yes, you can have a buyout without competition but that was not the case in many smaller packing companies selling out to larger packing companies.
You were wrong!
Sand: "YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!"
I'll take your "OR NOT" as an admission that you cannot reach a conclusion that competition is not a factor in buyouts unless you know the factors that influenced that buyout.
You are boring me!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
SH, "Chief, If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies??? "
SH, "Yes, you can have a buyout without competition..."
Judging by your contradiction, I would assume I've made my point.
:lol: I rest my case.