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

What is happened to our cattle prices???

agman...You said record cattle on feed and record weights are not the reason for lower prices then you must have another reason. Why are you unwilling to support your own comment? I have already posted numerous factors that are contributing to lower prices. Why the diversion from you. I am certain everyone wants to know your reasoning since you rejected the many reason I listed. Come on Tommy, take one for your team. I am still waiting.

No I did not say that at all agman, all I did was ask a question. All I asked was, why are cattle weights higher? You are reading more into the question than what I said.





agman...The mere fact that cattle on feed in the US are at a record and carcass weights are at a record high has nothing to do with the lower prices???

OK why are the cattle weights higher?
 
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill, "Keep diverting and spinning off topic Sandhusker you're the pro.

How much of that "trade imbalance" is energy and raw goods you need? Take a run at that one! "

I'm not the one diverting, Bill. You made a comment tying population to the level of imports, followed by a wise aleck banker comment. I'm staying on topic and waiting for you to explain why the US imports more from Canada because of a larger population, but the same just doesn't seem to apply to China. Come in, Bill, you've got a contradiction to explain.

Bill is correct in pointing to population. On many items they run a per captia trade deficit with the U.S. Your diversion to China overlooks income. That is just a minor necessity not to be overlooked when talking trade. Population by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to income levels.


I was simply showing Bill that population alone could not explain an import surplus or deficit. That's it. He figured that out and tried do divert to natural resources. I guess you couldn't figure out that message.
 
Econ101 said:
agman said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

In all fairness you need to rethink your position. Not every one is a burger flipper. In fact that is a gross misconception. Wages are higher in service industries than in manufacturing. To imply we would be better off having twice as many people producing one-half as many manufactured goods is incorrect. Why not leave the plant size the same and employ technology to produce twice the goods with the same labor force? Do you know how much manufacturing productivy has improved? Check it out, it is shocking and positive for the economy. Have a cool one.

Agman, I think this materialism thing has gone to your head. It is not all about money. My wife and I lived in a major metropolitan area and decided to move out to the country to have a slower pace of life.

I think it is a shame we have all been brainwashed somehow into thinking we have to work for the Tyson's of the world so busily so they can have their houses in the Carribean and buy any politician they want so they can change the rules in their favor. Rural communities have been dying for a long time due to our U.S. cheap food policy and free trade policy.

That twice as many goods with the same labor force has helped corporations, not individuals. Ask any producer.

Where did say anything about materialism? To suggest rural communities are dying and overlook the basic and simple fact that we are no longer an agrarian society. That shift occurred long before multi-nationals. Societies that are agrarian based are essentially third world countries.

Your endless claims of buy-offs is getting old. It just demonstrates the limited knowledge you have of everything around you. There are many times more good happenings than bad. Unfortunately, "the bad" get the press and you seem to dwell on that and dismiss all the good that occurs and surrounds us everyday at every level of business and society in this country.
 
Tommy said:
agman...You said record cattle on feed and record weights are not the reason for lower prices then you must have another reason. Why are you unwilling to support your own comment? I have already posted numerous factors that are contributing to lower prices. Why the diversion from you. I am certain everyone wants to know your reasoning since you rejected the many reason I listed. Come on Tommy, take one for your team. I am still waiting.

No I did not say that at all agman, all I did was ask a question. All I asked was, why are cattle weights higher? You are reading more into the question than what I said.


agman...The mere fact that cattle on feed in the US are at a record and carcass weights are at a record high has nothing to do with the lower prices???


OK why are the cattle weights higher?

I already explained why cattle weights are higher. Did you miss that message? If you don't understand or agree with the explanation then why did you ask. I am still waiting for your explanation of events.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
agman said:
Relative to GDP that is correct but that is because your economy, as ours, is moving toward a service economy. However, that does not mean manufacturing output is declining. To the contrary, manufacturing output has grown rapidly due to rapid productivity gains. Check it out.

But thats not a good thing for an economy. I don't know about manufacturing output within Canada, but manfacturing JOBS are well down from where they were 15 years ago. Who cares if company A can build 20 billion widgets compared to 5 billion from 5 years ago with half the jobs? The only people that benefit from these efficiencies are the stockholders of the company. Now, if a company were to improve efficiency AND increase the size of its plants, to keep the same number of JOBS, then I'd be applauding the gain in efficiency. Instead, all we've done is turned a $15/hr laborer into a $8/hr burger flipper. This isn't a good thing for the economy OR society.

Rod

Has the standard of living improved or gone back wards? You benefit from efficiencies as well as stockholders of public corporations. Why do you dismiss the positive impact of effeciencies in private corporations. Is their contribution not important?

Your figures on employment and income need a little updating. Our society nor yours is hardly one of burger flippers as you say.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
MRJ said:
1) So you think 150 or 200 animals can keep any ranch family fully employed?

2) Are you saying that the price paid for your cattle should just automatically increase to accomodate inflation, your desire for a higher standard of living, number of children you choose to have, etc.? It does sound that way.

In my area, where we have to feed in the winter, make hay, etc etc, 150 animals can keep 1 person awful busy, often more so than a full time job. A family unit of husband, wife and child should be able to handle 250 head. Right now, 150 good animals on a well run ranch in Northern Saskatchewan can give a single guy a reasonably comfortable living.

Some areas are naturally more profitable than others, however I've noticed that most areas where the profit/animal is lower, it also means that its less labor intensive to run those animals. So instead of 150 animals, that one man can handle 300 animals.

2) As a matter of fact, there is NO REASON why a rancher shouldn't have every RIGHT to expect the price of his commodity will keep pace with inflation. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously not a rancher nor even a primary producer, and as such, has ZERO right to speak for us. And before you pull into the arguement the standard of living and number of children, at no time did I say ANYTHING about increasing a standard of living.

Lets requote me before it gets twisted around:

"I personally feel if 150 animals is a full time job (or 200 or whatever), then that should be enough to allow a producer to live comfortably."

Live comfortably, as in an AVERAGE economic existence. It is our RIGHT as human beings to expect a decent living for a decent days labor. If you want more, then by all means, work harder. Work 12 hours instead of 8. Or work smarter. But, just because you want to drive a Ferrari instead of a Dodge, do not expect us small guys to suffer because you want the bigger living.

Rod

Rod, in my area, for the rancher with no cash grain crops, no Farm Program crops, it takes 20 to 25 acres per cow/calf unit per year. Some years we are able to graze all winter with very little supplemental hay. However, one must have the stuff on hand in case it is needed, so one must make hay. That takes quite a lot of time/effort with our rough terrain, dryland alfalfa that produces decent crops spasmodically if the rains cooperate, as opposed to places that have "real" hay ground, especially irrigated. Average annual precipitation is about 14", mostly coming in the growing season. We can't count on more than 90 frost free days, but often get up to a month more with only a couple of light freezes. Basically it is from June 5 to about Sept. 5, but we have had frost in every month in the occasional "very weird weather" year. We are fortunate in that we trade cattle work with about five neighboring ranches. With a spouse and two sons, plus one teenage and one college age grandson, we still must work 12 to 16 hour days, year round to keep the work up decently. We have run quite a few cows, when the drought was not holding us back, and even some yearlings, but probably won't have any of them this summer. No one has time to get into trouble, anyway. And I'm aware that this isn't one of those high profit areas, but the work load is pretty constant.

Something that troubles me about your post is that you seem to believe profit should be more or less automatic when raising cattle, prices increasing in pace with inflation, etc. That leaves out market demand, consumer income and costs, and much more.

While I don't know how it is in Canada, here in the USA, our Founding Fathers determined that we have the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.......not to great prices for our production, though we have the right to the PURSUIT thereof. We have to live with the times we are born into and live through and adjust as best our minds, talent, work ethic, can manage, IMO.

Actually, re the "bigger living".....I was saying you should not expect me to support the subsidies you may require to keep up your AVERAGE economic existence while the market will only allow me a more modest living than you think you are entitled to. And this has nothing to do with Canada/US problems, but if from the perspective of us living in the same country.

There are people who CHOOSE to put their all into raising cattle on a scale that may not be capable of making a living for most people, but because of their sheer determination and desire to be in this business, they will live on far less than is really comfortable.

There are people who are just plain lucky and for whom the cattle business just gets better, no matter how they botch things, yet they succeed, and there are many different scales in between. That represents freedom, IMO. Long may it live! Just don't try to sell me on this managed economy, parity for agriculture stuff. Freedom also includes the freedom to fail and pick yourself up and start over, and I believe the more "fail-proof" on insists agricultural enterprises be, the less freedom we have.

MRJ

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
1) Something that troubles me about your post is that you seem to believe profit should be more or less automatic when raising cattle, prices increasing in pace with inflation, etc. That leaves out market demand, consumer income and costs, and much more.

2) Actually, re the "bigger living".....I was saying you should not expect me to support the subsidies you may require to keep up your AVERAGE economic existence while the market will only allow me a more modest living than you think you are entitled to.

1) Then I guess you should read a little more closely. Nowhere in there do I say that profit should be automatic. I simply state that there is no logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up. The price of gold inflates. The price of a cord of wood has inflated. All other raw resources have paced with inflation, except for farm products, even though deamnd for our product is at record levels. This is against the Invisible Hand, Adam Smith and every other free market economist who has ever wrote a paragraph about free markets.

Why is this? Its because we have a cheap foods policy in both the US and Canada, and it hurts the primary producer. You're attempting to paint me as scary socialist, when all I am is someone who feels that the government should be representing the PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS.

2) And again, you put words into my mouth. I have not once sat here and asked for subsidies. I have asked for the government to properly control the players in the market so that I, as a producer, can get a fair dollar for my product. This is not against free market principles as the very BASIS of a free market is unfettered competition. We no longer have this, and as a member of producer association, you should be concerned.

Rod
 
agman said:
1) Has the standard of living improved or gone back wards? You benefit from efficiencies as well as stockholders of public corporations. Why do you dismiss the positive impact of effeciencies in private corporations. Is their contribution not important?

2) Your figures on employment and income need a little updating. Our society nor yours is hardly one of burger flippers as you say.

1) The average farm income in Canada is BELOW the poverty line. So in order to support an increased standard of living most farm families now have 2 off-farm incomes, as well as an on-farm income. The push towards increased efficiency is destroying society, but corporate backers don't seem to care. All they're concerned about is increased efficiency and the we now have more widgets to sell. Thats a materialistic outlook on life, and so no, I don't think a corporation increasing efficiency and laying off workers is an important contribution to society.

2) Ummm, I haven't once quoted actual figures, but if you're going to tell me the number of manufacturing jobs in Canada has went up in the last 2 decades, then I'm going to ask to find more accurate sources. Stats Canada supports what you mentioned earlier vis-a-vis moving towards a service industry. I'm sorry, but in Canada, our service industry does not receive a wage anyway near an average manfacturing wage.

Rod
 
The politicians are always going to represent the corporate ranchers and or the packers.
Rod guys like you dont really make enough to pay taxes. You dont hire other people <directly like a packer>. You dont donate any amount of money to political parties.
If you were in Alberta, they<government> would look at you as a pain in the ash because your a thorn in the side to Oil companies that are #1 competeing with you for water #2 Fighting them and being a pain in the ash to them when they want the resources under your land.
Agriculture <small guys> have no political clout and it doesnt look like its going to get any better.
Now in Alberta they are talking about the third way. Example private healthcare and schools competeing with public <crown> hospitals and schools because they want everything to be private.
My idea is why dont they ever talk about a public packing company competeing with the big three packing companies that are currently in colusion?
Also if they ever do come out with a subsidy or aid to ranchers why not exempt corporations from it? How about anybody over a certain size not qualify? Or how about pay up to 300 cows maximum.
I hate the Liberals and the NDP. They are way worse than the conservatives. Atleast the Conservatives do not pretend to care. The Left wing guys are always going on about the small guy, etc. but in reality they are the biggest whores around when it comes to selling out.
What about CO/OPs? Its to bad there wasnt some way of getting these oil companies to invest in Alberta. Example If we could start up a CO/OP packing plant in Alberta and get some of the finaceiong from the different oil companies. This would not be a gift from the oil companies. Im talking about real loans that would be paid back. Just asking them to invest in Alberta.
Who owns the damn resources anyways? I have been lead to believe that Alberta is only getting roughly 1% of the money that is being made in the oil patch. Haliburton made more money last lear than the whole GDP of Canada.
 
Rod: "I simply state that there is no logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up."

There is a very logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up. That is because the supply exceeds the demand. Are calf weights the same as they were 30 years ago? Is chicken tonnage the same as it was 30 years ago?

When supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices are going to reflect that increased supply by falling no matter what inflation does. There is no guarantees of a profit in this industry and all the packer blaming conspiracy theories in the world won't change the supply and demand equation. Instead of focusing on increasing consumer demand for beef in the U.S., blamers are quick to blame conspiracy theories like captive supply and packer concentration when neither have been proven to negatively impact producer prices. If the consumer doesn't want our product, we will receive less dollars for our product and that's all there is to it.


Rod: "The price of gold inflates. The price of a cord of wood has inflated. All other raw resources have paced with inflation, except for farm products, even though deamnd for our product is at record levels."

The supply and demand equation for gold is not the same as beef. Beef competes with poultry and pork. What does gold compete with? Silver?

The supply of gold is not increasing. In contrast, beef supplies continue to increase DOMESTICALLY.


Rod: "Why is this? Its because we have a cheap foods policy in both the US and Canada, and it hurts the primary producer. You're attempting to paint me as scary socialist, when all I am is someone who feels that the government should be representing the PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS."

The government does represent the people. The blamers views isn't always the majority opinion.

Yes, the cheap food policies hurt the producer but consumers outnumber producers by a 98 to 2 margin. Where do you think the political influence lies? You can't continue to increase production and raise prices without consumers making demands to the government to import cheaper products. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

CONSUMERS OUTNUMBER PRODUCERS and that is a political reality.


Rod: "I have asked for the government to properly control the players in the market so that I, as a producer, can get a fair dollar for my product. This is not against free market principles as the very BASIS of a free market is unfettered competition. We no longer have this, and as a member of producer association, you should be concerned."

You, like so many other blamers, are convinced that the markets are not competitive yet you cannot offer a single stitch of proof to suggest otherwise. It's what you want to believe, not what the facts will support.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Rod: "I simply state that there is no logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up."

There is a very logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up. That is because the supply exceeds the demand. Are calf weights the same as they were 30 years ago? Is chicken tonnage the same as it was 30 years ago?

When supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices are going to reflect that increased supply by falling no matter what inflation does. There is no guarantees of a profit in this industry and all the packer blaming conspiracy theories in the world won't change the supply and demand equation. Instead of focusing on increasing consumer demand for beef in the U.S., blamers are quick to blame conspiracy theories like captive supply and packer concentration when neither have been proven to negatively impact producer prices. If the consumer doesn't want our product, we will receive less dollars for our product and that's all there is to it.


Rod: "The price of gold inflates. The price of a cord of wood has inflated. All other raw resources have paced with inflation, except for farm products, even though deamnd for our product is at record levels."

The supply and demand equation for gold is not the same as beef. Beef competes with poultry and pork. What does gold compete with? Silver?

The supply of gold is not increasing. In contrast, beef supplies continue to increase DOMESTICALLY.


Rod: "Why is this? Its because we have a cheap foods policy in both the US and Canada, and it hurts the primary producer. You're attempting to paint me as scary socialist, when all I am is someone who feels that the government should be representing the PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS."

The government does represent the people. The blamers views isn't always the majority opinion.

Yes, the cheap food policies hurt the producer but consumers outnumber producers by a 98 to 2 margin. Where do you think the political influence lies? You can't continue to increase production and raise prices without consumers making demands to the government to import cheaper products. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

CONSUMERS OUTNUMBER PRODUCERS and that is a political reality.


Rod: "I have asked for the government to properly control the players in the market so that I, as a producer, can get a fair dollar for my product. This is not against free market principles as the very BASIS of a free market is unfettered competition. We no longer have this, and as a member of producer association, you should be concerned."

You, like so many other blamers, are convinced that the markets are not competitive yet you cannot offer a single stitch of proof to suggest otherwise. It's what you want to believe, not what the facts will support.
~SH~

From NCBA Statistics:

(5) Net beef imports into the U.S. in 2004 were the highest ever, at 3.2 billion pounds. Even with the closure of our own export markets, we saw a larger percentage of this supply coming from outside the U.S. to satisfy such historic demand levels. Said another way, U.S. beef producers are providing the smallest percentage ever of total U.S. beef demand.
 
~SH~ said:
There is a very logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up. That is because the supply exceeds the demand. Are calf weights the same as they were 30 years ago? Is chicken tonnage the same as it was 30 years ago?

Beef supply has ALWAYS outstripped demand, yet that gap has been closing over the last decade, all the while the true producer profit margin is shrinking. 100 years ago supply HEAVILY outstripped demand, moreso than today, yet the profits from a single animal would buy a huge economic basket of goods. Today, profits from a single animal will not buy that large a basket of goods.

~SH~ said:
The supply and demand equation for gold is not the same as beef. Beef competes with poultry and pork. What does gold compete with? Silver?

Gold does have substitutes and competitors in the form of silver, platinum, and other precious metals. There are even synthetic variants. Yet the price of gold consistently comes up each year (with aberrations of course). Ditto on lumber. There are alternative building supplies now that SERIOUSLY compete against lumber, yet corded lumber price continues to rise despite a decrease in demand (both from alternative competition and from reduced building).

~SH~ said:
The supply of gold is not increasing.

So they're not mining anymore gold or precious metals? Not making new finds? The tree harvest in Canada is staying steady, despite reduced demand, and corded lumber price is on the rise again.

The problem is that a single producer has no power to be able to influence a market. We can't stand pat on our calves and say, "NO, we won't sell at this price." And so concentration and players who work all sides of an industry are able to grind us down. Eliminate the concentration, and break up the corporations who play all sides of the demand equation, and all of a sudden, producer margins come back again.

Rod
 
~ You said:
When the border was closed and Canadian beef was worthless to the producer the actual retail price of beef went up! There was a glut of beef but yet the price went up on the retail level.
The outfit that I used to work for went bankrupt. The guys wife left him. He was hospitalised three times because of stress. That was a third generation ranch that was lost. But by God those Packers made money off of him.
 
RoperAB said:
When the border was closed and Canadian beef was worthless to the producer the actual retail price of beef went up! There was a glut of beef but yet the price went up on the retail level.
The outfit that I used to work for went bankrupt. The guys wife left him. He was hospitalised three times because of stress. That was a third generation ranch that was lost. But by God those Packers made money off of him.

SH, like so many other backers, are convinced that the markets are competitive yet they cannot offer a single stitch of proof to prove it is. It's what they want to believe, not what the facts will support.

:lol:

Sorry SH, I liked your quote so much that I had to steal it.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
RoperAB said:
When the border was closed and Canadian beef was worthless to the producer the actual retail price of beef went up! There was a glut of beef but yet the price went up on the retail level.
The outfit that I used to work for went bankrupt. The guys wife left him. He was hospitalised three times because of stress. That was a third generation ranch that was lost. But by God those Packers made money off of him.

SH, like so many other backers, are convinced that the markets are competitive yet they cannot offer a single stitch of proof to prove it is. It's what they want to believe, not what the facts will support.

:lol:

Sorry SH, I liked your quote so much that I had to steal it.

Rod

I would really appreciate you posting the higher Canadian retail prices you claim occurred after the BSE incident. All the data I have seen and that which was reported was lower retail prices. Perhaps not as low as many thought they should go but they did move consistent with the ratio of retail to live which is precisely what they should do. In the U.S they went up to reflect cattle that ultimately exceed $105/cwt. However, at no time did U.S. retail price ever reflect cattle prices over $95.
 
ROD: "Beef supply has ALWAYS outstripped demand, yet that gap has been closing over the last decade, all the while the true producer profit margin is shrinking. 100 years ago supply HEAVILY outstripped demand, moreso than today, yet the profits from a single animal would buy a huge economic basket of goods. Today, profits from a single animal will not buy that large a basket of goods."

DEMAND AT WHAT PRICE??????

What a shallow statement Rod. Of course there will always be a demand for the supply BUT AT WHAT PRICE?????

Demand is a PRICE/QUANTITY measurement. You don't just measure quantity and you don't just measure price. YOU MEASURE PRICE IN RELATION TO THE QUANTITY TO TRULY MEASURE DEMAND.

If "true producer profit margin is shrinking" as you say, why are some ranches expanding while others are selling?

Answer the question Rod!

Is this another example of the obvious being too obvious for you again?


Rod: "Gold does have substitutes and competitors in the form of silver, platinum, and other precious metals. There are even synthetic variants. Yet the price of gold consistently comes up each year (with aberrations of course). Ditto on lumber. There are alternative building supplies now that SERIOUSLY compete against lumber, yet corded lumber price continues to rise despite a decrease in demand (both from alternative competition and from reduced building)."

It doesn't matter what the commodity is, prices are driven by supply and demand. The demand and supply of gold will dictate the price. The price of Silver and platinum will be determined by the supply and the demand. The price of lumber will be determined by the supply and the demand. Beef prices are no different. We just saw the highest cattle prices ever recorded in U.S. history. WHY? SUPPLY AND DEMAND!


Rod: "The problem is that a single producer has no power to be able to influence a market. We can't stand pat on our calves and say, "NO, we won't sell at this price." And so concentration and players who work all sides of an industry are able to grind us down. Eliminate the concentration, and break up the corporations who play all sides of the demand equation, and all of a sudden, producer margins come back again."

That is absolute bullsh*t!

We just saw the highest cattle prices ever recorded with no change in concentration and no change in captive supply. Cattle prices are driven by the supply and the demand for beef and beef by products, not by industry concentration. There is absolutely no basis in truth to that statement. Industry competition leads to concentration in the packing industry, in the feeding industry, and on the ranch. Ranchers are getting bigger, not smaller. Should we break them up to? You packer blamers are always looking for a scapegoat and always looking to "big bwadda govahment" to solve your PERCEIVED problems for you.


Roper AB: "When the border was closed and Canadian beef was worthless to the producer the actual retail price of beef went up! There was a glut of beef but yet the price went up on the retail level.
The outfit that I used to work for went bankrupt. The guys wife left him. He was hospitalised three times because of stress. That was a third generation ranch that was lost. But by God those Packers made money off of him."

ONLY BECAUSE CANADA SUDDENLY FOUND THEMSELVES WITH MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY. That is not a normal supply and demand situation because Canada historically relied on the U.S. to slaughter a large percentage of those cattle. When packers were making money in Canada, they were closing down plants and losing more than enough money to offset it in the U.S. That is a fact!

Due to the costs of SRM removal, Canadian packers weren't making as big of profits as many of you believe. There was actually a quarter when Tyson's Lakeside plant lost money when the border was closed.

You guys don't know what your talking about when it comes to packer profitabilty.


~SH~
 
Mike said:
~SH~ said:
Rod: "I simply state that there is no logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up."

There is a very logical reason why a primary producer should not be able to expect the price of his commodity to go up as inflation goes up. That is because the supply exceeds the demand. Are calf weights the same as they were 30 years ago? Is chicken tonnage the same as it was 30 years ago?

When supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices are going to reflect that increased supply by falling no matter what inflation does. There is no guarantees of a profit in this industry and all the packer blaming conspiracy theories in the world won't change the supply and demand equation. Instead of focusing on increasing consumer demand for beef in the U.S., blamers are quick to blame conspiracy theories like captive supply and packer concentration when neither have been proven to negatively impact producer prices. If the consumer doesn't want our product, we will receive less dollars for our product and that's all there is to it.


Rod: "The price of gold inflates. The price of a cord of wood has inflated. All other raw resources have paced with inflation, except for farm products, even though deamnd for our product is at record levels."

The supply and demand equation for gold is not the same as beef. Beef competes with poultry and pork. What does gold compete with? Silver?

The supply of gold is not increasing. In contrast, beef supplies continue to increase DOMESTICALLY.


Rod: "Why is this? Its because we have a cheap foods policy in both the US and Canada, and it hurts the primary producer. You're attempting to paint me as scary socialist, when all I am is someone who feels that the government should be representing the PEOPLE not CORPORATIONS."

The government does represent the people. The blamers views isn't always the majority opinion.

Yes, the cheap food policies hurt the producer but consumers outnumber producers by a 98 to 2 margin. Where do you think the political influence lies? You can't continue to increase production and raise prices without consumers making demands to the government to import cheaper products. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

CONSUMERS OUTNUMBER PRODUCERS and that is a political reality.


Rod: "I have asked for the government to properly control the players in the market so that I, as a producer, can get a fair dollar for my product. This is not against free market principles as the very BASIS of a free market is unfettered competition. We no longer have this, and as a member of producer association, you should be concerned."

You, like so many other blamers, are convinced that the markets are not competitive yet you cannot offer a single stitch of proof to suggest otherwise. It's what you want to believe, not what the facts will support.
~SH~

From NCBA Statistics:

(5) Net beef imports into the U.S. in 2004 were the highest ever, at 3.2 billion pounds. Even with the closure of our own export markets, we saw a larger percentage of this supply coming from outside the U.S. to satisfy
such historic demand levels. Said another way, U.S. beef producers are providing the smallest percentage ever of total U.S. beef demand.

That statement is true only when measured relative to the lowest domestic production during this cycle which was 2.6 billion pounds below the peak production level of 27.1 billion pounds. The low point in this cycle was 2004-2005 at 24.5 billion pounds. If that statement was from the NCBA it was not entirely correct and must be stated in the proper context to be correct.
 
agman said:
1) I would really appreciate you posting the higher Canadian retail prices you claim occurred after the BSE incident. All the data I have seen and that which was reported was lower retail prices.

2) Perhaps not as low as many thought they should go but they did move consistent with the ratio of retail to live which is precisely what they should do

1) If you're looking at an average, then CanFax states we had about a 20% drop in retail prices OVERALL. However, high end cuts went up, while fed and feeder prices dropped. Low end and poor cuts dropped by about 30%, while ground beef prices remained relatively steady

2) BULL, in more ways than 1. At least not in Canada. An average 20% drop in retail price was NOT reflected by a 20% average reduction in fed, feeder, OR cull prices. Culls dropped from highs of 80 cents down to 2 cents at their low end, averaging 20 cents over the term. Oddly enough (not!), while retail prices have sprung back up, our culls are still 20 - 30 cents. 8 weight feeders dropped from $1.35 to 75 cents. Eastern markets didn't take as big a hit though. I'm too tired to bother working percentages right now, but the %age drop across the board does NOT match the %age drop in average retail prices. And it certainly does NOT match the increase in retail price of high end cuts.

I suspect you haven't bothered to look at statistically weighted cattle prices over those BSE years. You can't take the average eastern price of cattle, and average it with the average price in western Canada on a 1:1 basis. We have 80% of Canada's beef in Western Canada.

Rod
 
~SH~ said:
What a shallow statement Rod. Of course there will always be a demand for the supply BUT AT WHAT PRICE?????

Demand is a PRICE/QUANTITY measurement. You don't just measure quantity and you don't just measure price. YOU MEASURE PRICE IN RELATION TO THE QUANTITY TO TRULY MEASURE DEMAND.

If "true producer profit margin is shrinking" as you say, why are some ranches expanding while others are selling?

SH, you need to go to school again and look at supply/demand charts. In the cattle market, demand versus supply DETERMINES THE PRICE. Where the quantity of supply crosses the demand at a price point chart, we have an equilibrium price point. You don't just magically move up and down demand line without thinking about supply. We're price takers, not price makers. Early in the 1900s supply outstripped demand by a HEALTHY margin. We've seen the demand FOR BEEF on a steady increase, while supply has increasing at a LOWER RATE. This means that the price paid for beef should have risen a disproportionate amount when compared to the cost of inputs. It hasn't.

I'll take some time this evening and post an Economics 101 (apologies to Econ) lesson for you on supply and demand charts. You will find it enlightening.

As far as ranches expanding versus ranches getting out, some ranches are more profitable than others due to better management. Thats a given. My own ranch is expanding each year, however it DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that my profit margins are shrinking each year, DESPITE even better management techniques and cost reduction measures. You'll have to do better than that SH.

~SH~ said:
We just saw the highest cattle prices ever recorded in U.S. history. WHY? SUPPLY AND DEMAND!

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend, given that you preach it from the packer standpoint all the time. PROFIT MARGIN IS ALL THAT MATTERS. It doesn't matter that you're seeing the highest cattle prices ever recorded if the profit margins are still shrinking.

~SH~ said:
ONLY BECAUSE CANADA SUDDENLY FOUND THEMSELVES WITH MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY.

SH, you'd best stick to the US market. You know NOTHING about ours. Canada saw a brief period where we had more cattle than slaughter capacity. We quickly caught up (about 1 year) and yet still saw prices sitting at their low spot.

~SH~ said:
Due to the costs of SRM removal, Canadian packers weren't making as big of profits as many of you believe. There was actually a quarter when Tyson's Lakeside plant lost money when the border was closed.

Your SRM removal costs are a dream SH. It costs my local butcher $25 for SRM removal and another $25 for disposal. Are you telling me that a packer can't do it for less? Perhaps maybe we should go back to the small butchers doing ALL the work. They may be more efficient.

Rod
 
2005 ADVANCES THE STRUCTURE AND POWER OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
Joan M. Veon

Last year was another instrumental year in the advance of world government. While most commentators will concentrate on popularized events, many will not discuss the latest steps taken to cement the final touches to a world governmental structure that has been in the making for the last 150 years or so. In order to understand the importance of 2005's global achievements in the march towards global governance which is the integration of the world's peoples, countries, and philosophies, we must briefly visit the past.

While we cannot recount all, the later half of the 19th century birthed Fabian socialism in 1883, the year that Karl Marx died. The small group which included Sidney and Beatrice Webb who decided to name their society after the Third Century Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who never confronted his enemy but used successful guerrilla tactics to wear them down. The aims of the Fabian socialists, according to the "Basis" which was adopted by them in 1919, are "the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial capital from individual ownership and vesting them in the community for the general benefit" (Edward Pease, History of the Fabian Socialists, 1916, p.296, Appendix II). Founder Sidney Webb described socialism as "The conscious and deliberate substitution, in industrial as well as political matters, of the collective self-government of the community as a whole, organized on a democratic basis for the individual control over other men's lives, which unrestrained private ownership of land and industrial capital inevitable involves" (Anne Fremantle, This Little Band of Profits: The British Fabians, 1960).

It is the vision of the Webb's and their disciples such as H.G. Wells and John Maynard Keynes, that we see in all that is happening around us today. It includes the graduated income tax, control of the banking system, free trade and a globalized level of government that shifts the power of national governments to the international level, transfer of wealth and a change in property rights.

Let us re-count the 1913 birth of the U.S. tax code. Over the past 92 years, the burden of taxation has been shifted from the highest income tax to the middle class as income tax rates under Ronald Reagan dropped from 60% to 35%. That same year, the Federal Reserve Act was passed. What this meant is that a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, now manages the monetary and financial system of the United States of America. As such, they have greater power than our president and Congress as they control the banking system and the country's business cycle. You will remember that the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to eliminate the ups and downs of the business cycle. However, the country has not experienced that as it appears that the Fed has embraced Joseph Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction which is based on the boom/bust business cycle (Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1942, p.83). Will the American people ever figure out that the reason why we cannot forgive ourselves the interest on the national debt is because we owe it to a private corporation and they want what the interest which Congress originally agreed to when they passed the Federal Reserve Act. If you want to know where they get their money to lend to our government-they print it!

Beginning in 1944, the walls between the nation-states began to fall as a new international infrastructure was set in place above the nation-states. One fine example of this was the United States signing in 1947 the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs which became the World Trade Organization in 1994. With the birth of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank, the financial and economic barriers fell, with the birth of the United Nations, the political barriers fell, with the birth of the World Trade Organization, the trade barriers fell, with the birth of the International Criminal Court, the legal barriers fell, and as a result of 9/11, military and intelligence barriers fell between the nation-states. Thus today, we are in a borderless world.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon, issued Executive Order No. 11647 which divided the United States into ten regions, each with its own administrator who then reports directly to the president. Described as "metro government" or "regional government", it decreases the lines of power and authority which centralizes all the decision-making in the White House. Today, Metro or Regional Government is alive and well as it is being given greater position not only in all of the new rebuilding of the new development plans being made public by Mississippi and New Orleans, but with many states trying to pass laws to consolidate the local, county, and village levels of government. Furthermore, our government has circumvented the power of the states by now taking the funds the states send them and re-distributing it to the metro or regional government instead! Many of the infrastructure needs such as transportation, waste, water, etc. are all on a "regional" basis.

In 1990, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales put together a new organization, the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders' Forum, with the purpose of setting up public-private partnerships-PPP between governments, business, and non-governmental organizations. Basically, public-private partnerships provide a way for corporations to become "co-managers" with government regarding the governance of the country. The Prince admitted in a speech while he was in the United States that he met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to see if business and government could work together. What came out of their discussions was the U.N. Global Compact. Today, thousands of public-private partnerships are operating world-wide and are now commonplace. They include partnerships for schools, sewer systems, transportation, water, utilities, etc. In fact the proposed Trans Texas Corridor will be a PPP. At the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development, over 250 PPP's were formed-that activity was unprecedented. One is the Congo Basin Forest Partnership which involves 14 governments, including the U.S. and 8 African countries, 8 environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund along with the American Forest and Paper Association which represents 200 companies. This partnership includes 74 million acres of land in Africa. Furthermore, there are dozens of these types of complex partnerships that the U.S. has entered into that include countries around the world.

In 1992, the UN held the "Rio Earth Summit" in which those attending, which numbered less than 30,000, agreed to Agenda 21 which is a complete reordering of the planet. It basically elevates the earth above the value of man as man's value is dependent on if he or she can produce. It basically says that the earth's resources need to be counted, controlled, and monitored for "future generations." Fifteen years later, every country in the world has changed how their government operates as sustainable development is carried out worldwide. One of the treaties encompassed in Agenda 21 is the UN Biological Diversity Treaty which says man has to be sequestered into "growth areas" so that the rest of the country can be put back for the purpose of re-wilding or allowing animals to roam freely.

In 2000, the United Nations was given an overhaul in which more power was given to the Secretary-General and the General Assembly. It was also given the ability to have its own rapid defense force. Furthermore, it was given the ability to raise its own finances through various schemes to be determined in the future. Lastly, the UN unveiled the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease worldwide which will demand new ways to find new sources of funds. With this background, we can now understand the events of 2005.

Since 9/11 which tore down the final barriers between the nation-states which were the intelligence and military barriers, the world has entered the "finishing stage." By this we are talking about finding ways to integrate the people of the world so that they are one and feel they have common concerns-or catastrophic occurrences which blend the peoples together as one. The people now have to be brought together as one people. The South Seas Tsunami did just that. The outpouring of aid from around the world was unprecedented. Even Presidents Bush and Clinton teamed up to raise monies. Schools, churches, the Boy Scouts, department stores, football teams, singers, actors, and famous people from across the U.S. raised monies. The U.S. gave $1B in gifts and donations alone. At the 2005 World Economic Forum, Sharon Stone put up $10,000 and challenged attendees to give money for the tsunami. Within minutes, she raised $1M. Interestingly enough, a number of the corporations of the Global Compact were there, even before governments could get aid to the devastated area. This global outpouring of compassion helped to solidify the people of the world. Then Hurricanes Katrina and Rita continued the compassionate response that only comes from the most sacred place a person has, the heart. Now it was time for other countries to come to the aid of America.

Since there are no longer any barriers between the nation-states, that means the poor, starving, and diseased of the world are everyone's responsibility, or so they would have us believe. The Fabian socialists would call this a transfer of wealth. At the 2004 Group of Eight meeting in Sea Island, Georgia and then at the 2005 World Economic Forum in January, French President Jacques Chirac called for a global tax for the poor. In Davos, he specified a tax on airline tickets. At the July, 2005 Group of Eight meeting in Scotland, it was high on the agenda for the heads of state with the French specifying the parameters. When I asked Chirac if there would be other kinds of global taxes if this was successful, he told me they had many other types planned. In fact, right before Christmas, the French Government passed a levy tax on airline tickets to generate $236M a year for health programs aimed at helping the world's poorest countries. Of course this measure was applauded by the United Nations as a creative way of raising money. Perhaps I should mention that this is the first time since the Roman Empire in the time of the birth of Jesus, that a global tax has been passed.

With regard to regionalism, while the U.S. has been divided up nationally, we are also part of a hemispheric free trade bloc known as the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA. While the FTAA will involve all 34 countries in this hemisphere, it is being implemented gradually. The North American Free Trade Area-NAFTA was passed in 1994 and in 2005, the Central American Free Trade Agreement-CAFTA was passed. Because of the opposition to this bill, Bush made a special trip to Capital Hill where he twisted arms by granting over 6,000 pork barrel promises which were funded by the Transportation Bill pass before the summer recess.

It should be noted that any type of regional government-either within the U.S. or within the hemisphere is government by appointed officials and not ELECTED officials. Just as the UN system is based on appointed officials, so too is regional government which is the extension of the UN form of government. In other words, the ability of the people to have a say will not be through elected officials but by APPOINTED officials. In Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance in 1995 wrote, "The UN must prepare for a time when regionalism becomes more ascendant worldwide, and even help the process." This brings us to the new actors that are now involved in governance.

The globalists do not like to refer to the new structure which is being birthed in the world as "world government." Instead, they prefer to call it "global governance." This term refers to all the new actors that are making their views known. In the past, at the United Nations General Assembly, only member-states made speeches during the General Assembly, but because of the rise of corporations through the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, the International Chamber of Commerce and other international groups, business and non-governmental organizations now give presentations. Also, both of these groups freely lobby at the UN, at global conferences, and nationally.

Foundations have long been an actor on the international stage. Of the top 50 foundation in the United States in 2003, the Ford Foundation ranks No.2 in size at $10.6B, behind the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at $26.8B. The total yearly giving of the top 50 foundations is well over $133.6B. Foundations play a very major role today in making and changing society and values. Rene Wormser wrote in 1958, "The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reach far into government, into the policymaking circles of Congress and into the State Department. This has been effected through the pressure of public opinion, mobilized by the instruments of the foundations" (Foundations-Their Power and Influence). The question asked by the Reece Committee which delved into the power of foundations was, "To what extent, if any, are the funds of the large foundations aiding and abetting Marxist tendencies in the United States and weakening the love which every American should have for his way of life?"

At the heart of Agenda 21 is sustainable development which supports "highest and best use" of the world's resources which includes you and me. As a result of Agenda 21's, Biological Diversity Treaty, man needs to be sequestered into growth areas. In 1997, the state of Maryland was the first to pass "Smart Growth" legislation which designates areas of growth that a state will allow in order to support those areas with infrastructure. Non-growth areas are those that will not be supported by the State with tax dollars for infrastructure. Maryland's Smart Growth legislation was in effect the passage of the UN Biological Diversity Treaty.

In 2005, personal property rights, the cornerstone of American civilization, were dealt a severe blow with the Supreme Court Kelo vs. New London ruling which says that the city had the right to use eminent domain to force highest and best use of property that would create jobs and increase tax revenue for the public good. Around the U.S., the use of eminent domain is gaining popularity. Now everyone's home and property is at risk.

In September, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour brought together a team of 110 urban planners in architecture, regional and community planning, civil and transportation engineering, environmentalism, codes and laws, retail, economics, public process and communication who came together to envision and plan to rebuild 11 coastal cities and 120 miles of coastal region. Headed up by the Congress for New Urbanism, they are now in the process of obtaining community agreement for their plans. It should be noted that the "new urbanism" which the Congress uses is basically Smart Growth or the UN Biological Diversity Treaty. It encompasses a return to the town planning principles in practice before the automobile, recycling existing buildings and land where possible, promoting a sense of community, revitalizing historic downtowns and residential neighborhood, giving people the option of walking, bilking or taking public transportation, high density building, and sustainable transportation which is mass transit.

The New Urbanism encompasses the sustainable philosophy of highest and best use. Therefore, if there are key neighborhoods that can be rebuilt to attract businesses: hotels, office buildings, convention centers to bring in more tax revenues, those neighborhoods will be subject to eminent domain. The plans drawn up by the Congress for New Urbanism also use regional or metro government as well as public-private partnerships.

In summary, 2005 moved us closer to world government. There is a continuing revolution over rights, values, property, and form of government. The barriers between the nation-states are gone and in its place is regionalism, supported by public-private-partnership-both advocate a structure change in government and hence, governance. There are new and powerful players that have and are changing societies norms. Transfer of wealth is now under the guise of disaster relief and airline taxes. In addition, our government is working on an "open skies" agreements with all the countries of the world. Currently they are negotiating with the EU. This means that any airline that we sign the agreement with can fly into U.S. airports and it means that the U.S. would open up the ability of foreigners to purchase our airline companies. Furthermore, the rights of the individual are now filtered through the lenses of sustainable development's "highest and best use." Personal property rights are being diluted as a result of highest and best use. The bottom line is that a permanent revolution is taking place before our very eyes. Unless you connect the dots, you will not see it or understand it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top