When meat packers own their own cattle

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down?"

Surely you jest. Tyson and Cargill would of shut down without taxpayer funds?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR, "You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down?"

Surely you jest. Tyson and Cargill would of shut down without taxpayer funds?

You were sitting all comfy in Nebraska but the sale barns all shut down and the packers weren't killing anything. It was a wreck in motion. You guys just listened to Leo and Bill and didn't have a clue what was happening up here. Before the boxed beef started moving we were in huge trouble.There was no feezer space left reefer trucks were filled up . I could see them shutting the doors. Would GM and Ford keep building cars and trucks if their was no gas?

 

[Econ101]

Guess you can't answer the question. Guess i shouldn't be surprised as you haven't answered one yet.

You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down? That money was a knee jerk reaction to a looming disaster. In formulating further relief the reaction of the market was taken into consideration avoiding lining the packers pockets.
Maybe you could explain Big C's plan as Randy never really could with out getting kinda nasty. As far as I know they had no bussiness plan to support all they did was collect $100 dollars from people to put on more meetings. The SSGA put on a meeting for four different packing plant proposals but as yet only one has come to fruitationof any amout. The big plant has so much efficency that scale make it very hard to compete.
So are you goping to answer the question of how you market your cattle to avoid giving the power to the packers?

Would it be too much to ask the Canadian government and taxpayers to keep the money in the hands of Canadians that want a free er market instead of lining Cargill and Tyson pockets? Rkaiser's Big C had a little more thought than the bail out. It is too bad it doesn't get as much support.

How about a law that allows producers like rkaiser to get the butchering services at the same margin as the packer operates on but keeping the ownership of the genetics and product he produces under his control to sell to the market he wants to develop and market to?

Awe, shucks, I don't know nothin 'bout Canada. They protect their producers in ways I never dreamed. The most simple solution for a politician is to throw money at a problem. It just might not be the best solution when they throw it at the people who make the problems in the first place.

As far as the plants you talked about going under: Those plants could easily have been bought on the cheap if that had happened. Rkaiser or other Canadians could have had the same sweet deal that Tyson had when buying Hudson. The physical plant would not have disappeared. They may have changed management. That might not have been a bad thing when you think about it.

First of all the "Bail out" was a disaster payment the happens every year in some part of the US. It went to those that owned cattle at the time and the packers owned some cattle as well as some huge cattle feeders that some producers thought shouldn't get it either but fail to remember that they are our market for cattle.

Second what were we to do with the fat cattle in Canada if those plants went under or just closed their doors for six months. You can't feed cattler forever. I will tell you a wreck so big that our industry might have collapsed.
Big C had idea but from what I could tell no bussiness plan. They wanted to test OTM for export. Did they have a commitment from a government that they would take beef? Did they have a investors?

If you want to see what kind of payment the US makes to it's producers just check out the Environmental Working Group site.

BMR, some of those payments to producers and the subsidies to get into the business are part of the reason we have such low food prices. It is part of the cheap food policy that discriminates against producers but helps the next people in the chain. The next people in the chain are the giant agribusinesses who have undue influence on the policies the governments in our two countries.

I just think it is a little absurd that politicians could not limit the payments to entities controlled by some of the big guys. We have to stop supporting the corporate welfare system in our two countries. It leads to the industry concentration and abuse of market power. Corporate welfare is as much a problem in our two countries as the dreaded welfare to poor people that has so much disdain, and rightly so, in the conservative movement. In the U.S., the republicans have decided to allow corporate welfare to continue getting campaign contributions and favor with wealthy investers. It is as much a problem in our country as yours.

While Canada may have had few choices in the midst of the BSE crisis, the choices have increased. There has been some talk here in the U.S. about windfall profit taxes on oil companies who are in a relatively same situation economically as your Canadian cattle industry. I doubt it will happen, but the political damage due to the excesses of that industry and the last energy bill that contained the similar corporate welfare as your cattle industry may mean new leadership politically.

I think that we all have to be cognizant of the move our democracies are making toward the Mexicanization of our economy. Mexico has all of the resources in both human resources and natural resources as the U.S. but its economy is not near what the U.S. economy is. The difference is that Mexico has a whole lot of deadweight losses due to the concentration of wealth and its undue influence on the economy. Both of our countries are starting down that road. As rkaiser says, that is not good for our children and/or grandchildren.

The BSE crisis is over so now it is time for the leaders of Canada's cattle industry having more input into the kind of cattle industry you want to have in Canada. It is obvious that if the same policies that the U.S. had in the Creekstone BSE testing case for foreign trade may be in the interests of large packers but not in the interest of an cattle industry that depends so much on an export market. It is almost always the case that diversification leads to a market that can take shocks better than one that does not have diversification. Canada learned that lesson with the U.S. BSE trade. The same is true with the industry concentration in Canada.

I don't have all the answers for Canada's cattle industry. It is obvious that you still have a lot to do in this regard. I think putting your head in the sand about the issues and allowing foreign interests of Cargill and Tyson to come up with all the solutions will not be in the best interest of the Canadian cattle industry. When you have RCALF growing as it has in the U.S. due to the abuse of such a system(of market power) in the U.S. and you are antgonistic to them in your most important export market instead of trying to understand the reasons why they do some of the things they do, you are not helping the future of your industry.

Go on and listen to the voices of the packer backers if you want. Putting your all your eggs in one basket has already shown you that you can end up with a basket of cracked eggs.

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down?"

Surely you jest. Tyson and Cargill would of shut down without taxpayer funds?

You were sitting all comfy in Nebraska but the sale barns all shut down and the packers weren't killing anything. It was a wreck in motion. You guys just listened to Leo and Bill and didn't have a clue what was happening up here. Before the boxed beef started moving we were in huge trouble.There was no feezer space left reefer trucks were filled up . I could see them shutting the doors. Would GM and Ford keep building cars and trucks if their was no gas?

As soon as there was something to slaughter where they could make a buck, the doors would of been open again. They didn't need the bailout - you Canadian taxpayers got hosed. Why you're not upset about that, I don't understand.

 

[mrj]

Would it be too much to ask the Canadian government and taxpayers to keep the money in the hands of Canadians that want a free er market instead of lining Cargill and Tyson pockets? Rkaiser's Big C had a little more thought than the bail out. It is too bad it doesn't get as much support.

How about a law that allows producers like rkaiser to get the butchering services at the same margin as the packer operates on but keeping the ownership of the genetics and product he produces under his control to sell to the market he wants to develop and market to?

Awe, shucks, I don't know nothin 'bout Canada. They protect their producers in ways I never dreamed. The most simple solution for a politician is to throw money at a problem. It just might not be the best solution when they throw it at the people who make the problems in the first place.

As far as the plants you talked about going under: Those plants could easily have been bought on the cheap if that had happened. Rkaiser or other Canadians could have had the same sweet deal that Tyson had when buying Hudson. The physical plant would not have disappeared. They may have changed management. That might not have been a bad thing when you think about it.

First of all the "Bail out" was a disaster payment the happens every year in some part of the US. It went to those that owned cattle at the time and the packers owned some cattle as well as some huge cattle feeders that some producers thought shouldn't get it either but fail to remember that they are our market for cattle.

Second what were we to do with the fat cattle in Canada if those plants went under or just closed their doors for six months. You can't feed cattler forever. I will tell you a wreck so big that our industry might have collapsed.
Big C had idea but from what I could tell no bussiness plan. They wanted to test OTM for export. Did they have a commitment from a government that they would take beef? Did they have a investors?

If you want to see what kind of payment the US makes to it's producers just check out the Environmental Working Group site.

BMR, some of those payments to producers and the subsidies to get into the business are part of the reason we have such low food prices. It is part of the cheap food policy that discriminates against producers but helps the next people in the chain. The next people in the chain are the giant agribusinesses who have undue influence on the policies the governments in our two countries.

I just think it is a little absurd that politicians could not limit the payments to entities controlled by some of the big guys. We have to stop supporting the corporate welfare system in our two countries. It leads to the industry concentration and abuse of market power. Corporate welfare is as much a problem in our two countries as the dreaded welfare to poor people that has so much disdain, and rightly so, in the conservative movement. In the U.S., the republicans have decided to allow corporate welfare to continue getting campaign contributions and favor with wealthy investers. It is as much a problem in our country as yours.

While Canada may have had few choices in the midst of the BSE crisis, the choices have increased. There has been some talk here in the U.S. about windfall profit taxes on oil companies who are in a relatively same situation economically as your Canadian cattle industry. I doubt it will happen, but the political damage due to the excesses of that industry and the last energy bill that contained the similar corporate welfare as your cattle industry may mean new leadership politically.

I think that we all have to be cognizant of the move our democracies are making toward the Mexicanization of our economy. Mexico has all of the resources in both human resources and natural resources as the U.S. but its economy is not near what the U.S. economy is. The difference is that Mexico has a whole lot of deadweight losses due to the concentration of wealth and its undue influence on the economy. Both of our countries are starting down that road. As rkaiser says, that is not good for our children and/or grandchildren.

The BSE crisis is over so now it is time for the leaders of Canada's cattle industry having more input into the kind of cattle industry you want to have in Canada. It is obvious that if the same policies that the U.S. had in the Creekstone BSE testing case for foreign trade may be in the interests of large packers but not in the interest of an cattle industry that depends so much on an export market. It is almost always the case that diversification leads to a market that can take shocks better than one that does not have diversification. Canada learned that lesson with the U.S. BSE trade. The same is true with the industry concentration in Canada.

I don't have all the answers for Canada's cattle industry. It is obvious that you still have a lot to do in this regard. I think putting your head in the sand about the issues and allowing foreign interests of Cargill and Tyson to come up with all the solutions will not be in the best interest of the Canadian cattle industry. When you have RCALF growing as it has in the U.S. due to the abuse of such a system(of market power) in the U.S. and you are antgonistic to them in your most important export market instead of trying to understand the reasons why they do some of the things they do, you are not helping the future of your industry.

Go on and listen to the voices of the packer backers if you want. Putting your all your eggs in one basket has already shown you that you can end up with a basket of cracked eggs.

Econ, you forget to give credit where it is due for the difference in the economies of the USA and Mexico. Our founding fathers who set this nation up on the premise that all men are created equal and endowed with rights from the Creator (to roughly paraphrase) deserve the bulk of the credit rather than your scenario, IMO. Mexico has long had a government model that keeps people in the societal niche into which you were borne and any rights come from the "good hearts" of the rulers. The common person has little chance to improve his lot in life, as I see it, based on statements made by some Mexican citizens. Your conspiracy theories just don't hold water as the sole cause of anything!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, what conspiracy are you talking about? I am beginning to think you like the word.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR, "You seem real concerned abut the money that the government gave the packers. Would we have been better off to have let them shut down?"

Surely you jest. Tyson and Cargill would of shut down without taxpayer funds?

You were sitting all comfy in Nebraska but the sale barns all shut down and the packers weren't killing anything. It was a wreck in motion. You guys just listened to Leo and Bill and didn't have a clue what was happening up here. Before the boxed beef started moving we were in huge trouble.There was no feezer space left reefer trucks were filled up . I could see them shutting the doors. Would GM and Ford keep building cars and trucks if their was no gas?

As soon as there was something to slaughter where they could make a buck, the doors would of been open again. They didn't need the bailout - you Canadian taxpayers got hosed. Why you're not upset about that, I don't understand.

What I cann't understand is why you and Econ are so concerned about it. You harp on it more then any Canadians. Were just glad that they are still operating and that they were able to operate thru most of the BSE crisis. It was pretty scary times when that border closed and all the auctions and packing houses closed with it. We did have limited kill once the smoke cleared but not near enough markets to use the supply of fat cattle. Until the border opened to boxed beef and the kill was ramped up we were in dire straight . The money that the packers got from the government was a pittance it the border had not opened.

 

[rkaiser]

How can you keep believing that the opening of the border to boxed beef had nothing to do with politics and multinational packers BMR. It was no conspiracy, it was an economic decision. We were in trouble all right, and the open boxed beef border helped, but who the hell did it help more BMR?

Goodness gracious BMR, if the border did not open to boxed beef, and the guns and fires would have started blazing ----- do you think that the Canadian government would have left you completely out in the cold? Hell no. You'd have gotten paid, but Cargill and Tyson would not have. Think about it BMR, it is NOT a conspiracy theory, it's simply economics!

Money was made, and wholesome nutritious beef was saved from the fires of hell. Use that excuse, but please stop with Cargill and Tyson saving the producers of Canada from devastation, it's getting nauseating.

 

[Econ101]

The word "conspiracy" has been thrown around on this board too freely. It is used any time one of the packer backers don't have any real points to make about the discussion so they can call names and not argue the points or use it as a sarcastic judgement term. It is a tell.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

How can you keep believing that the opening of the border to boxed beef had nothing to do with politics and multinational packers BMR. It was no conspiracy, it was an economic decision. We were in trouble all right, and the open boxed beef border helped, but who the hell did it help more BMR?

Goodness gracious BMR, if the border did not open to boxed beef, and the guns and fires would have started blazing ----- do you think that the Canadian government would have left you completely out in the cold? Hell no. You'd have gotten paid, but Cargill and Tyson would not have. Think about it BMR, it is NOT a conspiracy theory, it's simply economics!

Money was made, and wholesome nutritious beef was saved from the fires of hell. Use that excuse, but please stop with Cargill and Tyson saving the producers of Canada from devastation, it's getting nauseating.

Randy maybe opening the border was all about politics and big bussiness but the money paid out by the government would have had the Americans screaming even more. What do you think would have happened to consumer support if perfectly good cattle were driven into pits and shot and buried?
Hey your a packer how much did you pay your suppliers not to deliver cattle?
Yes Tyson and Cargill made money but would it have been better for them to close the doors? How long would it have taken someone else to aquire the plants and get them going? Would they have been any more ethical?

I still think we coasted thru with as little disruption as possible and if the packers make as much money as you say they do what does the amout they got from the government really mean anyways.

I can only hope that some day we can all say there's that SOB Randy K and look at all the money he's made in the packing house. :cowboy:

 

[mwj]

Econ I haven't moved to Canada and you still did not answer my question. Cattle or ready so I need an answer before they are to big for the box. If I can not trust the ''expert'' who should I ask. If I am doing it wrong I need some sound advice. I checked the stockyards act and they are not buying any cattle at this time. Need some space at the bunks so send me an answer please as time is wasting and yield grade is falling :?

 

[Econ101]

Econ I haven't moved to Canada and you still did not answer my question. Cattle or ready so I need an answer before they are to big for the box. If I can not trust the ''expert'' who should I ask. If I am doing it wrong I need some sound advice. I checked the stockyards act and they are not buying any cattle at this time. Need some space at the bunks so send me an answer please as time is wasting and yield grade is falling :?

Mwj, sell them to whoever will give you the highest price. As I said before, the legality of the sale in respect to the Packers and Stockyards Act is not your responsiblity. It is the packers.

 

[Jason]

Econ I haven't moved to Canada and you still did not answer my question. Cattle or ready so I need an answer before they are to big for the box. If I can not trust the ''expert'' who should I ask. If I am doing it wrong I need some sound advice. I checked the stockyards act and they are not buying any cattle at this time. Need some space at the bunks so send me an answer please as time is wasting and yield grade is falling :?

Mwj, sell them to whoever will give you the highest price. As I said before, the legality of the sale in respect to the Packers and Stockyards Act is not your responsiblity. It is the packers.

What a novel idea get competative bids from packers. Sheesh why didn't anyone think of that before! :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Econ I haven't moved to Canada and you still did not answer my question. Cattle or ready so I need an answer before they are to big for the box. If I can not trust the ''expert'' who should I ask. If I am doing it wrong I need some sound advice. I checked the stockyards act and they are not buying any cattle at this time. Need some space at the bunks so send me an answer please as time is wasting and yield grade is falling :?

Mwj, sell them to whoever will give you the highest price. As I said before, the legality of the sale in respect to the Packers and Stockyards Act is not your responsiblity. It is the packers.

What a novel idea get competative bids from packers. Sheesh why didn't anyone think of that before! :roll:

Jason, we just want to make sure they are competing for cattle. Evidence has been presented and proven to a jury in the U.S. that this was not the case.

 

[Jason]

Your back to Pickett again?

Now you say packers compete for cattle, but Pickett was about they cheat by not competing. Which way is it?

Pickett lost because his case was based on conspiarcy that didn't exist.

You continue to hold up a lost cause as proof. That's like saying you had a flat tire so Firestone must be spreading nails.

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "Pickett lost because his case was based on conspiarcy that didn't exist."

Why is "conspiracy" such a buzz word around here for some? :roll: Pickett did not claim any type of conspiracy. Pickett claimed PSA was violated. There can be violations independent of conspiracies.

 

[Jason]

What's your definition of conspiracy Sandhusker?

 

[Econ101]

What's your definition of conspiracy Sandhusker?

What is yours, Jason? The packer backers are the ones who brought it up and use it all the time, often incorrectly.

 

[Sandhusker]

What's your definition of conspiracy Sandhusker?

I'll agree with however Mr. Webster defines it. However, I don't know why you ask me, I don't believe I've ever used the word in any of my opinions on this board.

 

[mrj]

Our 1966 Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, probably not up to the standards of a Webster, but it does claim to have the blessing of Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, defines conspiracy as follows.

Conspiracy: 1. An agreeing or planning of two or more persons to do an evil act in concert; also the plan so made. 2. Law- A combination between two or more persons to commit any unlawful act, or to effect a legal purpose by unlawful means. 3. An acting together: a conspiracy of the elements.

It seems to me that possibly both of the first two definitions have been alluded to, if not claimed, by some of the packer and corporate bashers on this site. Or the definition seems to fit what is written about and attributed tothose groups by some people, IMO.

MRJ