You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
who cares if the jpn.markets open?
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
How is the Canadian situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity applicable to the U.S. situation?
DIVERT! DIVERT!
The simple fact that you would use Canada as an example of an anti-competitive market WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE U.S. MARKET DUE IN PART TO R-CULT'S "ISOLATIONIST" ACTIONS CREATING A SITUATION OF MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY IN CANADA, screams of your pathetic desperation to find something to support your packer blaming conspiracy theories.
Canada's situation has nothing to do with the U.S.'s situation.
NEXT!
Would you two like to be alone?
Hahaha! The biggest phony on this site who has never backed a single position yet wants to talk about "REAL LIFE EXAMPLES".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
~SH~
DIVERT! DIVERT!
The simple fact that you would use Canada as an example of an anti-competitive market WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE U.S. MARKET DUE IN PART TO R-CULT'S "ISOLATIONIST" ACTIONS CREATING A SITUATION OF MORE CATTLE THAN SLAUGHTER CAPACITY IN CANADA, screams of your pathetic desperation to find something to support your packer blaming conspiracy theories.
Canada's situation has nothing to do with the U.S.'s situation.
NEXT!
Conman: "Sandhusker, SH does not want real life examples."
Would you two like to be alone?
Hahaha! The biggest phony on this site who has never backed a single position yet wants to talk about "REAL LIFE EXAMPLES".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Who's diverting?
Live in stupidity if you want - your choice. You can't see the forest thru the trees.
Live in stupidity if you want - your choice. You can't see the forest thru the trees.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Your the one living in stupidity Sandbag. Too stupid to realize that Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is not the U.S.'s situation of having more slaughter capacity than cattle during the same time period.
You can't correct me with opposing facts on anything. Your world is driven by what you want to believe, not what the facts can support.
~SH~
You can't correct me with opposing facts on anything. Your world is driven by what you want to believe, not what the facts can support.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Be an idiot and refuse to recognize what REALLY HAPPENED. Suits me just fine.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Be an idiot and refuse to recognize what REALLY HAPPENED. Suits me just fine."
Most intelligent people, which would not include you, already know what REALLY HAPPENED.
R-CULT REALLY thought that Canadian imports had a much bigger impact on our cattle prices than they REALLY did so they REALLY used bse as a convenient excuse to REALLY extend the border closure which REALLY created a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada and took Canadian producers into economic hardship.
HARDLY APPLICABLE TO THE U.S.'S SITUATION!
You're the only idiot still denying what REALLY took place.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "Be an idiot and refuse to recognize what REALLY HAPPENED. Suits me just fine."
Most intelligent people, which would not include you, already know what REALLY HAPPENED.
R-CULT REALLY thought that Canadian imports had a much bigger impact on our cattle prices than they REALLY did so they REALLY used bse as a convenient excuse to REALLY extend the border closure which REALLY created a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada and took Canadian producers into economic hardship.
HARDLY APPLICABLE TO THE U.S.'S SITUATION!
You're the only idiot still denying what REALLY took place.
~SH~
They had so much of an impact on Canadian producers that the Canadian government gave a huge bail out to the industry and in doing so allowed the wealthy international agricompanies in Canada to gain more concentration in the Canadian industry. Do you deny this "reality"?
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Sandbag: "Be an idiot and refuse to recognize what REALLY HAPPENED. Suits me just fine."
Most intelligent people, which would not include you, already know what REALLY HAPPENED.
R-CULT REALLY thought that Canadian imports had a much bigger impact on our cattle prices than they REALLY did so they REALLY used bse as a convenient excuse to REALLY extend the border closure which REALLY created a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada and took Canadian producers into economic hardship.
HARDLY APPLICABLE TO THE U.S.'S SITUATION!
You're the only idiot still denying what REALLY took place.
~SH~
They had so much of an impact on Canadian producers that the Canadian government gave a huge bail out to the industry and in doing so allowed the wealthy international agricompanies in Canada to gain more concentration in the Canadian industry. Do you deny this "reality"?
That "HUGE" bailout wasn't much bigger than what the state of Montana gets every year in grain subsidies.
TimH
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Most intelligent people, which would not include you, already know what REALLY HAPPENED.
R-CULT REALLY thought that Canadian imports had a much bigger impact on our cattle prices than they REALLY did so they REALLY used bse as a convenient excuse to REALLY extend the border closure which REALLY created a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada and took Canadian producers into economic hardship.
HARDLY APPLICABLE TO THE U.S.'S SITUATION!
You're the only idiot still denying what REALLY took place.
~SH~
They had so much of an impact on Canadian producers that the Canadian government gave a huge bail out to the industry and in doing so allowed the wealthy international agricompanies in Canada to gain more concentration in the Canadian industry. Do you deny this "reality"?
That "HUGE" bailout wasn't much bigger than what the state of Montana gets every year in grain subsidies.
My share of that "huge bailout" adds up to a whopping $12.00 per cow. :shock:
Sale barn commissions ,around here, are between $18 and $20 per cow. :roll:
TimH said:Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said:They had so much of an impact on Canadian producers that the Canadian government gave a huge bail out to the industry and in doing so allowed the wealthy international agricompanies in Canada to gain more concentration in the Canadian industry. Do you deny this "reality"?
That "HUGE" bailout wasn't much bigger than what the state of Montana gets every year in grain subsidies.
My share of that "huge bailout" adds up to a whopping $12.00 per cow. :shock:
Sale barn commissions ,around here, are between $18 and $20 per cow. :roll:
I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Econ101 said:TimH said:Big Muddy rancher said:That "HUGE" bailout wasn't much bigger than what the state of Montana gets every year in grain subsidies.
My share of that "huge bailout" adds up to a whopping $12.00 per cow. :shock:
Sale barn commissions ,around here, are between $18 and $20 per cow. :roll:
I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
What do you think packers should be a Crown corporation?
Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said:TimH said:My share of that "huge bailout" adds up to a whopping $12.00 per cow. :shock:
Sale barn commissions ,around here, are between $18 and $20 per cow. :roll:
I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
What do you think packers should be a Crown corporation?
No, but they shouldn't be crowned dominance by the politicians who set public policy with public resources. I don't believe in any public welfare to huge private companies. Why should taxpayers do this? What public policy does it serve--more political contributions?
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Econ101 said:Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said:I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
What do you think packers should be a Crown corporation?
No, but they shouldn't be crowned dominance by the politicians who set public policy with public resources. I don't believe in any public welfare to huge private companies. Why should taxpayers do this? What public policy does it serve--more political contributions?
Who should own packing houses?
I don't have a problem with Tysons or anyone else owning packing houses. They should have to follow the law. When they don't, they should have to pay economic damages. There should be an efficient means to enforcement. The Secretary of Ag. has delegated this authority to some real idiots and do nothings at GIPSA. They do not understand the law (JoAnn Waterfield for instance) or they are trying to go around it for the sake of current packers (the running around trying to get rid of the Capper Volstead Act).
The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 has at its core, rules that pertain to market power. The basis of those laws are the same that public utilities (extreme case of market power) must abide by.
The P&S does not have set limits on who can own packing houses, but it does prohibit the use of market power. It is the same reasoning behind all of the anti-trust laws. They are meant to promote market efficiency, not packer efficiency. These definitions have been twisted. Personally, I would not care if there were just 2 packers, as long as they were following the law and there was an efficient method of accountability to that law. It is not necessarily about market concentration, it is about the abuse of market power. Tyson has shown that they will abuse the market power it has. The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards' only efficiency under Waterfield has been on how efficient they can shield the packers from damages. It is a fraud agency with Waterfield leading the fraud. Now Johanns put James Link, another "Brownie" crony who knows nothing about the issues in the industry and the current frauds.
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for the actions of GIPSA. In this respect he has failed. He has allowed politicians to farm the corporations that now farm the farmer through the use of market power. It leads to the degradation of the rural communities and their economies. It is a cheap food policy and it cheapens the moral authority of the USDA and everyone who works there that accepts this fraud.
The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 has at its core, rules that pertain to market power. The basis of those laws are the same that public utilities (extreme case of market power) must abide by.
The P&S does not have set limits on who can own packing houses, but it does prohibit the use of market power. It is the same reasoning behind all of the anti-trust laws. They are meant to promote market efficiency, not packer efficiency. These definitions have been twisted. Personally, I would not care if there were just 2 packers, as long as they were following the law and there was an efficient method of accountability to that law. It is not necessarily about market concentration, it is about the abuse of market power. Tyson has shown that they will abuse the market power it has. The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards' only efficiency under Waterfield has been on how efficient they can shield the packers from damages. It is a fraud agency with Waterfield leading the fraud. Now Johanns put James Link, another "Brownie" crony who knows nothing about the issues in the industry and the current frauds.
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for the actions of GIPSA. In this respect he has failed. He has allowed politicians to farm the corporations that now farm the farmer through the use of market power. It leads to the degradation of the rural communities and their economies. It is a cheap food policy and it cheapens the moral authority of the USDA and everyone who works there that accepts this fraud.
Jason
Well-known member
Econ101 said:I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
Conman your lies are growing. Where is this 49 million dollars coming from?
Cargill got $11 million and Tyson got some but not the rest. Lakeside Farms, a stand alone entity received bailout money as they make their income from cattle and don't share in the slaughter profits.
Get your facts straight.
Jason said:Econ101 said:I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
Conman your lies are growing. Where is this 49 million dollars coming from?
Cargill got $11 million and Tyson got some but not the rest. Lakeside Farms, a stand alone entity received bailout money as they make their income from cattle and don't share in the slaughter profits.
Get your facts straight.
Jason, are you trying to say that Tyson is not related to Lakeside? Are you saying they are not controlled by the same people?
The 49 million came from this forum and I believe a fellow Canadian. Go look it up if you want.
Econ, who owns the huge "private" companies such as Tyson and Cargill?Econ101 said:Big Muddy rancher said:Econ101 said:I don't mind the bailout as much as the hipocrisy of allowing Tyson 49 million in taxpayer money while cattle ranchers don't support getting control of the Canadian slaughter from these packers. Seems a little sheepish to me. Follow the leader.
What do you think packers should be a Crown corporation?
No, but they shouldn't be crowned dominance by the politicians who set public policy with public resources. I don't believe in any public welfare to huge private companies. Why should taxpayers do this? What public policy does it serve--more political contributions?
Mike
Well-known member
Econ, who owns the huge "private" companies such as Tyson and Cargill?
The Tyson family owns the majority of stock in "Tyson", and I believe that W.R. Staley owns the majority of stock in Cargill, which is a non-public corporation that employs 124,000 people in 59 countries.
Andy
Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:cattle men aint gonna see any of the money,and while I like to see the exports resuming,it will make little to no difference in price of cattle to the cattle man.
"It's pretty simple, really; through international trade agreements, the packers and processors are able to get much cheaper cattle and beef from other countries.
Sell it with a USDA grade stamp to U.S. consumers for huge mark-ups. "Then, they use the highest quality beef, born and raised right here in the USA, and send it to Japan for huge markups again,pocket the money as usual.........................good luck
I know i got a 25$ premium for the last load of cattle that i sent out because of the Japan being open. That is over and above the premium I will get on the grid. So overall it will problebly come out to 50-75 dollars ahead over the market average, in total premium.
Andy said:HAY MAKER said:cattle men aint gonna see any of the money,and while I like to see the exports resuming,it will make little to no difference in price of cattle to the cattle man.
"It's pretty simple, really; through international trade agreements, the packers and processors are able to get much cheaper cattle and beef from other countries.
Sell it with a USDA grade stamp to U.S. consumers for huge mark-ups. "Then, they use the highest quality beef, born and raised right here in the USA, and send it to Japan for huge markups again,pocket the money as usual.........................good luck
I know i got a 25$ premium for the last load of cattle that i sent out because of the Japan being open. That is over and above the premium I will get on the grid. So overall it will problebly come out to 50-75 dollars ahead over the market average, in total premium.
Andy, did your cattle go to Japan that you know of?
