who cares if the jpn.markets open?

[Big Muddy rancher]

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

OR THEY CAN BE LIKE ECON101 AND JUST REPEAT THEMSELVES :!: :cowboy:

When history is hidden, the same frauds can be repeated. Go see my post on poultry, BMR.

You were the one repeating the question.

I had to repeat it as you were either deaf or ignoring me. Or you didn't know the answer and wouldn't say so. Hey that's it you didn't know the answer.

 

[Econ101]

OR THEY CAN BE LIKE ECON101 AND JUST REPEAT THEMSELVES :!: :cowboy:

When history is hidden, the same frauds can be repeated. Go see my post on poultry, BMR.

You were the one repeating the question.

I had to repeat it as you were either deaf or ignoring me. Or you didn't know the answer and wouldn't say so. Hey that's it you didn't know the answer.

BMR, I answered your question. You just did not like the answer.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Those that imagine the lessons of history write Fairy Tales. :roll: :cowboy:

 

[Econ101]

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Those that imagine the lessons of history write Fairy Tales. :roll: :cowboy:

Are you just trying to be cute? Maybe your wife appreciates that or your grandchildren.

 

[Andy]

Andy, did your cattle go to Japan that you know of?

Now Econ does it really matter where Andy's cattle went as long as he was paid a premium because the Japanese market was open.? Ask yourself if the Japanese market hadn't openned would Andy have recieved the $25 premium? If your answer is no, then how can you stand on your comment that packers don't pass on the beneifits of the export trade on to the producers? The fact that Andy recieved the premium at all blows yours and Haymakers statements out of the water. :wink:

No, Tam, it doesn't matter. When looking at any set of conclusions I always look at the underlying assumptions. The one I was questioning here was Andy's connecting the $25.00 more per head to the opening of the Japanese market. I was not accusing him of anything or calling him names for his conclusions. I was trying to see how he made his conclusions in a nice way. It is totally apparent that with the export market Canada has to have to have sell its product that the effects of reducing supply by exports will have a greater effect on Canadian producers than U.S. producers. I hope that you do develop the markets for this oversupply. It should increase prices over what the salmon run time gave. The U.S. market is very different, however.

I made the connection because the packer said they would pay a 25$ premium for cattle that could be sent to Japan. Then the first load I sent after the boarder opened i recieved a $25 premium. The kill data also had Japan as the pen number.

 

[Econ101]

Now Econ does it really matter where Andy's cattle went as long as he was paid a premium because the Japanese market was open.? Ask yourself if the Japanese market hadn't openned would Andy have recieved the $25 premium? If your answer is no, then how can you stand on your comment that packers don't pass on the beneifits of the export trade on to the producers? The fact that Andy recieved the premium at all blows yours and Haymakers statements out of the water. :wink:

No, Tam, it doesn't matter. When looking at any set of conclusions I always look at the underlying assumptions. The one I was questioning here was Andy's connecting the $25.00 more per head to the opening of the Japanese market. I was not accusing him of anything or calling him names for his conclusions. I was trying to see how he made his conclusions in a nice way. It is totally apparent that with the export market Canada has to have to have sell its product that the effects of reducing supply by exports will have a greater effect on Canadian producers than U.S. producers. I hope that you do develop the markets for this oversupply. It should increase prices over what the salmon run time gave. The U.S. market is very different, however.

I made the connection because the packer said they would pay a 25$ premium for cattle that could be sent to Japan. Then the first load I sent after the boarder opened i recieved a $25 premium. The kill data also had Japan as the pen number.

So it was a matter of age and age is a factor of shipment of cattle out of Canada to its export markets. Seems the BSE issue is still a factor of what producers get for their cattle in Canada. Does this sound right?

 

[Tam]

No, Tam, it doesn't matter. When looking at any set of conclusions I always look at the underlying assumptions. The one I was questioning here was Andy's connecting the $25.00 more per head to the opening of the Japanese market. I was not accusing him of anything or calling him names for his conclusions. I was trying to see how he made his conclusions in a nice way. It is totally apparent that with the export market Canada has to have to have sell its product that the effects of reducing supply by exports will have a greater effect on Canadian producers than U.S. producers. I hope that you do develop the markets for this oversupply. It should increase prices over what the salmon run time gave. The U.S. market is very different, however.

I made the connection because the packer said they would pay a 25$ premium for cattle that could be sent to Japan. Then the first load I sent after the boarder opened i recieved a $25 premium. The kill data also had Japan as the pen number.

So it was a matter of age and age is a factor of shipment of cattle out of Canada to its export markets. Seems the BSE issue is still a factor of what producers get for their cattle in Canada. Does this sound right?

Can you explain why you refer to Canada while speaking about a premium that Andy recieved, his address says SD as in South Datoka. BSE seems to be a factor on what the US producers recieve also.
I would also like to know if you call US producers that sell to Tyson and Cargill when they are the highest bidders Brown Nosers? We are in the cattle business and are trying to survive. The Canadian producers have little choice to who we sell our fats to unlike those that sell to them in the US. If you don't like Tyson and Cargill gaining market power Thank R-CALF as they are the ones that handed the two Big US companies the extra time of captive supply on a silver platter. Both these companies may have recieved some tax dollars in the governments hurry to help out a struggling industry but I doubt it was anything close to the amount they pocketed because of R-CALFs prolonging the border openning.
And I'm glad you don't think Trade is bad when it comes to the 60 some billion dollars that the US does but damn any other county that has a bit extra to export if it cuts into the US profits right Econ? What do you think that 60 billion in export trade is doing to the prices producers in the countries the US exports to get for their product?

 

[feeder]

Welcome back Tam. How you doing?

 

[Econ101]

I made the connection because the packer said they would pay a 25$ premium for cattle that could be sent to Japan. Then the first load I sent after the boarder opened i recieved a $25 premium. The kill data also had Japan as the pen number.

So it was a matter of age and age is a factor of shipment of cattle out of Canada to its export markets. Seems the BSE issue is still a factor of what producers get for their cattle in Canada. Does this sound right?

Can you explain why you refer to Canada while speaking about a premium that Andy recieved, his address says SD as in South Datoka. BSE seems to be a factor on what the US producers recieve also.
I would also like to know if you call US producers that sell to Tyson and Cargill when they are the highest bidders Brown Nosers? We are in the cattle business and are trying to survive. The Canadian producers have little choice to who we sell our fats to unlike those that sell to them in the US. If you don't like Tyson and Cargill gaining market power Thank R-CALF as they are the ones that handed the two Big US companies the extra time of captive supply on a silver platter. Both these companies may have recieved some tax dollars in the governments hurry to help out a struggling industry but I doubt it was anything close to the amount they pocketed because of R-CALFs prolonging the border openning.
And I'm glad you don't think Trade is bad when it comes to the 60 some billion dollars that the US does but damn any other county that has a bit extra to export if it cuts into the US profits right Econ? What do you think that 60 billion in export trade is doing to the prices producers in the countries the US exports to get for their product?

Tam, sorry I did not make the connection so apparent. Right now there is a back log of older cattle in both Canada and possibly the U.S. because of the way the BSE thing has been handled by the USDA. Under 30 month has more to do with percieved health risk than any thing else. Japan import rules prove that. As you can tell, I am very critical of the BSE issue and its consequences.

As far as cattlemen are concerned, they should get the highest dollar they can get for their cattle, no matter where it is. The PSA does not prohibit this from cattlemen. It does prohibit the packers from using this strategic buying as an exercise of market power. Cattlemen are not to blame for the exercise of market power by those with market power. It is the fault of those with market power and no liability is on or should be considered by cattlemen who have no market power. The PSA is a law to curb the market power of packers, not cattlemen. As I stated before, there is another law, the Capper Volstead Act, that allows cattlemen to "collude" and use market power to further their interests. It is not used very much. Someday I may go over the Goldkist (poultry) cooperative's failure to do this--maybe for Jason as he brought up this tactic. Tyson's abuse of market power was one of the reasons Becker (CEO of Goldkist) used to take Goldkist out of the cooperative form. It is interesting to me that there was such a move within the USDA to kill the exemptions of agricultural orgs. from anti-trust provisions. This to me shows the intent of some of the legal talent within the USDA (JoAnn Waterfield was involved in this one also).

Here is the applicable part of the law:

§ 17. Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations
Release date: 2005-08-01

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

As to your other question of calling people brown nosers, I do not believe that the average producer who sells to the highest bidder, whoever it is, falls under that category. That name is reserved for those who justify the packer's position, not the producer's position. Big difference. The PSA has that difference as a part of its core. The court did not understand that difference or why it is there. Another reason why judges should not assume the responsibilty of making law. That is not their field of expertise. The 11th circuit can not even discern the difference between two common words, "and" and "or" in their interpetation of the PSA. Pretty basic stuff. Pres. Clinton started the whole "change the meaning of words" lawyer B.S. when he didn't know the meaning of the word "is". Tyson just convinced the 11th circuit to do the same.

The thing I don't like about the Canadian situation, is that because it is an international situation, Tyson's and Cargill get to not even consider the anti-trust laws of the U.S. with that supply. Canadians should make sure that their laws and the U.S. laws like the PSA and the Robinson Patman Act and the Capper Volstead Act do not apply to that supply. That problem should be remedied as I have advocated before.

As to r-calf. I think the above paragraph encapsolates thier position pretty well, but I don't know for sure. As SH has pointed out time and time again, rcalf had little effect on the trade. The policy makers at the USDA, who are doing whatever the packers want, have had the real impact. Rcalf is trying to hold them to some sort of scientific standard instead of a political standard. R-calfers are a little upset, perhaps, that Canadians subsidized the packers in Canada with taxpayer money and are not taking ANY steps to inact laws such as the PSA, the Robinson Patman, and the other anti-trust laws that should be enforced across the border if you want to have an open border. In that respect, they have a point.

As to your points on other trade issues, I am probably closer to your view on trade on the points you make than you realize. It is just hard for you to see it. I have already posted where CAFTA is going to hurt indigenous agriculture in CAFTA countries. It was another trade deal for large corpoerate interests to the detriment of producers. Probably why the underlying rules required for its implementation are not being enacted in the CAFTA countries.

Thanks for letting me clarify my position, Tam. I look forward to your response and input.

 

[Jason]

Tam, sorry I did not make the connection so apparent. Right now there is a back log of older cattle in both Canada and possibly the U.S. because of the way the BSE thing has been handled by the USDA. Under 30 month has more to do with percieved health risk than any thing else. Japan import rules prove that. As you can tell, I am very critical of the BSE issue and its consequences.

You can't even get simple facts straight.

US processors wanted access to Canadian OTM cattle beacuse of a SHORTAGE of them in the US.

The Canadian supply of OTM cattle is being reduced daily by demand from consumers. The price of culls in Canada has risen dramatically.

 

[Tam]

Welcome back Tam. How you doing?

I'm not doing to bad if the fibro. would settle down, I would be doing better. Still busy with wedding things and looking forward to Spring. Thanks for asking

 

[Econ101]

Tam, sorry I did not make the connection so apparent. Right now there is a back log of older cattle in both Canada and possibly the U.S. because of the way the BSE thing has been handled by the USDA. Under 30 month has more to do with percieved health risk than any thing else. Japan import rules prove that. As you can tell, I am very critical of the BSE issue and its consequences.

You can't even get simple facts straight.

US processors wanted access to Canadian OTM cattle beacuse of a SHORTAGE of them in the US.

The Canadian supply of OTM cattle is being reduced daily by demand from consumers. The price of culls in Canada has risen dramatically.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

U.S. processors want them because they are cheap.

 

[Tam]

Tam, sorry I did not make the connection so apparent. Right now there is a back log of older cattle in both Canada and possibly the U.S. because of the way the BSE thing has been handled by the USDA. Under 30 month has more to do with percieved health risk than any thing else. Japan import rules prove that. As you can tell, I am very critical of the BSE issue and its consequences.

You can't even get simple facts straight.

US processors wanted access to Canadian OTM cattle beacuse of a SHORTAGE of them in the US.

The Canadian supply of OTM cattle is being reduced daily by demand from consumers. The price of culls in Canada has risen dramatically.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

U.S. processors want them because they are cheap.

Econ can you tell us why the US processors wanted them pre BSE? The US processors demand for our cattle didn't just come about since BSE killed the OTM cattle prices. Buying OTM cattle from Canada was their way of keeping their plant working at or near capacity. Since the border closed those plants have lost money and laid off workers because they don't have enough cattle in the US to keep them busy and can't access Canadian cattle to fill in the shortages. So is it because they are cheap or is it so they can get their employees back to work and their plants running at close to capacity and stop the flood of red ink in their books.

 

[Econ101]

You can't even get simple facts straight.

US processors wanted access to Canadian OTM cattle beacuse of a SHORTAGE of them in the US.

The Canadian supply of OTM cattle is being reduced daily by demand from consumers. The price of culls in Canada has risen dramatically.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

U.S. processors want them because they are cheap.

Econ can you tell us why the US processors wanted them pre BSE? The US processors demand for our cattle didn't just come about since BSE killed the OTM cattle prices. Buying OTM cattle from Canada was their way of keeping their plant working at or near capacity. Since the border closed those plants have lost money and laid off workers because they don't have enough cattle in the US to keep them busy and can't access Canadian cattle to fill in the shortages. So is it because they are cheap or is it so they can get their employees back to work and their plants running at close to capacity and stop the flood of red ink in their books.

More supply helps decrease the packer's costs, that is true. The cattleman's real bargaining power (economic term) in the deal is their ability to do exactly what you say in this post. Canadian cattle used to fill "shortages" for U.S. plant capacity makes its use as captive supply all the more important in driving down the market with market power. This is all the more reason that the U.S. - Canada should have a international version of the Packers and Stockyards Act with competitent enforcement not influenced by politics.

By the way Tam, there are no "shortages"; just markets reacting to price to find their equilibrium supply and demand point.

Thanks for your post, Tam.

 

[mwj]

Econ should the Nebraska packers be blocked or regulated from bringing in cattle from Kansas to fill the hooks or should big brother tell them to slow the chain speed?

 

[Econ101]

Econ should the Nebraska packers be blocked or regulated from bringing in cattle from Kansas to fill the hooks or should big brother tell them to slow the chain speed?

I think the jurors in the Pickett case clearly stated there was a national market for beef. They said nothing about an international market.

If the packers are using captive supply in Kansas for the Nebraska market, that might be a suggested remedy for the problem. I know the Sustainable Ag. people probably wouldn't mind your suggestion as a remedy.

 

[mwj]

Econ I ''sugested'' nothing, I asked ''you'' a question. That is why ''I'' used these?????????????????????????????????????? :lol:

 

[Jason]

As per usual conman has no idea of why cattle move from one area to another.

Business descisions by packers to compete against other packers have created the situation where Northern US packers use Candian cattle to fill out the lines.

The transportation costs of cattle to slaughter and beef to population require these packers.

Agman has clearly stated there was far fewer US cows slaughtered and that was what drove the price higher. If I recall correctly it was over 2 million less. The bogus 900,000 head from Canada number wouldn't even fill the shortage of US cows even if it was true, and that many cows could move South.

 

[Econ101]

As per usual conman has no idea of why cattle move from one area to another.

Business descisions by packers to compete against other packers have created the situation where Northern US packers use Candian cattle to fill out the lines.

The transportation costs of cattle to slaughter and beef to population require these packers.

Agman has clearly stated there was far fewer US cows slaughtered and that was what drove the price higher. If I recall correctly it was over 2 million less. The bogus 900,000 head from Canada number wouldn't even fill the shortage of US cows even if it was true, and that many cows could move South.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

Cattle move because they are bought and trucked. I know all about the plant just out of Boise in Kuna. You are correct that price moves higher with less supply, especially in food items where the demand is inelastic.

I backed up my comments on you not knowing the economic term for the structure of the industry. Where is your backing for :

"As per usual conman has no idea of why cattle move from one area to another."

As I have stated many times, Jason, you don't know enough about what I know to comment on it. You have enough trouble with what you supposedly know.

 

[Tam]

Gay Jason on the downlow,

U.S. processors want them because they are cheap.

Econ can you tell us why the US processors wanted them pre BSE? The US processors demand for our cattle didn't just come about since BSE killed the OTM cattle prices. Buying OTM cattle from Canada was their way of keeping their plant working at or near capacity. Since the border closed those plants have lost money and laid off workers because they don't have enough cattle in the US to keep them busy and can't access Canadian cattle to fill in the shortages. So is it because they are cheap or is it so they can get their employees back to work and their plants running at close to capacity and stop the flood of red ink in their books.

More supply helps decrease the packer's costs, that is true. The cattleman's real bargaining power (economic term) in the deal is their ability to do exactly what you say in this post. Canadian cattle used to fill "shortages" for U.S. plant capacity makes its use as captive supply all the more important in driving down the market with market power. This is all the more reason that the U.S. - Canada should have a international version of the Packers and Stockyards Act with competitent enforcement not influenced by politics.

By the way Tam, there are no "shortages"; just markets reacting to price to find their equilibrium supply and demand point.

Thanks for your post, Tam.

More supply helps decrease the packer's costs, that is true.

Now, can you tell us what happen to the slaughter plants that didn't have the extra supply of Canadian cattle to help decrease costs? Isn't is true that those plants lose money to the point of laying off employees and closing doors? What do you think the closures of these plants did to the US producers that once shipped their cattle to that same plant? Would it not cost them more in trucking cost to get their cattle to the next open slaughter plant? You seem to be hell bent on considering the Canadian cattle a captive supply to drive down US prices. I see the supply of Canadian cattle the saving grace to the profits and viability of these plants so they could stay open to service the US producers, with out having to raise the price of their product to the point of where you couldn't afford to eat it.

Econ you say there is no shortage. can you tell us why the US cattle prices are so high? (hint short supplies and high demand) Can you tell us what the price of beef would be if the US wasn't importing tons of beef to cover the shortage you say doesn't exsist? If the equilibrium is reached without imports do you think you or any other middle and low income families will be able to afford beef in the US? As I have said before the US is importing 1,197,992.0 MT at a price tag of $3,633,646,000. And they are force to do this so you and many other families just like you can afford to eat beef. Or would you rather beef be known as the dinner for the very rich in the US.