who cares if the jpn.markets open?

[HAY MAKER]

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

 

[Econ101]

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

It is really for those cattlemen who are under the mistaken assumption that increased beef consumption brings more money to cattlemen. The fact that you have to go through the packers to get that benefit totally destroys this idea. Cattlemen and feeders sell cattle. Packers sell beef. They are two different entities altogether. Packers don't "give" anything to cattlemen or feeders, they buy it. If they could buy it for less they would and do. They were able to manipulate the cattle markets down to the tune of over 2 billion dollars via the Pickett frauds. They then substituted pork and chicken for beef (4 lbs. per capita consumption diffence in poultry over beef for years 2001 and 2003) and make a killing. They also do it by importing foreign beef.

Haymaker, on this one, you are right. There is a possible benefit by "tightening" supplies on the domestic market through exports. The packers make all the real money sending meat to Japan though.

 

[mrj]

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

It is really for those cattlemen who are under the mistaken assumption that increased beef consumption brings more money to cattlemen. The fact that you have to go through the packers to get that benefit totally destroys this idea. Cattlemen and feeders sell cattle. Packers sell beef. They are two different entities altogether. Packers don't "give" anything to cattlemen or feeders, they buy it. If they could buy it for less they would and do. They were able to manipulate the cattle markets down to the tune of over 2 billion dollars via the Pickett frauds. They then substituted pork and chicken for beef (4 lbs. per capita consumption diffence in poultry over beef for years 2001 and 2003) and make a killing. They also do it by importing foreign beef.

Haymaker, on this one, you are right. There is a possible benefit by "tightening" supplies on the domestic market through exports. The packers make all the real money sending meat to Japan though.

Maybe you two don't know as much as you think you do about the benefits of exporting beef to Japan.

The farmer-feeder who bought some of our yearlings a few years ago and fed them to extremely high finished weight said he was making a bundle on them going to Japan.

I'm pretty sure Harris Ranch and others selling there are not doing it just for their entertainment!

And if the packers are as manipulative as you say, why are feeder prices and fat cattle prices going higher at all?

Are you guys in the Callicrate camp where he says packers set the prices arbitrarily at whatever they choose to pay for fed cattle?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

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

It is really for those cattlemen who are under the mistaken assumption that increased beef consumption brings more money to cattlemen. The fact that you have to go through the packers to get that benefit totally destroys this idea. Cattlemen and feeders sell cattle. Packers sell beef. They are two different entities altogether. Packers don't "give" anything to cattlemen or feeders, they buy it. If they could buy it for less they would and do. They were able to manipulate the cattle markets down to the tune of over 2 billion dollars via the Pickett frauds. They then substituted pork and chicken for beef (4 lbs. per capita consumption diffence in poultry over beef for years 2001 and 2003) and make a killing. They also do it by importing foreign beef.

Haymaker, on this one, you are right. There is a possible benefit by "tightening" supplies on the domestic market through exports. The packers make all the real money sending meat to Japan though.

Maybe you two don't know as much as you think you do about the benefits of exporting beef to Japan.

The farmer-feeder who bought some of our yearlings a few years ago and fed them to extremely high finished weight said he was making a bundle on them going to Japan.

I'm pretty sure Harris Ranch and others selling there are not doing it just for their entertainment!

And if the packers are as manipulative as you say, why are feeder prices and fat cattle prices going higher at all?

Are you guys in the Callicrate camp where he says packers set the prices arbitrarily at whatever they choose to pay for fed cattle?

MRJ

Actually, MRJ, if Harris Ranch is slaughtering their own cattle and do not have to go through the packers who were participating in the market fraud Pickett exposed, I applaud them. Same with Creekstone. You would know that if you were really reading my posts instead of trying to paint me in some kind of "evil" camp.

 

[Jason]

Anyone who says prices producers pay is not affected by what consumers pay is showing their stupidity.

Harris Ranches are a packing company as well as a ranch. They provide what some of you guys say every American wants, source verified beef. Conman hasn't even heard of them so obviously he hasn't sought them out to buy from. Kinda shows what other consumers really do. They say one thing but buy on convienience, and price.

Haymaker, where are the packers going to get the other high quality grain fed cattle to screw over the American producer? Canada is already sending what we have and your markets continue to climb. How is that possible?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "It is really for those cattlemen who are under the mistaken assumption that increased beef consumption brings more money to cattlemen. The fact that you have to go through the packers to get that benefit totally destroys this idea. Cattlemen and feeders sell cattle. Packers sell beef. They are two different entities altogether. Packers don't "give" anything to cattlemen or feeders, they buy it. If they could buy it for less they would and do. They were able to manipulate the cattle markets down to the tune of over 2 billion dollars via the Pickett frauds. They then substituted pork and chicken for beef (4 lbs. per capita consumption diffence in poultry over beef for years 2001 and 2003) and make a killing. They also do it by importing foreign beef.'

The epitomy of ignorance is to believe that the value of a carcass to a packer, regardless whether that value is achieved domestically or in foreign markets, is not passed on to the producer.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK DRIVES CATTLE PRICES CONMAN????

Meanwhile, these are the same hypocrites that suggest that packers need to advertise "US BEEF" so producers can benefit from the promotion of U.S. beef WHICH HAS TO BE PASSED ON TO THE PRODUCER FROM THE PACKER. Totally conflicting arguments. If these packer blamers were consistant in their arguments, the packer would receive all the benefits of promoting U.S. beef too. Typical of the ignorant R-CULT mentality.

Tell me Conman, just exactly what do you think causes cattle prices to rise if it is not an increase in boxed beef prices as a result of increased consumer demand for beef.

WHAT KIND OF HAIRBRAIN THEORY DO YOU HAVE FOR INCREASED CATTLE PRICES????

If there is competition between the packers, how can prices not rise in relation to boxed beef demand?

If there isn't competition between the packers, how can you explain the fact that prices move?

Why do you insist on insulting the intelligence of the readers of this site with your blatant nonsense. You're a complete phony.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Anyone who says prices producers pay is not affected by what consumers pay is showing their stupidity.

Harris Ranches are a packing company as well as a ranch. They provide what some of you guys say every American wants, source verified beef. Conman hasn't even heard of them so obviously he hasn't sought them out to buy from. Kinda shows what other consumers really do. They say one thing but buy on convienience, and price.

Haymaker, where are the packers going to get the other high quality grain fed cattle to screw over the American producer? Canada is already sending what we have and your markets continue to climb. How is that possible?

Jason, How does Tyson selling to Japan help the domestic market? It only decreases the supply in the domestic market. That is what I said in my post if you were able to read it. Go read the last paragraph.

If Tyson sold meat to Japan and sold it at a dollar more per lb, do they give that dollar more per lb. to the person who they bought the cattle from? Think hard, Jason. Think hard.

Go read my post again and see if it makes sense to you. You may want to hold hands with SH while going down the yellow brick road.

I see you haven't had your operation reversed. Quite a shame. I thought Canada had universal healthcare. I am quite sure that this would be an elective surgery. Maybe that is it.

 

[Cattleman]

So Econ..if Demand stays the same, and supply decreases...then what happens?? Please answer.

Are you still going to continue to answer that increased beef prices are not transferred to cattle producers?

Whats happening to cattle prices currently? Why?

some questions Econ.

 

[Econ101]

So Econ..if Demand stays the same, and supply decreases...then what happens?? Please answer.

Are you still going to continue to answer that increased beef prices are not transferred to cattle producers?

Whats happening to cattle prices currently? Why?

some questions Econ.

All other things being equal, they go up. Cattle prices are high currently because of tight supplies of both cattle and competing meats. There are some other factors in addition that are at play but factoring them out and relying on them for some future analysis gets a little trickier.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Cattle prices are high currently because of tight supplies of both cattle and competing meats."

That is half the equation. This is what I call the "supply and supply" theory to understand cattle prices.

The other half of the equation is the price these supplies are offered at. DEMAND!



~SH~

 

[Jason]

By exporting to Japan the packers further tighten supplies of those products exported. They will only export if there is more money in it.

More money equals more profit for the packers, but there are limited supplies so because more than 1 packer wants the higher profits associated with exporting they compete for the cattle offering more dollars to the producer.

 

[cowsense]

I would like to add to Jason's post in that much of the the real value increase comes from adding value to lower value cuts like the chuck and the ability to export items such as edible offal, tongues etc.. These are items which have very limited North American demand and are either presently added to the grind or even discarded!

 

[Bill]

Econ:

Jason, How does Tyson selling to Japan help the domestic market?

I am surprised you didn't know this Econ. As Cowsense mentioned a very important point which alludes most of you, adding value to lesser cuts. Many parts of Asia consider consider parts of an animal we would discard to be a delicacy and pay accordingly. It ain't all steak that is sent over and some smaller plants have carved out some niche markets in Asia which they hope to regain.

 

[Econ101]

You two are correct in both of your posts. The question becomes, how much does this affect the cattle markets as a whole. If Tyson gets the $1.00 more per lb. and does not have to give an equal $1.00 more per lb. to the cattlemen, then they get that money added to thier gross. They make more money. I requires other packers doing the same thing and driving up the markets as a whole for the cattlemen to get their part of that dollar. It takes Creekstone or others to drive the competition into paying more for cattle.

When packers collude and set a formula price lower (based on a previous week's discriminated cash market) then the cattlemen are not getting their share of the supply/demand equilibrium (this is the producer surplus). Their market signals tell them to produce less cattle. Over time, and the biological cycle of cattle that makes up the cattle cycle, there is a reduction in supply in the domestic market. This leads to "tight supplies" and also higher prices, everything else being constant. If the poultry and hog markets do this market contraction of supply with the beef manipulation, you get higher prices in all of the related substituteable meats. That is exactly what happened.

 

[Econ101]

Econ:

Jason, How does Tyson selling to Japan help the domestic market?

I am surprised you didn't know this Econ. As Cowsense mentioned a very important point which alludes most of you, adding value to lesser cuts. Many parts of Asia consider consider parts of an animal we would discard to be a delicacy and pay accordingly. It ain't all steak that is sent over and some smaller plants have carved out some niche markets in Asia which they hope to regain.

Bill, you made the incorrect assumption that I did not know this. I even posted a long time ago that the highest dollar per lb. that Tyson used to get in their poultry operations was from chicken feet. Whether it is cow tounge, nose, hooves, or tail hair, it does not matter. This does show that there are true benefits to trade. I am not against trade at all. I am against market manipulation that drives down domestic supply and then using any international supply to satisfy the resultant higher prices in the domestic markets (that the packers get). It allows packers to play producers from different countries against each other for their benefit and the producer surplus is decreased (amount cattlemen everywhere get for their cattle).

 

[Bill]

Econ:

Jason, How does Tyson selling to Japan help the domestic market?

I am surprised you didn't know this Econ. As Cowsense mentioned a very important point which alludes most of you, adding value to lesser cuts. Many parts of Asia consider consider parts of an animal we would discard to be a delicacy and pay accordingly. It ain't all steak that is sent over and some smaller plants have carved out some niche markets in Asia which they hope to regain.

Bill, you made the incorrect assumption that I did not know this. I even posted a long time ago that the highest dollar per lb. that Tyson used to get in their poultry operations was from chicken feet. Whether it is cow tounge, nose, hooves, or tail hair, it does not matter. This does show that there are true benefits to trade. I am not against trade at all. I am against market manipulation that drives down domestic supply and then using any international supply to satisfy the resultant higher prices in the domestic markets (that the packers get). It allows packers to play producers from different countries against each other for their benefit and the producer surplus is decreased (amount cattlemen everywhere get for their cattle).

Pretty easy assumption to make based on your question. If you knew the answer why ask the question? I am sure some of that $20 per tounge that was recieved pre-BSE went to the producer.

 

[Econ101]

Econ: I am surprised you didn't know this Econ. As Cowsense mentioned a very important point which alludes most of you, adding value to lesser cuts. Many parts of Asia consider consider parts of an animal we would discard to be a delicacy and pay accordingly. It ain't all steak that is sent over and some smaller plants have carved out some niche markets in Asia which they hope to regain.

Bill, you made the incorrect assumption that I did not know this. I even posted a long time ago that the highest dollar per lb. that Tyson used to get in their poultry operations was from chicken feet. Whether it is cow tounge, nose, hooves, or tail hair, it does not matter. This does show that there are true benefits to trade. I am not against trade at all. I am against market manipulation that drives down domestic supply and then using any international supply to satisfy the resultant higher prices in the domestic markets (that the packers get). It allows packers to play producers from different countries against each other for their benefit and the producer surplus is decreased (amount cattlemen everywhere get for their cattle).

Pretty easy assumption to make based on your question. If you knew the answer why ask the question? I am sure some of that $20 per tounge that was recieved pre-BSE went to the producer.

Bill it was a question for Jason to think about it. The best type of trade is trade where countries have different comparative advantages in different products, not where some international agribusiness swings markets in each country to their advantage over producers.

 

[frenchie]

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.

I always fiqured you were stupid..thanks for removing all doubt.

 

[HAY MAKER]

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.

I always fiqured you were stupid..thanks for removing all doubt.

Maybe,but not stupid enough to admitt to being french,frenchie
what a moron.................good luck

 

[cowzilla]

ECON 101 ; You seem concerned that if a big packing plant got an extra $1.00 lb for Japan export that the feedlot only got .05 . Out of the total daily production for any one packing plant exports would problibly account for less than 10% . Would it be fair to say that what product that was sold for the big money was divided up among all producers?