who cares if the jpn.markets open?

[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.

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

At least I,m not fascinated with other peoples rectums..Hay Maker your living proof a little rectum goes a long ways..what a queer :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

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

At least I,m not fascinated with other peoples rectums..Hay Maker your living proof a little rectum goes a long ways..what a queer :lol:

Give him Hell Frenchie :!: :cowboy:

 

[HAY MAKER]

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

At least I,m not fascinated with other peoples rectums..Hay Maker your living proof a little rectum goes a long ways..what a queer :lol:

Slow down on the filth,frenchie or I will do like you and your gang does,turn you into the web master,A lil clean fun is fine but not everyone wants to be drug to your level,we have women & children reading these posts.What a nit wit calling someone a queer with a name like "frenchie".

 

[Jason]

Econ asks if it is fair that a packer would get additional funds by exporting and the producer doesn't get all the increase.

Does a feeder that buys lower grade calves and puts the feed and doctoring into them pay as much as he would for quality calves?

He might make more dollars on the cheap calves.

The packers do a lot of work past the purchase of a fat steer. They deserve to be paid for that work as any enterprize deserves to make what they can by adding value.

If the feeder that bought those calves lost money, would he be as keen to buy more? If 2 feeders are there knowing they both made money on the cheap calves think they will sit back and let the other guy make an extra buck?

For producers to be profitable, packers need to be profitable. If they are not, they will simply pull back and wait for the situation to improve. They don't have a moral or legal obligation to kill our cattle at a loss. They are in business to make money. If they are making huge profits buy stock or become your own packer.

 

[Sandhusker]

I think it's fair if a packer imports what they need instead of buying domestic. I think it is short sighted and ultimately detrimental to the economic health of the entire country, but they have the right to strive for profitability.

That being said, US producers also have the right to strive for profitabilty. Just as the packers lobby for policies that contribute to their profitability, US producers can - and should - do the same.

US producers will always need US packers. Right now, US packer need US producers, but they're working to shed that yoke.

 

[Jason]

I think it's fair if a packer imports what they need instead of buying domestic. I think it is short sighted and ultimately detrimental to the economic health of the entire country, but they have the right to strive for profitability.

That being said, US producers also have the right to strive for profitabilty. Just as the packers lobby for policies that contribute to their profitability, US producers can - and should - do the same.

US producers will always need US packers. Right now, US packer need US producers, but they're working to shed that yoke.

How are packers trying to "shed the yoke of US producers"?

Packers are buying ALL that American producers can produce. Packers would buy ALL US produced product if it was available. IT ISN'T.

Contrary to Conman's views the packers can't force consumers to pay more for beef. If there isn't a profit in beef with the constraints of drought, development of agricultural lands, and the price consumers are willing to pay, whos fault is that? Maybe the US has outgrown the agrarian model. With limited land resources growing the highest value product is the only viable option.

 

[Murgen]

That being said, US producers also have the right to strive for profitabilty. Just as the packers lobby for policies that contribute to their profitability, US producers can - and should - do the same.

Selling price has the least impact on profit! Look at any study that follows different operations, management style, and profitablilty!

I have one Canadian study showing differences in profitablity of hundreds of dollars between producers per animal marketed.

I'm sure that it wasn't the difference of what the feeder/packer paid for those cattle that made up the total difference!

 

[HAY MAKER]

I had a chance to look at the archives franchie,and looking at the pictures you posted it's pretty obvious who the queers are.looks like it runs in your family.................good luck

 

[frenchie]

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

At least I,m not fascinated with other peoples rectums..Hay Maker your living proof a little rectum goes a long ways..what a queer :lol:

Slow down on the filth,frenchie or I will do like you and your gang does,turn you into the web master,A lil clean fun is fine but not everyone wants to be drug to your level,we have women & children reading these posts.What a nit wit calling someone a queer with a name like "frenchie".

Slow down on the filth yourself ..

You guys are too funny ,how many rectums do you think ~SH~ has? at least 6 be my guess :wink: ..................good luck

Looks like old Hay Haker has a thing for SH :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Haymaker is a true R-CALFer." Do as I say not as I do."

 

[Anonymous]

Just look at this phony SOB!

At the beginning of this thread Conman says:

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.

Even before it got to the bottom of the first page Conman has flipped 180 degrees:

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.

DO YOU HAVE NO SHAME CONMAN??????

One minute packers are making all the money on exports and the next minute there is true benefits to trade.

Now I suppose you'll try to come up with some dumb assed excuse to justify both statements.

Somebody wake me when he's done!


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~

 

[TimH]

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.

Pardon my ignorance..... but following the logic in the above posts, what possible benefit is there in M'COOL to the American producer????? :???:

 

[Anonymous]

EXACTLY!

They just talk in circles and continually contradict themselves.


~SH~

 

[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.

Pardon my ignorance..... but following the logic in the above posts, what possible benefit is there in M'COOL to the American producer????? :???:

Tim, packers and retailers control the lableing of beef products right now. They want to ride off of the checkoff dollar's advertising and research. It is not too much to ask for a differentiation of the product. Country of Origin lableing is in a lot of food products. I don't happen to believe that country of orgin lableing from Canada would endanger any Canadain sales. It may have a bearing on other countries that are not seen as developed. COOL may be the best thing for Canada beef, if Canada had an advertising program that went with it.

The non-differentiation of beef plays into the hands of packers who are playing the "lowest cost" game that has the inevitability of losing quality. When packers own the substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, they can use manipulation in the beef markets (due to the lag time of reactions of supply of beef to prices in beef) to increase sales in pork and chicken.

 

[Anonymous]

Tim, packers and retailers control the lableing of beef products right now. They want to ride off of the checkoff dollar's advertising and research. It is not too much to ask for a differentiation of the product. Country of Origin lableing is in a lot of food products. I don't happen to believe that country of orgin lableing from Canada would endanger any Canadain sales. It may have a bearing on other countries that are not seen as developed. COOL may be the best thing for Canada beef, if Canada had an advertising program that went with it.

The non-differentiation of beef plays into the hands of packers who are playing the "lowest cost" game that has the inevitability of losing quality. When packers own the substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, they can use manipulation in the beef markets (due to the lag time of reactions of supply of beef to prices in beef) to increase sales in pork and chicken.

You diverted the issue Conman. Answer the question. Why the concern with Country of Origin Labeling when the packers would receive the benefit anyway according to you? Why should you care whether or not they label beef if the packer doesn't pass the "SUPPOSED" value on to you?

Having trouble keeping your stories straight again?

You really need to quit lying.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Tim, packers and retailers control the lableing of beef products right now. They want to ride off of the checkoff dollar's advertising and research. It is not too much to ask for a differentiation of the product. Country of Origin lableing is in a lot of food products. I don't happen to believe that country of orgin lableing from Canada would endanger any Canadain sales. It may have a bearing on other countries that are not seen as developed. COOL may be the best thing for Canada beef, if Canada had an advertising program that went with it.

The non-differentiation of beef plays into the hands of packers who are playing the "lowest cost" game that has the inevitability of losing quality. When packers own the substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, they can use manipulation in the beef markets (due to the lag time of reactions of supply of beef to prices in beef) to increase sales in pork and chicken.

You diverted the issue Conman. Answer the question. Why the concern with Country of Origin Labeling when the packers would receive the benefit anyway according to you? Why should you care whether or not they label beef if the packer doesn't pass the "SUPPOSED" value on to you?

Having trouble keeping your stories straight again?

You really need to quit lying.


~SH~

COOL--whether it had Canada or the U.S. on it, would give the producers from those countries more leverage from the packers and more reason to advertise and differentiate their products. Both of which would tend to increase sales. I would love to buy a BIG C steak. At least then I would know it was a "cut above" the B.S I hear so much from on this site from the packer backers and their lackeys.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "COOL--whether it had Canada or the U.S. on it, would give the producers from those countries more leverage from the packers and more reason to advertise and differentiate their products. Both of which would tend to increase sales. I would love to buy a BIG C steak."

Conman, you are inconsistant in your arguments. You agreed with Hayboy that only the packers would gain from exports and now you suggest the packers would pass the value of "M"COOL on to the producers. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! WHICH WAY IS IT?????

Either packers pay producers according to the value they receive or they don't. WHICH WAY IS IT??????



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "COOL--whether it had Canada or the U.S. on it, would give the producers from those countries more leverage from the packers and more reason to advertise and differentiate their products. Both of which would tend to increase sales. I would love to buy a BIG C steak."

Conman, you are inconsistant in your arguments. You agreed with Hayboy that only the packers would gain from exports and now you suggest the packers would pass the value of "M"COOL on to the producers. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! WHICH WAY IS IT?????

Either packers pay producers according to the value they receive or they don't. WHICH WAY IS IT??????



~SH~

They are not incongruent. You put the word "only" in, not me. The lion's share of the benefits will go to the packers. Wouldn't it be nice if the packers that got these benefits were not the ones using market power to manipulate the cattle markets? The amount going to the cattlemen due to exports will be very small indeed, unless they were somehow integrated with the packer (none of the big packers have these type of agreements on any substantial scale). Smaller packers that treated their producers better might. Robert Mac's packer for example. For debate purposes on this board, my term "packer" means one of the big boys.

 

[Anonymous]

Another rant of empty statements unsupported by facts.

The truth is that the packing industry is highly competitive and value received by the packing industry is passed on to the producer. That is the truth. There is absolutely nothing you can provide that will contradict that truth. If the packing industry was not competitive and highly profitable as you conspiracy theorists believe, producer owned packing plants would be more profitable than they are and packer margins would be greater than they are. Packer profitability is reported to GIPSA and there is no proof of anticompetitiveness or market manipulation. It's just bullsh*t spread by the thumbsuckers in this industry like you.

You are a liar and a packer blamer Conman. That's all there is to it.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sh, "The truth is that the packing industry is highly competitive and value received by the packing industry is passed on to the producer. That is the truth. There is absolutely nothing you can provide that will contradict that truth."

CANADA[/b]