• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Whole Dittmer interview

Bill

Well-known member
Jolley: Five Minutes With Steve Dittmer

Today 5/5/2006 9:08:00 AM

Jolley: Five Minutes With Steve Dittmer

Steve Dittmer is the executive vice-president of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation and an avowed, active conservative. He’s got beef business bona fides - he co-published CALF News magazine for nearly 20 years. He’s been beef council CEO, association communications director and a small-time rancher. Early in his career he was a member of Beef Industry Council Advertising Committee that developed the first-ever beef industry national television ad campaign, and the industry's first Long Range Planning Committee.

Today, as the head man at AFF, he pushes for free markets and against almost any kind of government intervention. Here’s a clip from the AFF web site that explains his position:

“Free market approaches, including free trade, free business structure options, free alliances, free competition, free marketing options and free scientific innovation best serve the food production chain, the country and the consumer. The limited economic and governmental restrictions on business set in place by our Founding Fathers has served America well. We wish to see that traditional constitutional framework continued, unfettered by short-term "fixes" or capitulations to narrow interests.”

That’s one of the strongest calls to the laissez-faire school of economic thought since Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations” 250 years ago. Dittmer truly believes that the free market is best left to its own devices and it will dispense with inefficient businesses more deliberately and quickly than any legislating body could. The basic idea is that the less government interferes in private economic decisions such as pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services, the better the economy. To take it to the inevitable bottom line, one does not get his dinner by appealing to the brotherly love of the butcher, the farmer or the baker. One appeals to their self interest, and pays them fairly for their labor.

It’s an attitude that puts organizations like R-CALF squarely in his gun sights and causes some interesting questions to be posed about the source of his funding.

I asked him about it when I recently spent five minutes with him.

How did you get into the cattle business?

I was born and raised on a small beef operation. My father began feeding out his own calves and selling them to customers for their freezer back in the ‘60s. He received some carcass data back and got quality feedback directly from his customers. So I got an early exposure to an integrated and customer-focused approach to the beef industry. I earned an animal science degree with an ag communications specialty at Ohio State. I spent a couple years with the Nebraska Stock Growers and then seven years with the beef council in Nebraska. We ranched on the side in Nebraska for about ten years. My wife, Deb, and I published CALF News Magazine for over 20 years. My heart and my profession has been centered on the beef industry since about fourth grade.

What keeps you amused during your free time?

I cut, split and haul wood, read history, historical fiction and westerns, landscape, cook and eat and follow the Denver Broncos, Colorado Rockies and Formula 1 racing.

Let’s go straight to an important question that goes to the heart of your credibility. It’s been said that you’re a one-man lobbying foundation financed by the American Meat Institute, Tyson and a few other major packers. Is that true and if it is, what impact does it have on your opinions?

Some folks deflect attention from their inability to fight facts by speculating on peripheral questions. Those who think a few packers are funding AFF are not correct. The people funding AFF are involved in multiple sectors of the beef production chain but are grounded in the cattle production end. This question goes to the heart of what AFF is about – we believe in preserving free market options for everyone in the chain. That list includes restaurant chains, retail chains and packers, as well as ranchers and feeders. Our Sentinel columns (our e-newsletter) are reviewed by an AFF Editorial Committee, so while they reflect my personal beliefs, they also reflect the thinking and judgment of key AFF industry participants and observers. Our goals and philosophy are set by a Board of Directors and Advisory Council made up of some of the beef industry’s leading participants and innovators. I find it perplexing that people who believe in the true free market system are automatically categorized by some folks as somehow being connected to packers. The free market system enables everyone in the food production chain to adapt and innovate to serve the consumer.

You were a member of the Beef Industry Council ad committee that developed the first ever TV ad campaign. With the hindsight offered by two decades, were the original marketing goals achieved and have the subsequent dollars been well-spent?

The initial goals were exceeded. The total reversal of a 20-year decline in the demand trend was a tremendous testament to the value of the entire chain working together towards the same goal – focusing on consumer needs and wants. It also demonstrated the wisdom of that check-off investment by people far from the consumer plate, like purebred breeders, cow/calf operators and feeders. The returns have been enormous. And while packer contributions were in collection and contributing for many years, the initial new product development and alliance research proved to them, as well as retailers and the whole rest of the chain – including many innovative auctions that provide collection services -- that the effort and investment in new products, alliances and branded beef programs would yield significant returns for everyone. But there is still much to be done in improving quality, consistency and new products. The issues management area, health and nutrition research and consumer education will become increasingly critical as beef industry adversaries become more aggressive and sophisticated in their efforts to convince the public, especially kids, that beef and beef production is bad for health, bad for the environment and a bad moral choice.

Let’s talk about Kelo vs. New London. For those readers that don’t follow Supreme Court decisions, it expanded the ability of government to seize property from a private citizen and give it to a private entity if it could be proven that the result would be for the public good. Farm lands can be seized for housing developments, for example. Its announced practical application is to allow blighted urban areas to be converted to better uses. Do you agree and what long-term effect might it have on rural property?

Now is the time in history that cattlemen and political conservatives must not let escape. Our farm and ranch organizations labored for years to get Congress to understand how devastating the estate (death) tax was to farmers and ranchers, with limited success. It was not until small business people and upper middle class citizens with sizable estates realized their businesses and fruits of their labors would go not to their sons and daughters but to the government, that coalitions of ag and small business interests could be formed that made Congress sit up and take notice. Similarly, when environmental and Endangered Species regulations thwarted enough small business expansions or community projects, citizens realized what agricultural interests had been complaining about for decades. We must take advantage of this political moment, of the outrage among ordinary citizens at governments’ redefining “public use” to be anything government officials want it to be. The very foundations of our free market system depend upon the ability of citizens to own and control their own property, except in extreme circumstances. That is the short term. The long-term lesson is that we must elect presidents and Senators that believe the Constitution is to protect American citizens from our government, not stretch government power as far as possible.

Poultry producers can contract their output and the result is an industry that has been vertically integrated for years. The cattle business is prohibited from making similar agreements. Does it put beef production at a disadvantage?

There are no prohibitions and it should stay that way. The AFF is about preserving options for innovation and adaptation. There are those in the industry – and among activist groups – who favor a big government, centrally planned and controlled beef production and processing system – and they are trying to implement such prohibitions. We do not believe that having some organization or some government agency in charge of deciding how big a packer, or retail chain, restaurant chain, feedyard or ranch can be or how they can cooperate is Constitutional or the best thing economically for consumers or for the food production chain. Nor should government decide who can own cattle and who can’t and when.

We already have sufficient antitrust legislation on the books and the high degree of overall competition for cattle, when supply and demand factors are somewhere near balance, is evidence of the system’s efficiency. Those who believe packers have vast pricing manipulation powers ignore the last few years of low or absent packer profits when the supply was tight and cattlemen had more pricing power.

We view the capitalist economy as a pyramid, with the consumer at the top of the pyramid. Under that consumer in the pyramid are all the various sectors in the production chain. They should be allowed to compete or cooperate as they see fit to provide what consumers want and will pay for. Any system or restriction that makes something other than the consumer the focus of the pyramid, is a false economy that puts focus on some other factor or player than the people who pay the bill -- consumers. Comparisons with the poultry industry are overblown. The absolutely insurmountable capital requirements involved (trillions), much broader geography involved, much more complex production systems and other factors make it impossible for the degree of integration in the beef industry that poultry has experienced.

Thousands of cattlemen read CattleNetwork. What would you like to say to them?

There are radical farm and ranch groups, consumer activist groups, liberal politicians, faith-based groups and activist judges who believe it is their mission to drastically “reform” the free market aspects of our food production system. They want more government control and limitation over all links in the chain. They want to wrest control of agriculture from farmers, ranchers and the processing and merchandising businesses between cattle producers and the consumer. They want that control to reside in Washington, under the watchful eye of Congress, a liberal judicial system and consumer activist attorneys and do-gooders. Cattlemen who wish to control their own destiny and who wish to be allowed to continually improve the free market, mainstream system we have today, are going to have to aggressively defend that right from those who feel they know better. Your state and national mainstream organizations, as well as smaller groups like AFF, need your participation and your contributions if our free market system is to be improved, not destroyed.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Today, as the head man at AFF, he pushes for free markets and against almost any kind of government intervention. Here’s a clip from the AFF web site that explains his position"

The "head man"? He's the ONLY man!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess this is not lying, but certainly not the whole story, is it? :roll:


Dittmer, “Free market approaches, including free trade, free business structure options, free alliances, free competition, free marketing options and free scientific innovation best serve the food production chain, the country and the consumer. The limited economic and governmental restrictions on business set in place by our Founding Fathers has served America well. We wish to see that traditional constitutional framework continued, unfettered by short-term "fixes" or capitulations to narrow interests.”

Why then is he in favor of government intervention stopping voluntary BSE testing? This guy is full, full, full of crap.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Adam Smith was not laissez-faire. Dittmer doesn't realize how much his approach differs from that of the founding fathers. Based on looking at his website and his idolizing of Henry Hazlitt, Dittmer is solidly humanistic. Hazlitt rejected the traditional Judeo-Christian value system in favor of one consistent with Ayn Rand--a rabid humanist.

The humanistic version of capitalism is morally bankrupt and is not self-policing in terms of honesty and competition.

I will agree with one thing he said (conditionally). We have enough antitrust laws on the books---if they were enforced. Therein lies the problem.

His humanistic capitalism utterly fails because it is based on an erroneous view of human nature.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dittmer: "Some folks deflect attention from their inability to fight facts by speculating on peripheral questions."

The preceding posts do just that. Instead of debating Dittmer on the facts, they make their feeble "steers attempt" to discredit. The true "tell" of a blamer. Anything to hide R-CALF's true "socialized cattle marketing" agenda and their inability to support their conspiracy theories with fact.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Dittmer: "Some folks deflect attention from their inability to fight facts by speculating on peripheral questions."

The preceding posts do just that. Instead of debating Dittmer on the facts, they make their feeble "steers attempt" to discredit. The true "tell" of a blamer. Anything to hide R-CALF's true "socialized cattle marketing" agenda and their inability to support their conspiracy theories with fact.


~SH~

The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself.
 

mrj

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
Dittmer: "Some folks deflect attention from their inability to fight facts by speculating on peripheral questions."

The preceding posts do just that. Instead of debating Dittmer on the facts, they make their feeble "steers attempt" to discredit. The true "tell" of a blamer. Anything to hide R-CALF's true "socialized cattle marketing" agenda and their inability to support their conspiracy theories with fact.


~SH~

The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself.


What does "humanistic" as you used it here mean?

What is your alternative to "humanistic" capitalism?

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
MRJ said:
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
The preceding posts do just that. Instead of debating Dittmer on the facts, they make their feeble "steers attempt" to discredit. The true "tell" of a blamer. Anything to hide R-CALF's true "socialized cattle marketing" agenda and their inability to support their conspiracy theories with fact.


~SH~

The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself.


What does "humanistic" as you used it here mean?

What is your alternative to "humanistic" capitalism?

MRJ


"Humanistic" capitalism is based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, (Objectivism). Rand herself wrote the following about her philosophy.
----------------------------------------------

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
----------------------------------------

She was an avid anti-Communist and promoter of capitalism. She was atheistic, too.

In her philosphy it is virtuous to pursue your own self interest. She wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness"


The essential flaw of her philosphy is the idea that "greed is good". While she never said that exact phrase the concept saturates her writings.


In contrast is the traditional (Judeo-Christian) capitalism that says, "Human beings are greedy, but that is not a good thing. However we must structure our society to take advantage of mankind's greediness, but limit its potential for damage. Thus we have laws requiring honesty. In Rand's theoretical capitalism the dishonest person goes out of business because his dishonest dealings are shunned by others.

The other requirement (that Adam Smith and the traditional capitalists of the 19th century also held) is competition. Dishonesty and monopoly lead to market power. Some of Rand's followers today are trying to do away with such age-old restrictions on the marketplace as the prohibition against insider trading. They argue that the market will take care of itself.

Henry Hazlitt (quoted by Dittmer on his website) wrote a book called "Economics in One Easy Lesson". He never mentions competition. To Hazlitt (who wrote another book on values) said that the highest value was cooperation. If indeed cooperation is the highest value then collusion should not be against the law.

People like Dittmer and others (and they exist in large numbers) who knowingly or ignorantly espouse the philosophies of Ayn Rand, are embracing a relatively new version of capitalism that did not exist in this country until at least the 1950's.

For more information check out the Ayn Rand Institute website.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_index


One way I look at it is this. Some of those who believe that Communism and Socialism are bad have decided that anything that is opposed to Communism and Socialism must therefore be good. Ayn Rand was against Communism. Therefore Ayn Rand must be good.

My response is that we don't discover what is good by taking an approach that something that is the opposite of bad must be good. We may just end up with something totally different that is also bad.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself."


You blamers certainly share one thing in common, you cannot discern a "FACT" from an "OPINION".

Your "OPINION" of Dittmer's version of capitalism is just that, AN OPINION.

If you want to discredit Dittmer, then take a quote he has made and provide the facts that prove him wrong. That is the only way you will discredit Dittmer to anyone who has the ability to think for themselves.

Your equating Dittmer's version of capitalism to some radical communists just reveals your desperation to discredit Dittmer.

Meanwhile Sandbag nods his head and the beat goes on........


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself."


You blamers certainly share one thing in common, you cannot discern a "FACT" from an "OPINION".

Your "OPINION" of Dittmer's version of capitalism is just that, AN OPINION.

If you want to discredit Dittmer, then take a quote he has made and provide the facts that prove him wrong. That is the only way you will discredit Dittmer to anyone who has the ability to think for themselves.

Your equating Dittmer's version of capitalism to some radical communists just reveals your desperation to discredit Dittmer.

Meanwhile Sandbag nods his head and the beat goes on........


~SH~

SH, until you get to the wizard, this stuff is way over your head.
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OCM: "The facts I presented above have been presented to Dittmer. He has not ever addressed them. Neither did you.

Fact--Dittmer defends a humanistic version of capitalism that has only been around about fifty years. He has been told so and he has not explained himself."


You blamers certainly share one thing in common, you cannot discern a "FACT" from an "OPINION".

Your "OPINION" of Dittmer's version of capitalism is just that, AN OPINION.

If you want to discredit Dittmer, then take a quote he has made and provide the facts that prove him wrong. That is the only way you will discredit Dittmer to anyone who has the ability to think for themselves.

Your equating Dittmer's version of capitalism to some radical communists just reveals your desperation to discredit Dittmer.

Meanwhile Sandbag nods his head and the beat goes on........


~SH~

I should quote Dittmer and attack that?????? Most of his arguments are ad hominem (personal instead of factual [for those in Kadoka]).

His consistent rant that OCM and R-CALF are LAG's----------I refuted that in his presence. He has never responded in print nor verbally.



I repeat--Dittmer's website quotes Hazlitt

Fact http://www.agribusinessfreedom.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=41

Hazlitt's book "Economics in One Lesson" was reviewed positively by the Ayn Rand Institute. Hazlitt is considered a Libertarian.

You referred to someone I spoke of as "some radical communists". I suppose that is a reference to Rand. She was not communist, but you have the right attitude toward her. Unfortunately(for you) if you put down Ayn Rand you will be disagreeing with many of you (so-called) conservative friends.

Like you, most people do not realize how much current "conservative" economics depends on Rand's philosophy. It underpins the current (and for the last few decades) teaching at the University of Chicago School of Economics.

So if you don't like that "communist" Ayn Rand, I'm with you. But you should realize that you just cut yourself off from most of the people you usually defend here.
 

Latest posts

Top