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

Why projects like BigC won't fly

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Anything to run down an idea and stand behind your packer hero's hey Tam.

Of course the shares would be limited at some time. When the first plant, or plants were paid for by the share holders, the board of directors would decide if another plant was to be built, or if the levy would be ceased.

Rather than figure something simple like this out however, Tam the genius can simply run the thing down and continue with her twisting of one supporters comments. Keep bringing in the checkoff comparison Tam, it seems to help you out, and those who don't want to understand just like you. :roll:

You didn't answer my question about where you and your closet red gang stand when the dole is going out to Cargill and Tyson. Do you cheer the Liberal government and the Red Ralph gang here in Alberta?

Amazing how any notion of helping a producer (and I will remind you all that BIG C is not about anything more than a loan paid back by shareholders) is seen as a subsidy. Yet a salmon run of profits like that enjoyed by Cargill and Tyson in Canada is seen as fine and dandy. When a box of beef passes from the hands of Cargill or Tyson to the hands of a retailer in the USA. Only a portion of that box went into the producers pocket; Agman could tell us all how much. All the while the attention from government is on the subsidies paid to the producer. What about the subsidies, grants, or regulations that help out the packers. Can't touch those, after all, they are mutinational.

Keep your head in the sand with the rest of your gang Tam. The packing industry in this country is now 85% controlled by two mutinational companies, and your plant along with BIG C's have no hope in hell of stopping this domination if we stand back, or support in your case, every move the government makes to make it even easier for a complete takeover of the industry.

Now tell me how I'm just a conspirist or blamer or whatever. If you cannot see the trend in this country you are as blind as your pathetic comprehension of the BIG C proposal. Try reading it on our website TAM. Maybe if my sarcasm is eliminated you will be able to understand it a bit better.
 
Back to BigC, I would like to know about the shares as well. Tam makes a valid point about the number changing as more cattle are processed.
Click to expand...
The number changes everytime an animal is sold in all of Canada .
If BigC's plan was to levy a checkoff on the animals processed by their plant I wouldn't have a problem with the Idea. BUT they want money from every animal sold in Canada. Which means an unlimited amount of shares with no face value until the Board of Directors deems enough is enough. Which could be ten or fifteen or twenty years and maybe even NEVER and tens of millions of shares.

What I would like to see from Big C is a PLAN. Something that could tell us just how much money and how long are we really talking about. But if their plan is to let the Board of Director decide later if another plant is needed after the first one or two plants are paid for, it is just to little information to vote on. IF We say yes to the Big C levy, we could be openning ourselves up to alot of surprizes down the road. We will only have ourselves to blame as we didn't ask to see the whole plan up front. Randy why don't you go back to the table and bring us something that we can vote on, not just a half baked idea that really has no information that answers the questions people may have before asking us to vote.
Like
HOW many plants are we talking about?
How much money are we talking about?
How long will the levy be in place?
Will it ever be taken off?
How much will the levy actually be?
What will the face value of the shares be worth?
Well there ever be a resale value on the shares?
Has Big C looked into the logistics of paying out dividends on millions of shares to hundreds of thousands of shareholders? (If a profit is ever realized)
Will the money collected through checkoff ever be used to cover the operating cost of the plant in times of lose?
If not where will that extra operating expence come from?
Why should we as producers allow this levy if it could result in other business ventures levying us?

I can't say I would vote yes because of the uncertainty of the last question but at least we would know what we are voting on.

BIG C's have no hope in hell of stopping this domination if we stand back
Click to expand...

The problem I have with you Randy is you claim alot of things but when you are asked a question or asked to bring some proof to your claims you pull out sarcastic comments, like you don't have time to prove your opinions they are just statements. You have a snowball's chance in He** of getting this thing off the ground if you don't take the time to answer a few hard questions with something beside sarcasm. So far I don't see much TACT in your sales pitch. You claim Tyson made so much profit, bring your proof. The one comment you did bring about the money Tyson recieved Via Government payouts is not proof of profit as they had expences tallying up against those payments just like you and I did. So what was their PROFIT while the border was closed? How big was the Salmon run as you call it? And If you can't show me they actually made a huge profit the hole time the border was closed, as you claim Randy I have to question your credibility. In most peoples books credibility is very important in a business venture. :wink:
 
~SH~ said:
Econ.: "Without the protections of an economic law like the PSA, any small packing plant can be forced out of business. Predatory pricing with packers who have deep pockets can close any of the small margins in this industry quickly. A good health scare like Hudson had with its operations and a little help from a paid off govt. agency can put a company out of business really quick."
Click to expand...

How can a small packing plant be forced out of business if there is so much money in the packing industry???

How can a small packing plant be a victim of predatory pricing IF THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CAPTIVE SUPPLY OF CATTLE?????

Tell your doomsday profit "SKY IS FALLING" rhetoric to USPB while they count their cash.

It can't be done, there's no hope, the end is near, we're all doomed, join R-CULT today. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz! It never ends!


~SH~
Click to expand...

When the market for beef is controlled by a collusive few, and it is happening more and more, the free markets are no more. Everyone will fall in line with the big guys or you will not have what the pork industry found out when pigs went to 5 cents per lb, the equivalent of shackle space. If Tyson were so goody two shoes businessmen with their contract producers, they would not have paid the 168 million dollar something lawsuit to the pork people. Even at that the payment to some of those farmers was too late to save their farms.

Lower profits like we see now is the loss leader to market power. Tyson used the strategy of vertical integration to gain market power in the broiler industry and now all sorts of games are played on those farmers that cheats them out of their labor and investment. Take the bait, Jason. They will reel you in only it will be too late for you to do anything about it. When they advantage one person over another and not for quality of product reasons, it begins. Just because you may be one of those who gets the benefit this time don't think for one minute that it is in their long term strategy to keep it that way. They could care less about producers. Low margins keep competitors out and allow them to consolidate the markets more.
 
For a so called economics teacher you are really dumb.

Econ wrote:
Low margins keep competitors out and allow them to consolidate the markets more.
Click to expand...

What is the real reason for low margins in any business. Do I try to just eek by and not make a decent return on my investment? Would you invest in a business that returns 1% 2% 5%? Where is your line?

Somehow we are to believe packers just want to barely survive so they can somehow control the whole market. Then when they do they will slay those who supply their existance.

They could care less about producers.
Click to expand...

While it is true they don't care who supplies the cattle, they do care that someone does. They buy up competitors to try to lower their costs per head so they can continue to justify being in business. Much as ranchers get bigger herds to lower their costs. Just like trucking companies get larger to take advantage of cost savings. Just like every industry has a level where bigger is better to a certian point.

Sometimes a company's growth takes on a life of its own, where that company is the only one, or one of the few that is big enough to take on some jobs. Building new packing plants might be in that category given the horrendous start up costs and low margins.

As with any industry the beef business has room for smaller players if they fill smaller niche markets. Sometimes these niche markets become the market, but not always.

Utilities are usually a monopoly because of the logistics in transmission etc. but the gov't has regulations on how they charge for market costs. To say utilities just keep prices in line because they are generous is plain foolish. They are examined by the gov't, much as large corporations are. They have to file taxes, they have to abide by labor laws. They have to pay suppliers. If a supplier can't make a living on the price offered by a company, as long as someone is supplying for that price there is no market manipulation by the buyer. It is not the responsibility of the packer to make sure each producer makes a living. It is not the responsibility of the gov't to make sure each producer makes a living.

Subsidies in extreme instances like BSE are supposed to help keep the entire industry afloat. The payments I have recieved have made it possible for me to stay afloat, but I have still had to make drastic changes to respond to the market signals. The subsidies while definately not perfect have helped the industry in Canada. It could be argued that some of the money Tyson and Cargill recieved went to feeders through additional cattle purchases. As Randy has argued before, killing less cattle at a loss is actually a profit.
 
Jason said:
For a so called economics teacher you are really dumb.

Econ wrote:
Low margins keep competitors out and allow them to consolidate the markets more.
Click to expand...

What is the real reason for low margins in any business. Do I try to just eek by and not make a decent return on my investment? Would you invest in a business that returns 1% 2% 5%? Where is your line?

Somehow we are to believe packers just want to barely survive so they can somehow control the whole market. Then when they do they will slay those who supply their existance.

They could care less about producers.
Click to expand...

While it is true they don't care who supplies the cattle, they do care that someone does. They buy up competitors to try to lower their costs per head so they can continue to justify being in business. Much as ranchers get bigger herds to lower their costs. Just like trucking companies get larger to take advantage of cost savings. Just like every industry has a level where bigger is better to a certian point.

Sometimes a company's growth takes on a life of its own, where that company is the only one, or one of the few that is big enough to take on some jobs. Building new packing plants might be in that category given the horrendous start up costs and low margins.

As with any industry the beef business has room for smaller players if they fill smaller niche markets. Sometimes these niche markets become the market, but not always.

Utilities are usually a monopoly because of the logistics in transmission etc. but the gov't has regulations on how they charge for market costs. To say utilities just keep prices in line because they are generous is plain foolish. They are examined by the gov't, much as large corporations are. They have to file taxes, they have to abide by labor laws. They have to pay suppliers. If a supplier can't make a living on the price offered by a company, as long as someone is supplying for that price there is no market manipulation by the buyer. It is not the responsibility of the packer to make sure each producer makes a living. It is not the responsibility of the gov't to make sure each producer makes a living.

Subsidies in extreme instances like BSE are supposed to help keep the entire industry afloat. The payments I have recieved have made it possible for me to stay afloat, but I have still had to make drastic changes to respond to the market signals. The subsidies while definately not perfect have helped the industry in Canada. It could be argued that some of the money Tyson and Cargill recieved went to feeders through additional cattle purchases. As Randy has argued before, killing less cattle at a loss is actually a profit.
Click to expand...

You are starting to make my case with your own words, Jason. It is funny that on one hand rkaiser is called a "socialist" for his plan and the fact is Tyson and Cargill both were the ones who rolled the Canadian citizen with their payments from the government. Canadians subsidizing two American companies that are largely controlled by two families. As an American, should I be proud of that fact? Are you as a Canadian? If those companies had been rolled under, maybe rakaiser, Tam or another company would have just bought it. Instead, Canada financed the consolidation of the beef industry in Canada by two familiy owned American companies.

Step back and see the forest.

I heard about the Canadian softwood lumber problem on the radio this morning. These free trade agreements have been taken over by the interests of the corpoarations. Nafta isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Everyone should watch out though, the USDA has to make sure beef checkoff dollars "follows the laws".

When are we all going to stop this foolishness? Deadweight losses are deadweight losses. Trade with Canada isn't free--it is controlled by the multinationals. We are all paying (or our children and grandchildren will) for what we have allowed these companies to get away with.

We need to step back and see what is really happening instead of just agreeing with some garbage being spewed out by "hawkers".
 
Now I know your level of intelligence. You say on one hand roll these companies under so someone can buy them. Then in the very next breath you try to say they are controlling the country.

Make up your mind. Do they have power or are they subject to disasters like everyone else?

If Cargill and Tyson had been rolled under Canada would not have a beef industry.

They never broke any laws in getting the subsidy paid to every qualifyed cattle owner. The subsidy was not for their slaughter business. It was for the cattle they paid more for than anyone else. Canadian owned packer XL beef got a subsidy too. Why isn't there an outrage about them?

In hind sight with the profits they made after the first subsidy, they should have been left out of it. At the time the gov't people did the best they could with the tools at their disposal. Their crystal ball wasn't working that day to see the future profits.

Softwood lumber is a seperate issue, but the tarriff remains because the US gov't hasn't lifted it.

The real world isn't the classroom. Maybe you should get out once in a while.
 
Jason said:
Now I know your level of intelligence. You say on one hand roll these companies under so someone can buy them. Then in the very next breath you try to say they are controlling the country.

Make up your mind. Do they have power or are they subject to disasters like everyone else?

If Cargill and Tyson had been rolled under Canada would not have a beef industry.

They never broke any laws in getting the subsidy paid to every qualifyed cattle owner. The subsidy was not for their slaughter business. It was for the cattle they paid more for than anyone else. Canadian owned packer XL beef got a subsidy too. Why isn't there an outrage about them?

In hind sight with the profits they made after the first subsidy, they should have been left out of it. At the time the gov't people did the best they could with the tools at their disposal. Their crystal ball wasn't working that day to see the future profits.

Softwood lumber is a seperate issue, but the tarriff remains because the US gov't hasn't lifted it.

The real world isn't the classroom. Maybe you should get out once in a while.
Click to expand...

Why should Canadian taxpayers pay ANY subsidy to a very large American privately owned or controlled company? That is your real world.
Just because you don't break a law, doesn't mean it is right. Do we need a law for every little action? If you want to continue to subsidize wealthy American families I guess that is your right as a Canadian. The real world you live in is kinda funny though.

On softwood lumber: U.S. govt. has lost 3 NAFTA cases on this issue. They are not going to change the tarriff unless they get the okay of big U.S. business. Maybe they can get the Canadian taxpayer to pay it. If they follow the logic in their beef payout maybe they will.
 
Again you just don't get it. Tyson and Cargill exerted no influence to get the subsidy. They owned cattle and were losing money hand over fist as the rest of our industry was. At the time the gov't didn't think or know how to exclude them from payments. They were excluded from any further subsidy as soon as they were making money. Even subsidys that they would legally qualify for.

The fact that the parent companies are American owned makes little difference to anyone. They operate in Canada under Canadian laws and pay Canadian taxes, hire Canadian workers and pay Canadian producers in Canadian dollars. When they buy supplies they buy in Canada, when they build they hire Canadian contractors. They use Canadian utilities at Canadian prices.

If we lost those 2 companies there are not enough smaller companies to take up the slack. Our industry would die. If some smaller plants can open and with excellent management compete, now that we have an idea of the benefit of processing all of our own cattle, great. But to think we need to regulate the size of the plants is to plan to fail. The market will deal with Tyson and Cargill if they get out of hand.

Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewart all were shown how they couldn't play the market and win. The same would happen if another company thought it was smarter than the market.
 
Jason said:
Again you just don't get it. Tyson and Cargill exerted no influence to get the subsidy. They owned cattle and were losing money hand over fist as the rest of our industry was. At the time the gov't didn't think or know how to exclude them from payments. They were excluded from any further subsidy as soon as they were making money. Even subsidys that they would legally qualify for.

The fact that the parent companies are American owned makes little difference to anyone. They operate in Canada under Canadian laws and pay Canadian taxes, hire Canadian workers and pay Canadian producers in Canadian dollars. When they buy supplies they buy in Canada, when they build they hire Canadian contractors. They use Canadian utilities at Canadian prices.

If we lost those 2 companies there are not enough smaller companies to take up the slack. Our industry would die. If some smaller plants can open and with excellent management compete, now that we have an idea of the benefit of processing all of our own cattle, great. But to think we need to regulate the size of the plants is to plan to fail. The market will deal with Tyson and Cargill if they get out of hand.

Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewart all were shown how they couldn't play the market and win. The same would happen if another company thought it was smarter than the market.
Click to expand...

Except if they got Canadian taxpayers like you to bail them out. Thanks for bailing out a rich American family. We need all the foreigners to do the same. Maybe then we could cut our tax rate again and fight a few more wars. I wish you would adhere to Sandhusker's signature. You are almost there.

I'll give you a little lifetime tip, Jason. Don't believe what a man says he will do, see what he does. This can be said many different ways.
 
~SH~ said:
Jason,

Cast not your pearls before swine. LOL!



~SH~
Click to expand...

SH, does this have something to do with your relationship to Jason's a ___? Maybe that should be kept private.

Do we have a deal?
 
I don't normally deal with idiots!

Sandparasite was the exception and I should have known better. Leave your insignia as a reminder.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
I don't normally deal with idiots!

Sandparasite was the exception and I should have known better. Leave your insignia as a reminder.


~SH~
Click to expand...

You deal with yourself every day, SH. Couldn't make a post without a derrogatory name calling episode could you?

Do you want the deal or can you not post without that crutch?
 

Latest posts

Top