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

Yet another attempt to legislate the markets!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
From Beef Stocker Trends, 11-28-'05

"Earl Pomeroy, D. ND, makes a new attempt to legislate the Markets. He co-sponsors HR 4257, titled "Captive supply Reform Act."

The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.

Definitions: FORWARD CONTRACT: "...oral or written contract for the purpose of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into". FORMULA PRICING: "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established".

NOTE FROM Picket, et. al. vs IBP: "....all cattle producers are entitled to market preferences, but not to force their preferences on other segments of the market place."

Do we really want or need that degree of government control over how we market our cattle?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
From Beef Stocker Trends, 11-28-'05

"Earl Pomeroy, D. ND, makes a new attempt to legislate the Markets. He co-sponsors HR 4257, titled "Captive supply Reform Act."

The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.

Definitions: FORWARD CONTRACT: "...oral or written contract for the purpose of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into". FORMULA PRICING: "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established".

NOTE FROM Picket, et. al. vs IBP: "....all cattle producers are entitled to market preferences, but not to force their preferences on other segments of the market place."

Do we really want or need that degree of government control over how we market our cattle?

MRJ

MRJ, I agree with you on this one. I have guns and I believe criminals should be punished and not everyone else. It just so happens we have a court system that is run amuck and can not decide when the gun was used due to their lack of expertise in economic matters. So that is why you have this legislation. The real problem here was the court system (so far) and not the gun. You end up with gun control when there is no justice in regards to the criminals.

What we really need is a Supreme Court decison on this one instead of the political bribes and influence by industry.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ said:
From Beef Stocker Trends, 11-28-'05

"Earl Pomeroy, D. ND, makes a new attempt to legislate the Markets. He co-sponsors HR 4257, titled "Captive supply Reform Act."

The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.

Definitions: FORWARD CONTRACT: "...oral or written contract for the purpose of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into". FORMULA PRICING: "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established".

NOTE FROM Picket, et. al. vs IBP: "....all cattle producers are entitled to market preferences, but not to force their preferences on other segments of the market place."

Do we really want or need that degree of government control over how we market our cattle?

MRJ

Most of the laws we have today are because somebody didn't want to play fair and exploited loopholes. When somebody has to screw it up for everybody, this is the type of crap that you get. Econ makes a prime example with gun laws - we all get burdened because some idiots abused privilidges and responsibilities or were just plain dishonest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There is no justification for this communist law that saves the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms.

Everyone needs to oppose this step towards government control of cattle marketing and cattle ownership.

Who would guess this law would be passed in the "SUPPOSED" land of the free.

How pathetic!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
There is no justification for this communist law that saves the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms.

Everyone needs to oppose this step towards government control of cattle marketing and cattle ownership.

Who would guess this law would be passed in the "SUPPOSED" land of the free.

How pathetic!



~SH~

I guess you would be against taking guns away from criminals too, eh SH? Sometimes when you take away the temptation everyone is better off in the long run. Pickett would not have damages in the BILLIONS had this been done right at the start. Sometimes we need to save the packers(or anyone) from their own abuse of existing mechanisms. Same thing on child abusers. Same thing on abusive Catholic priests. Same thing on........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You have no proof of market manipulation as a result of captive supplies Conman.

None!

It's nothing more than a baseless packer blaming conspiracy theory and exactly why you lost in court and in the appeals court.

YOU GOT NOTHING!

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation and never will be.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.



MRJ

MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation and never will be."

That is a strawman of yours. That was never the arguement nor even close.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "That is a strawman of yours. That was never the arguement nor even close."

Hahaha! Ahhhh...ok?

OCM stated, as justification for the plaintiff's case, that Tyson's testimony claimed that as the captive supply goes up, the cash price goes down.

Does OCM know that this argument was irrelevant? LOL!

When you make sh*t up it's hard to keep your stories straight isn't it Sandbag?

If you can't back your own position, discredit the opposition's position. You've take that wore out tactic to new heights. Typical of your deceptive slithering ways.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "That is a strawman of yours. That was never the arguement nor even close."

Hahaha! Ahhhh...ok?

OCM stated, as justification for the plaintiff's case, that Tyson's testimony claimed that as the captive supply goes up, the cash price goes down.

Does OCM know that this argument was irrelevant? LOL!

When you make sh*t up it's hard to keep your stories straight isn't it Sandbag?

If you can't back your own position, discredit the opposition's position. You've take that wore out tactic to new heights. Typical of your deceptive slithering ways.



~SH~

Yes, but the reasons cash prices go down in not just because their needs are being met. That is your own personal justification in your blanket defense of the packers, Mr. Truth. Cash prices go down because one of the inputs in the formula is under the control of the packers
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Yes, but the reasons cash prices go down in not just because their needs are being met. That is your own personal justification in your blanket defense of the packers, Mr. Truth. Cash prices go down because one of the inputs in the formula is under the control of the packers."

How can it be MY blanket defense when that was the defense used by OCM? Busted again!

Nothing is controlled by the packers because this is a two party contract and feeders always have the cash option but they need you arrogant Livestock Marketing Police to save them from their own pricing mechanisms don't they?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "How can it be MY blanket defense when that was the defense used by OCM? Busted again!"

READING COMPREHENSON......

SH, "Nothing is controlled by the packers because this is a two party contract and feeders always have the cash option but they need you arrogant Livestock Marketing Police to save them from their own pricing mechanisms don't they?"

Are you telling us that the packers have no ability to effect any of the inputs of the price mechanism?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Are you telling us that the packers have no ability to effect any of the inputs of the price mechanism?'

"US"??

Still carrying those sheep turds around huh? Well, at least they have you as their spokesperson. LOL!

Sure the packers can affect their input costs BUT ONLY AS MUCH AS THE COMPETITION ALLOWS.

That's what you can't get through your conspiracy thickened head. All the packers have to compete against the other packers for the same cattle.

The reason that the bids don't vary much is because these large packers get paid virtually the same for the beef and beef by products, they have virtually the same processing expenses, and they are willing to accept virtually the same profit margins and still compete with the other packers in buying cattle.

Listening to the packer blaming producers and organizations is never going to give you objective insight into the packing industry.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You don't get it because you don't want to. A picture has been drawn for you many times. I'm tired of hog wrestling.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
MRJ said:
The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.



MRJ

MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them.

OCM, in all due respect did you call Bullard and R-Calf on their claim that producers did not benefit from the rise in beef demand from 1999-2002. They also claimed all the gains went to packers and retailers. Those statements are the most blatant lies I have heard. They are beyond preposterous. Are such statements, blatant outright lies, necessary to whow and retain R-Calf members?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
agman said:
ocm said:
MRJ said:
The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.



MRJ

MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them.

OCM, in all due respect did you call Bullard and R-Calf on their claim that producers did not benefit from the rise in beef demand from 1999-2002. They also claimed all the gains went to packers and retailers. Those statements are the most blatant lies I have heard. They are beyond preposterous. Are such statements, blatant outright lies, necessary to whow and retain R-Calf members?

Even courts understand the difference between lying and puffery. This from the AMI is cut and dried. What you are saying about R-CALF is subject to interpretation, depends on whether benefit means profitability or simply higher prices. Kind of like the argument about whether we had a trade deficit on cattle or not, depends on how you defined it. See those for what they are.

So did AMI lie or not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Even courts understand the difference between lying and puffery. This from the AMI is cut and dried. What you are saying about R-CALF is subject to interpretation, depends on whether benefit means profitability or simply higher prices. Kind of like the argument about whether we had a trade deficit on cattle or not, depends on how you defined it. See those for what they are."

Hahaha! Depends on what the meaning of "is" is. You bet!

Profitability or simply higher prices MY ARS! Who do you think you're kidding? These guys lie every time they open their mouths. R-CULT lied about USDA not caring about food safety. R-CULT lied about the safety of Candian beef in comparison to U.S. beef to keep the Canadian border closed to live cattle. R-CULT lied about the relevance of the retail to fat cattle price spread. R-CULT lied about "HUGE" packer profits. R-CULT lied about a 40% captive supply threshold. R-CULT lied about producers not benefitting from the rise in beef demand. THAT'S THE SHORT LIST! They lie every time they take the microphone and you defend it. What a sad case you are. Subject to interpretation......sheeeesh!


OCM: "So did AMI lie or not?"

No, AMI did not lie! The communist captive supply reform act to save the feeding industry from themselves will prohibit formula pricing and forward contracts as we know them.

I guess that's subject to interpretation TOO isn't it?

Hypocrite!


~SH~
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
ocm said:
MRJ said:
The bill would amend the P&S Act to prohibit forward contracts and formula pricing.



MRJ

MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them.

OCM......From AMI's website ( http://www.meatami.com/Template.cfm?Section=InsideAMI&template=PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=2723&News=Y)


Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House
November 10, 2005

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector. Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) also co-sponsored the bill that could expose producers to greater price risk and market volatility.

The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw “formula price” and “forward contract,” as defined by the bill. Formula price would mean “any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established.” A forward contract would be defined as an “oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into ….”

AMI, which opposes the bill, noted that while the bills' intention is to "prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts," it disregards that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........

OCM, please point out the lies. I find it interesting that HR 4257 is word for word, the same language as S. 1044, which Sen Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced in the senate on 5/13/03. Unless I missed something, Sen Enzi does not have a single reference on his website to this bill since he introduced it. More time has been wasted on this site discussing 1044 / 4257 that anywhere else.

I also have a current copy of all the listed alliances (55 in all) from Drovers Journal, dated March '04. I'm sure there's been attritition since then, but it's for the most part current. Do you not believe HR 4257 would severely cripply most of these alliances? That is, unless they totally reconstruct their pricing structure to meet 1044 / 4257.

For obvious reasons, it appears the senate totally ignored S. 1044. What makes you think the house won't do the same with HR 4257?

Beefman
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Beefman, I know you are talking to OCM on this issue and I don't really want to get in the way of that discussion but I have a comment and a discussion. I have to say that I have not thoroughly looked at this bill and its implications.

The first question is whether or not the benefits or reasons that you gave for AMI opposing the bill, "that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........ " outweighs the costs to the market via market manipulation of supply and price. Price manipulation always entails benefits for some but it comes at an expense to the market as a whole. Some people are advantaged, possibly in the ways explained here, to the detriment of the market as a whole. In this case, the benefits of the advantages should not be considered.

The next question is, does the AMI have alternative legislation to meet the same goals as the introduced bill?
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Beefman, I know you are talking to OCM on this issue and I don't really want to get in the way of that discussion but I have a comment and a discussion. I have to say that I have not thoroughly looked at this bill and its implications.

The first question is whether or not the benefits or reasons that you gave for AMI opposing the bill, "that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........ "

The above text was from AMI's press release.

Econ101 said:
......outweighs the costs to the market via market manipulation of supply and price. Price manipulation always entails benefits for some but it comes at an expense to the market as a whole.
what market manipulation are you referencing?


Econ101 said:
Some people are advantaged, possibly in the ways explained here, to the detriment of the market as a whole. In this case, the benefits of the advantages should not be considered.

Please expand on your though here. Not sure I'm following your point.

Econ101 said:
The next question is, does the AMI have alternative legislation to meet the same goals as the introduced bill?

I have no idea what AMI's thoughts are. I would imagine their strategy entails sensible marketing solutions for the future. I would not predict it will be necessary for them to spend significant time on HR 4257.

Beefman
 

Latest posts

Top