I understand that cattle spend their young years on a ranch, before they are rotated to feedlots.
More generally, I would expect some parts of the country to have higher production costs than other parts. The market would even those differentials out to some extent, as the relative price of land in Texas or in feedlot states rises. But only to some in extent. Then there’s expanding domestic and international demand for meat to consider, which would tend to make more marginal tracts economical.
Regardless and with respect, you haven’t at all addressed the objective economic forces that have turned against the smallish operator, wholly independently of efficiency considerations. There’s no efficiency justification for permitting retaliation against small ranchers who merely report on the deal they are getting from their buyers. There’s no efficiency justification for shifting market risks on to the small rancher: it doesn’t make sense. All of this is a straightforward example of political alchemy whereby large companies hire lobbyists to turn money into power and power into money. Said lobbyists have greater leverage when paired with a political party that is ideologically hostile to weighing various societal interests when setting regulatory policy.
I don’t doubt however that local ranchers faces a variety of business challenges.
That’s true in the big private ranches in Texas and such, but generally not for people who are grazing on public land in the Mountain West. For a lot of them, there simply aren’t feedlots around.
The major difference is that large ranches and feedlots have to make generous profits for their shareholders whereas individual family ranches just have to keep the lights on, if that. If it were a straight money game, probably nobody would raise cattle anywhere between the Sierras and the Rocky Mountain Front. But the ranchers live where they live and aren’t going to pull up stakes and move to Texas because it’s cheaper to raise cows there. There’s also not a whole lot of other job options in most of these places, and there is of course the whole rugged individualist cache to running one’s own ranch, which the people in question certainly seem to have bought into.
I don’t deny that all that is happening and is a shame, but the basic problem of “big producers versus small producers” and “productive region versus marginal region” are as old as agriculture itself. The meatpacker cartels are just one other thing that makes life more difficult for them; grazing fees and environmental closures are another one. Neither one really addresses the fundamental economic problems they face, though. Barring something like Switzerland where the raising of cows in mountains is seen as a national treasure and highly subsidized, I don’t really see anything that can be done about it.
ETA: Although, caveat to all that, Western ranchers can often compete on quality and the recent popularity of things like grass-fed organic beef has been a big boon for them.
That first link is not to a news article from Investors’ Business Daily, it’s a blog / editorial. Most that item and the Washington Times item most definitely do not state that organizations are hiring “protestors”; they both reference the statement:
[Two non-profits] created a joint account in which national donors from all over the world have donated over $150,000 to sustain the movement. Since then,the poor black people of this movement who served as cash generators to bring money into St. Louis have seen little to none of that money. Furthermore, since the influx of funding has started, poor black people continue to take to the streets … So, no, no-one was “hiring” protestors.
The Snopes link also does not support your claim; there is nothing in that item about paying protestors. It only confirms that the Open Society Foundation had given grants to existing organizations that “emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson” - again, a far cry from paying protestors.
I’d love a cite that substantiates that, because the Snopes article says nothing of the sort. This is strictly your opinion.
He’s the freaking founder and current CEO of the foundation, he has a bit of say over where the money is spent - certainly more than I have over the Red Cross :rolleyes:
Which I specifically pointed out - not Soros himself, but through a foundation that he started and controls.
Wow, talk about selective reading. You chose one small quote, out of context, to define the entire article. How about he part that says:
or
That statement, based on all cites I can find (including #cutthecheck) is factually incorrect. The only matter of contention is how many were paid/bused in at someone else’s expense.
Again, selective reading. Snopes says:
Now, unless you have a breakdown of how those monies were spent, you cannot say that they were not used to pay protesters (not just Ferguson, by the way, but Baltimore, Occupy in all it’s forms, and others). Somebody got them there, somebody fed them, somebody housed them, etc., etc., etc. From WSOC television in Charlotte, NC:
I have no dog in this fight, but to suppose that the protesters themselves came out of pocket for all expenses makes one quite naïve. There is BIG money in protesting, and some amount of it is spent to pay people to keep the “crisis” going - the more and longer the spotlight is on the protests the more donations roll in. When the spotlight fades, so do the donations. It’s a fact of life.
That “one small quote” was the basis for both items. The rest was just speculation and misrepresentation. The items to which you linked were not researched and documented news reports, and did not even mention any evidence to back you up.
Ah, no. No, that is not how it works.
First, I don’t have to prove anything, because I did not make any claim; I just pointed out that the links you posted to supported your claims do not do so.
Second, by your reasoning, I could claim that because you do not have a complete breakdown of the Koch brothers’ donations, you cannot say they did not fund the Ferguson protests.
Really, go back and read those items; there is no evidence that someone paid protestors in them.
I know that I saw that in one of Snopes’ cites, or possibly in something linked to in one of those cites, but I can’t find it now so I’ll retract that claim.
Real cites versus your opinion. Hmm, which one should I take more seriously?
No, you don’t. I also don’t have to accept your assertions as anything but unsubstantiated opinion.
We know OSF funded the groups organizing the protests. We know protestors got bussed in. We know they were fed and housed. We know some protesters are protesting that they did not get paid as promised. Somebody paid/promised all that. Occam’s razor, my man.
OK, j666, I’ll play along one more time. The preponderance of evidence seems to me to point to outside donors supporting the protests & protesters. In your opinion, how DO these protesters spend weeks away from home and still pay the bills, eat, etc.?
Given the kinds of people some of them are, I’m sure they’re deep in my ex-wife’s kind of thinking. “Well I’m not home to be using any electricity, so I don’t have to pay that bill!” and the like.
Those people will go home to mounting debts and we’ll probably see Gofundme pages asking for assistance.
What*** evidence? You have presented no evidence. You just keep making assumptions. And what does an opinion have to do with any of this? You are making factual claims; opinions are not facts.
What are the acknowledged facts?
1.) “Outside donors” gave money to local organizations in Ferguson. (Please note: there is no information as to the timing of the donations or any proof they were earmarked for any particular use.)
What are the assumptions in this post alone?
1.) “Outside donor” gave money specifically to support protests and protesters.
2.) Protesters spend weeks away from home.
3.) Protesters have bills to pay.
4.) Protesters do pay those bills.
3 & 4 are not unreasonable assumptions, but they are still assumptions.
Do I know that protesters who were not local used their savings and vacation time to join the protests? No, I do not.
Do I believe it the least likely explanation? Also no.