The Creekstone deal?

[cowman]

Cowman;;; easy does it. This American stuff you talk of is starting to sound a bit like anti Islam, or anti Hutterite or something. The problem we all have with not agreeing with a country's policy is in not agreeing with the country itself.

I've heard Bush defined as a radical Christian fundamentalist and sometimes I wonder. His axis of evil, and devil type talk has fueled a lot of hate between countries when almost all situations simply involve the radicals themselves. Ask the Dali Lama; humans are generally kind and peaceful ,, he says.

Is Rcalf our axis of evil, or are they just a bunch of farmers trying to survive, just like us.
I am as much of a hipocrite as the next guy so don't get me wrong. I'm not only trying to tame some of your comments, but my thoughts as well...

[cowman]

Well RKaiser I'm not anti American, just pro fairness? And the fact is America doesn't play very fair? With anybody? Be that as it may, the American farmer/rancher is no different than any of us here? They want the same things we do...to make a living and get a decent return on their money?
What does R-calf want that is so radical? They want to keep out cheap imports(Canada)...is that so wrong? Would we be all standing up and applauding if Canada allowed in a bunch of cheap Brazilian calves? Would we be giving little speeches about competition and let the best man win?
I have nothing against R-calf people...they are doing what they need to do to survive...but I do have a problem with the American government standing up and trying to tell the world they MUST play by their rules when they continue to break those very rules in regard to Canada! We were supposed to have a deal? NAFTA? Now how would you feel if you had a deal with your neighbor...say you agreed to share the cost of a combine...and he kept trying to screw you? Maybe expected you to do all the repairs, never let you use it when you needed to, never paid his part of the loan? Would you be real happy with him?....Isn't that what NAFTA has become?

[cowman]

It's all in the words cowman. Separating the American Government from the American people, did it for me. I agree with your above noted comments.

[jensend]

r-calf is no different from our dairy or poultry producers. no imports and they say they'll sacrifice the exports to have a protected market.

[rsomer]

cowman, you said "What does R-calf want that is so radical? They want to keep out cheap imports(Canada)...is that so wrong? Would we be all standing up and applauding if Canada allowed in a bunch of cheap Brazilian calves?"

Well actually R-Calf’s position is very wrong. Like it or not there is a established trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. Canada does not have the same trading relationship with Brazil. The comparison is not valid. Consider these facts:

United States-Canada Trade Flows Add up to $1.2 Billion Per Day:
The two-way flow of goods, services and income between Canada and the United States constitutes the largest bilateral economic relationship in the world.
In 2001, U.S. transactions with Canada reached $445 billion, an average of $1.2 billion per day. The U.S. exchange with Canada was worth 61% more than its second largest trading relationship, with Mexico.

Canada Buys Nearly a Quarter of All U.S. Exports of Goods:
In 2001, the United States sold $163 billion worth of goods to Canada.
Canada, with a population less than one-ninth the size of that of the United States, bought an average of $5,254 worth of U.S. goods per capita. The United States bought $219 billion worth of Canadian merchandise, approximately $768 for every American.
Canada bought more U.S. goods than all 15 countries of the European Union combined and more than all of Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 2001, U.S. exports to the province of Ontario alone were worth almost twice as much as those to Japan.

The United States Has Sold More Goods to Canada Than to Any Other Country in Each of the Last 56 Years:
Historically, Canada has been the leading foreign export market for U.S. goods. U.S. merchandise exports to Canada have consistently exceeded exports to other countries by wide margins. In the past 20 years, U.S. merchandise exports to Canada have quadrupled.

In 2001, Canada was the leading export market for 37 of the 50 states.

The United States Has a Surplus in Services Trade with Canada:
The United States leads the world in the export of services, ranging from computer software, to transportation, to professional expertise.
Canada continues to be a top customer, with purchases of $24 billion in 2001. U.S. exports of services to Canada rose by 3% over the previous year, while its exports to the world fell by 4%.
Canada provided the United States with $18 billion worth of services in 2001.
In recent years, the United States has consistently posted a surplus in services trade with Canada, while Canada has recorded a surplus in the exchange of goods.

U.S.-Canada Trade Has More Than Doubled Under the FTA and NAFTA:
The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) liberalizing trade between Canada and the United States went into effect January 1, 1989. Between 1988 and 1993, the two-way exchange of goods, services and income increased by one-third.
The agreement was expanded in 1994 when Mexico joined the partnership under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Trade between Canada and the United States has continued to flourish, growing by 50% between 1994 and 2001.

Canada Ranks Second in U.S. Investment Abroad:
Investment — both inflows and outflows — is a key contributor to job creation and international competitiveness.
In 2001, a record $25 billion in new direct investment flowed into Canada from the United States. The total U.S. stock in Canada at the end of the year amounted to $139 billion.
The United States is by far the largest foreign source of capital in Canada, accounting for 67% of the total stock. This represented 10% of all U.S. direct investment abroad.
The bulk of U.S. investment in Canada, 39%, was in the manufacturing industries, led by transportation, which made up 10% of the total. Finance, insurance and real estate together accounted for 27%, and petroleum for 17%.

Canada Led New Foreign Investment in the United States in 2001:
Canadian investors spent almost $17 billion to acquire or establish businesses in the United States, more than any other country invested.
Half of all Canadian direct investment abroad is in the United States. At the end of 2001, Canada had an accumulated total of $109 billion invested there, 8% of all foreign direct investment in the United States. Almost 37% was in the manufacturing sector, led by machinery firms with 15% of the total. Finance, insurance and real estate accounted for another 36%, and service industries for 5%.

More Than Half of All U.S. Automotive Exports Go to Canada:
Canada and the United States are involved in an integrated and mutually profitable trade in automobiles, trucks and auto parts. In 2001, transportation equipment accounted for almost a third of both U.S. merchandise exports to and imports from Canada. U.S. manufacturers sold over $23 billion in motor vehicle parts, engines and engine parts, and $13 billion worth of automobiles and trucks to Canada. The United States bought $40 billion worth of autos and trucks and $14 billion in parts and engines from Canada.
U.S. exports to Canada also included $12 billion in high-tech equipment, in particular, $6 billion worth of computers and $2 billion worth of tubes and semi-conductors. The United States supplied Canada with a variety of other goods, including $8 billion in agricultural products, $3 billion in pharmaceuticals, $2 billion in organic chemicals and $2 billion in paper.

Canada Is the United States' Leading Foreign Source of Energy:
Canada's energy exports to the United States totalled $35 billion in 2001. Exports included $17 billion in natural gas, $10 billion in crude petroleum, and $6 billion in petroleum and coal products. In addition, Canada supplied close to 100% of U.S. electricity imports, worth $2 billion.
Canadian forest product exports amounted to $20 billion and included $6 billion in softwood lumber and $5 billion in newsprint. The United States also purchased $8 billion in airplanes, their engines and parts; $4 billion in aluminum and aluminum alloys; and $3 billion in office machines.


So, tell me again. What is so wrong with R-Calf wanting to keep out Canadian beef.

[cowman]

Now that is an impressive list and speaks volumes about how from a financial perspective we might as well be one country...providing we could put up with some of Americas more bizarre ideas such as guns, drug laws, wars, capital punishment, and general dog eat dog attitude.
However I suspect your average cow guy in America couldn't care less? All he's doing is trying to make a living?
Now maybe that is an ignorant way to look at things but probably fairly realistic?
And I find it interesting, rsomer, that you are all for "science" ruling the day on BSE but not so keen on the "science" of blue tongue and the other one! After all didn't the ABP/CCA and the American cattle organizations get the Canadian border open using the "science" argument? And didn't our government say yes this is the "science" so we'll let American feeder cattle in? So why would you reject one and accept the other? Do you know something all the "scientists" don't know?

[rsomer]

That’s a fair comment on science. It seems all countries use science to justify their political stances. Political stances that may consider the science but include trade, economic and public perception issues too. The science regarding BSE has been on our side since June 2003 after the International Review Panel said our beef was safe yet the U.S. chose to drag their feed for political reasons when it came to opening the border. What goes round comes round and that came back to bite them after December 23. The decision on BT/Anaplas was not supported by science but was political and the interested parties made up science to support their respective positions.

Getting back to Creekstone, the NCBA comments illustrated the key issue. That issue is does government retain oversight for animal health and food safety, as well as international trade negotiations or is it up to business to determine. I have given this some thought and I think ultimately business is irresponsible. There must be some body responsible to the entire group, and the way our world is organized those groupings are called countries. Governments have that role and are responsible to their population even if they act irresponsibly internationally. It is up to government to make the rules and negotiate the rules with other governments. It then falls to business to compete within that regulatory environment. And for that matter it seems to be up to governments to decide just what is science and what is not.