Given the marketshare and their size they should go after Tyson for more than just price fixing. Food Security is a strategic national security issue.
According to a grocery store worker near me, more recently Tyson started entering into agreements for buying back rotten meat at fixed (but lowered) prices so the stores wouldn't have to discount the meat leading up to expiration. This was in response to asking about why the meat hasn't been going on sale at all.
Many desperate low-income people wait for the sales, then do a bunch of cooking. When the sales never happen they have to get food somehow. Economically the demand doesn't change, but because they have artificially constrained and reduced supply, they are making record profits very stupidly.
Food Security historically has been one of the top few driving forces in revolution.
Tyson needs to be broken up just like all other monopolies.
Safeguarding national security is more important. The people involved in those decisions need to go to jail. No fine will be big enough.
If a company cooperates with others to manipulate a sale price, its price fixing. Be it algorithm, or other change in input, cost, or choice.
> Given the marketshare and their size they should go after Tyson for more than just price fixing.
Several years ago, there was a big immigration raid on a bunch of Tyson Chicken facilities.
They found about 900 undocumented workers.
Many of them gave evidence to officials, including written instructions from Tyson that advised them how to fill out employment, banking, taxation paperwork if they "didn't have documentation" and how to stay under the radar, i.e. Tyson didn't just know they might have undocumented workers, they were facilitating actively enabling it.
In press conferences, when journalists asked "Are there any plans to investigate the company or issue fines or charges?", the response? "We are not considering that at this time." (And they never did.)
What it ended up looking like was that Tyson had been getting in some trouble, getting bad press for OSHA safety issues and perhaps had decided their undocumented workers were getting a little too angry about poor safety standards, making waves.
It would be entirely unsurprising to me if Tyson made a sweetheart deal with ICE that said "Hey, if you come to these plants, you'll get to make this big stink about undocumented workers" (and this was during the Trump administration), "but in return, can you leave us out of it?", very much shades of "Won't someone rid me of these meddlesome workers?"
Look at the difference in trajectory and amount of profit margin and market cap (<5% and $20B versus 30%+ and $217B).
Tyson deals with the laborious and dirty work, as do McDonald’s franchisees. McDonald’s probably likes where it is, collecting royalties for “quality” control and real estate appreciation.
I suspect you mean "beneficiaries," and you're right to point this out. It is appalling that slave labor apparently wasn't enough of an immoral business advantage for them.
> The 13th Amendment made chattel slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, yet it included an insidious exception: “Except as a punishment for a crime.” This simple exception means instead of eliminating slavery, the 13th Amendment, ironically, extended it into perpetuity.
Meat eaters ignore not just the violence against animals, but also the untold human suffering the industry inflicts. Meat packing employees routinely become immune to antibiotics because they come in contact with it so often on a daily basis.
1. McD's will just blame the next guy, vilify them and pass blame. Please don't name me in a national scandal.
2. Tyson is just another slaver of ultra-processed foods doing everything bad they can in the name of profit. No wonder McD food sucks if that's the supplier, I've just not cared or actively supported or bought at McD's in 30 years.
I really don't get why people subject themselves to McD food.
A quarter pounder with cheese or Big Mac just hits different than any other burger. (That's not to say there's not better burgers, but there's a specific McD taste profile which is enjoyable). Sometimes you just want that thing.
It's like going to Taco Bell for a crunchwrap. I know it's not "real fresh Mexican food", but sometimes you just want that specific thing.
I'm assuming they already have done so for years and that the cost is already baked into McDonald's prices.
As someone who doesn't eat there often it doesn't really affect me. Am I glad there's a cartel in general? No. Am I worried about commodity grade beef prices? Not really, it's not a significant part of my diet for a variety of reasons.
Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean you shouldn't care. Why should price fixing be a non issue for beef and not other industries? If you allow some companies to get away with it, it means others can get away with it in industries where you do care.
> You do realize this will roll down to the end consumers?
I don't think you meant accidentally reverse the subject matter. The article is about breaking up collective price fixing that has kept costs high for McDonalds. The reduced costs probably won't roll down to end consumers.
Price fixing is one of them but one that is very near term. The cost to end consumers is another, and they are separate though related.
What's concerning but more along the horizon (a few years out), is the price and cost of food in general, and the concentration of all business as a whole (of which people see the most negative affects on the surface where price fixing like this occurs).
What people don't see is what led to that concentration in the first place, it had to have a bias to get to where it is at now, that bias is a combination of regulatory and competitive advantage. Few think through more than a few steps ahead though to understand what that means and where its going.
Wages aren't going up, inflation drives everything forward (because we can't stop printing), and the bias towards concentration seems to be coming from the fact that corporations are allowed to have leverage ratios greater than one, or in other words they have received preferential loans and as a result are able to out-compete regular business. These companies are zombie companies, and the profits are acting as a sieve. The loans came from the FED/Primary Dealers (who run the FED), so in classic definition these would be called state-controlled apparatus since they are dependent on the loans for continued production and the loan to production value ratio is for the most part negative (showing absence of a market).
When all non-state-controlled producers leave the market, the market no longer exists, and you have non-market socialism; which we know fails... every time.
This happens when the store of value is no more, and currency is no longer considered a medium of exchange. Who decides this? The minority party that has something others need. You generally need supply before you can have demand.
This is very concerning, since ponzi's fail in the third stage where outflows exceed inflows, and we are coming up on that point (within 5 years) in terms of debt growth to GDP.
Producers decide by stopping production, being bought out and shutting down.
In the near term, we are looking at a wholesale conversion of almost every economy that is tied to the dollar to the same structure as non-market socialism. It fails generally starting with shortage, then sustaining as a result of 6 intractable problems. One being the mathematically chaotic economic calculation problem.
New currencies can't be adopted because there is no trust or credibility in the institutions that led the way to disaster and prevented course correction. This can be seen with China and the other BRICS nations where commodity prices (buffeted by options structured contracts and leverage), distort price.
You do realize this has rolled down to the end consumers?
It's not just Tyson either. Trump's right that you decrease energy costs and you decrease consumer costs. What he's wrong in is that energy costs are going up from cartel actions [1] not because of red tape.
22 comments:
Given the marketshare and their size they should go after Tyson for more than just price fixing. Food Security is a strategic national security issue.
According to a grocery store worker near me, more recently Tyson started entering into agreements for buying back rotten meat at fixed (but lowered) prices so the stores wouldn't have to discount the meat leading up to expiration. This was in response to asking about why the meat hasn't been going on sale at all.
Many desperate low-income people wait for the sales, then do a bunch of cooking. When the sales never happen they have to get food somehow. Economically the demand doesn't change, but because they have artificially constrained and reduced supply, they are making record profits very stupidly.
Food Security historically has been one of the top few driving forces in revolution.
Tyson needs to be broken up just like all other monopolies. Safeguarding national security is more important. The people involved in those decisions need to go to jail. No fine will be big enough.
If a company cooperates with others to manipulate a sale price, its price fixing. Be it algorithm, or other change in input, cost, or choice.
> Given the marketshare and their size they should go after Tyson for more than just price fixing.
Several years ago, there was a big immigration raid on a bunch of Tyson Chicken facilities.
They found about 900 undocumented workers.
Many of them gave evidence to officials, including written instructions from Tyson that advised them how to fill out employment, banking, taxation paperwork if they "didn't have documentation" and how to stay under the radar, i.e. Tyson didn't just know they might have undocumented workers, they were facilitating actively enabling it.
In press conferences, when journalists asked "Are there any plans to investigate the company or issue fines or charges?", the response? "We are not considering that at this time." (And they never did.)
What it ended up looking like was that Tyson had been getting in some trouble, getting bad press for OSHA safety issues and perhaps had decided their undocumented workers were getting a little too angry about poor safety standards, making waves.
It would be entirely unsurprising to me if Tyson made a sweetheart deal with ICE that said "Hey, if you come to these plants, you'll get to make this big stink about undocumented workers" (and this was during the Trump administration), "but in return, can you leave us out of it?", very much shades of "Won't someone rid me of these meddlesome workers?"
Worth clicking through to the actual filing where you can see the evidence McDonalds presents, which I personally find very compelling.
Also worth noting that assuming I'm reading this correctly it doesn't just impact McDonalds but everyone who has bought beef since 2015.
I do wonder at what point does McDonalds vertically integrate and process the beef themselves.
> I do wonder at what point does McDonalds vertically integrate and process the beef themselves.
Never. McDonalds probably wants to avoid getting into a low profit margin, high liability business:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSN/tyson-foods/pr...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/prof...
Look at the difference in trajectory and amount of profit margin and market cap (<5% and $20B versus 30%+ and $217B).
Tyson deals with the laborious and dirty work, as do McDonald’s franchisees. McDonald’s probably likes where it is, collecting royalties for “quality” control and real estate appreciation.
Interestingly enough, In-N-Out does do their own beef processing, they take whole sides of beef, and turn them into patties.
Tyson is one of biggest benefactors of prison labor
I suspect you mean "beneficiaries," and you're right to point this out. It is appalling that slave labor apparently wasn't enough of an immoral business advantage for them.
I was recently made aware of this:
> The 13th Amendment made chattel slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional, yet it included an insidious exception: “Except as a punishment for a crime.” This simple exception means instead of eliminating slavery, the 13th Amendment, ironically, extended it into perpetuity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=slavery+u...
McDonald's as well http://al.com/news/2023/12/fast-food-chains-use-alabama-pris...
Meat eaters ignore not just the violence against animals, but also the untold human suffering the industry inflicts. Meat packing employees routinely become immune to antibiotics because they come in contact with it so often on a daily basis.
So this tells you a few things:
1. McD's will just blame the next guy, vilify them and pass blame. Please don't name me in a national scandal. 2. Tyson is just another slaver of ultra-processed foods doing everything bad they can in the name of profit. No wonder McD food sucks if that's the supplier, I've just not cared or actively supported or bought at McD's in 30 years.
I really don't get why people subject themselves to McD food.
A quarter pounder with cheese or Big Mac just hits different than any other burger. (That's not to say there's not better burgers, but there's a specific McD taste profile which is enjoyable). Sometimes you just want that thing.
It's like going to Taco Bell for a crunchwrap. I know it's not "real fresh Mexican food", but sometimes you just want that specific thing.
Poor McDonald's, getting stomped on by someone else with power.
I kind of like that someone is doing to them what they did to customers re: shake machines.
I am so grateful that McDonald's is going after these suppliers. I hope Yum does the same thing.
Less than retailers of packaged raw foods, these giant restaurant chains have big claims for damages.
You do realize this will roll down to the end consumers? Sure, with some delay, but the price will ultimately be born by average folks.
I'm assuming they already have done so for years and that the cost is already baked into McDonald's prices.
As someone who doesn't eat there often it doesn't really affect me. Am I glad there's a cartel in general? No. Am I worried about commodity grade beef prices? Not really, it's not a significant part of my diet for a variety of reasons.
Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean you shouldn't care. Why should price fixing be a non issue for beef and not other industries? If you allow some companies to get away with it, it means others can get away with it in industries where you do care.
The "it doesn't affect me" argument is not scalable.
> You do realize this will roll down to the end consumers?
I don't think you meant accidentally reverse the subject matter. The article is about breaking up collective price fixing that has kept costs high for McDonalds. The reduced costs probably won't roll down to end consumers.
There are several issues at play.
Price fixing is one of them but one that is very near term. The cost to end consumers is another, and they are separate though related.
What's concerning but more along the horizon (a few years out), is the price and cost of food in general, and the concentration of all business as a whole (of which people see the most negative affects on the surface where price fixing like this occurs).
What people don't see is what led to that concentration in the first place, it had to have a bias to get to where it is at now, that bias is a combination of regulatory and competitive advantage. Few think through more than a few steps ahead though to understand what that means and where its going.
Wages aren't going up, inflation drives everything forward (because we can't stop printing), and the bias towards concentration seems to be coming from the fact that corporations are allowed to have leverage ratios greater than one, or in other words they have received preferential loans and as a result are able to out-compete regular business. These companies are zombie companies, and the profits are acting as a sieve. The loans came from the FED/Primary Dealers (who run the FED), so in classic definition these would be called state-controlled apparatus since they are dependent on the loans for continued production and the loan to production value ratio is for the most part negative (showing absence of a market).
When all non-state-controlled producers leave the market, the market no longer exists, and you have non-market socialism; which we know fails... every time. This happens when the store of value is no more, and currency is no longer considered a medium of exchange. Who decides this? The minority party that has something others need. You generally need supply before you can have demand.
This is very concerning, since ponzi's fail in the third stage where outflows exceed inflows, and we are coming up on that point (within 5 years) in terms of debt growth to GDP.
Producers decide by stopping production, being bought out and shutting down.
In the near term, we are looking at a wholesale conversion of almost every economy that is tied to the dollar to the same structure as non-market socialism. It fails generally starting with shortage, then sustaining as a result of 6 intractable problems. One being the mathematically chaotic economic calculation problem.
New currencies can't be adopted because there is no trust or credibility in the institutions that led the way to disaster and prevented course correction. This can be seen with China and the other BRICS nations where commodity prices (buffeted by options structured contracts and leverage), distort price.
Interesting times ahead.
You do realize this has rolled down to the end consumers?
It's not just Tyson either. Trump's right that you decrease energy costs and you decrease consumer costs. What he's wrong in is that energy costs are going up from cartel actions [1] not because of red tape.
[1]: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-inflati...