Vote here

[Sandhusker]

[~SH~]

Sandhusker FLIP: "Competition has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with an outfit buying anybody else out."


Sandhusker FLOP: "You are saying that the buyouts are to stop competition. I'll agree that that would be a reason to buy someone out."


TREED but still too arrogant to admit it!!!


Rancher,

Other examples may or may not be comparable to packer buyouts.

We are talking about large packers buying out small packers and the reasons for this.

Why have many smaller less efficient packing companies sold out to larger more efficient packing companies????

BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T COMPETE WITH THEM

IF THEY COULDN't COMPETE WITH THEM, THERE IS COMPETITION


To suggest otherwise is wrong!


Can there be other reasons? Sure!


R-CALF has made the statement that smaller packing companies can't compete with the larger packing companies. Although that directly contradicts their statement that there is no competition, they still said it.

Well, if the smaller companies couldn't compete, THERE IS COMPETITION!!!


It's another classic example of R-CALF's conflicting arguments and the clones that repeat them without thinking about them.


~SH~

[~SH~]

Sandhusker Pot: "OK, Twister, lets start alllll over again."

Sandhusker Kettle: "I know I'm getting you when you resort to name calling".

You just can't win today can you? Hahaha!


Ok, I'm feeling generous about your inability to admit when you are wrong, so I won't badger you with it anymore.

Instead, I'll take your bait and delve into your "assumed" comfort zone.

Sandhusker: "You're trying to tell us that a buyout is proof there is competition and I just showed you six buyout reasons that have nothing to do with competition! All can happen in a competitive or noncompetitive market, and you know it! I proved you wrong not once, not twice, but SIX times!"

You haven't proven me wrong once on this topic let alone the 6 times you dreamed about which would still only be once IF YOU PROVED ME WRONG with your 6 examples.

I never said that an inability or difficulty for a small packing plant to compete with a larger more efficient packing plant, was the ONLY REASON for smaller packing companies being bought out by larger packing companies.

The fact remains, an inability or difficulty in competing with larger more efficient packing companies has been a major reason for many of these packer acquisitions in history. That is a fact!

There is many examples of small packing companies selling out to larger companies due to the difficult in competing with larger more efficient packing companies.

Your beloved R-CALF has even spoke about the inability or difficulty of smaller packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient packing companies.

THAT IS AN ADMISSION THAT THERE IS COMPETITION


Treed again!


~SH~

[Tam]

SH a friend told me last night about rule number one and I think it applies here PEOPLE ARE STUPID
How many times do you have to point out the words of someone are wrong before he will admit it and go away.

[Sandhusker]

OK, kids, lets back up and see the comment that started it all. I quote Mr. Huber; "Chief, If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies???
Hmmmmm???? Typical packer blaming contradiction!" Let's just focus on the first statement and ignore the smart-ass finale.

SH, If you're not saying that a buyout is proof there is competition, what else can you be saying? I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion. I stand by my statement, and proved it six ways. YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION. YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!

Now back to Huber's question to "Chief". SH, "If competition in the cattle market doesn't already exist, how were larger packing companies able to buy out smaller companies???" YOUR ANSWER; PICK ANY OF THE SIX EXAMPLES I GAVE YOU!

[~SH~]

Sand: "SH, If you're not saying that a buyout is proof there is competition, what else can you be saying?"

That competition was a factor in the sale of many smaller less efficient packing companies to larger more efficient packing companies.


Sand: "I said that competition had nothing to do with buyouts in the context to counter SH's assertion."

And you are wrong, as usual!


Sand: "YOU CAN HAVE A BUYOUT WITHOUT COMPETITION."

Yes, you can have a buyout without competition but that was not the case in many smaller packing companies selling out to larger packing companies.

You were wrong!


Sand: "YOU CAN NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON WHETHER A MARKET IS COMPETITIVE OR NOT BASED ON THE OCCURANCE OF A BUYOUT!"

I'll take your "OR NOT" as an admission that you cannot reach a conclusion that competition is not a factor in buyouts unless you know the factors that influenced that buyout.


You are boring me!


~SH~

[Sandhusker]