11th Circuit Grants Tyson "Economic" Eminent Domai

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Did the plaintiffs not present evidence that the cash markets were being discriminated against?"

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation.


OCM,

Provide the evidence that was presented in court that would justify a guilty verdict. Dropping your price to reflect your needs would hardly qualify as market manipulation. TRY AGAIN!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Did the plaintiffs not present evidence that the cash markets were being discriminated against?"

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation.


OCM,

Provide the evidence that was presented in court that would justify a guilty verdict. Dropping your price to reflect your needs would hardly qualify as market manipulation. TRY AGAIN!


~SH~

SH, your "Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation." statement is your opinion. You are entitled to it your opinion, but you are wrong. Under the correct circumstances this could be market manipulation with the use of strategic buying power. You just have your own definition of market manipulation. I have already given you "textbook" examples that really came out of an economics textbook. You should read a microeconomics textbook and know what you are talking about before you argue everyone else but you is wrong.

Could the captive supply cattle and the cash market cattle have been killed on the same day even though thier prices were dependant on a different week? 2nd time I have asked this question.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Could the captive supply cattle and the cash market cattle have been killed on the same day even though thier prices were dependant on a different week?"

Yes, what's the point you think you have now?

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Kindergarten: "SH, your "Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation." statement is your opinion. You are entitled to it your opinion, but you are wrong. Under the correct circumstances this could be market manipulation with the use of strategic buying power."

No, as usual, you are wrong that's why the verdict was overruled and the 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision.

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation or it would have consequences within every sector of this industry. Every feeder would have to pay the same price for all of his cattle or justify why he didn't. It seems the industry blamers only worry about what the packers are paying the feeders rather than what the feeders are paying them. Blamers have to blame someone I guess.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Could the captive supply cattle and the cash market cattle have been killed on the same day even though thier prices were dependant on a different week?"

Yes, what's the point you think you have now?

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Kindergarten: "SH, your "Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation." statement is your opinion. You are entitled to it your opinion, but you are wrong. Under the correct circumstances this could be market manipulation with the use of strategic buying power."

No, as usual, you are wrong that's why the verdict was overruled and the 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision.

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation or it would have consequences within every sector of this industry. Every feeder would have to pay the same price for all of his cattle or justify why he didn't. It seems the industry blamers only worry about what the packers are paying the feeders rather than what the feeders are paying them. Blamers have to blame someone I guess.


~SH~

SH,

Only those who have enough "buying power" or market power are the ones we need to worry about in antitrust and market power issues. Is that the case with feeders?

SH, if the delivery was for the same day, how can you claim there was a difference in time between the two markets that accounts for price differences? It is only an excuse. If it smells like a rose........

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Only those who have enough "buying power" or market power are the ones we need to worry about in antitrust and market power issues. Is that the case with feeders?"

If dropping your price to reflect your needs is market manipulation than it has to apply to every segment of the industry not be discriminatory against the LARGE EVIL CORPORATE PACKER.

Kindergarten: "SH, if the delivery was for the same day, how can you claim there was a difference in time between the two markets that accounts for price differences? It is only an excuse. If it smells like a rose........"

Hahaha! You gotta be kidding me! This is just about as stupid as your statement regarding packers doing their own grading.

The delivery of the cattle has nothing to do with the fact that the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks.

Your chasing fools gold again.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Only those who have enough "buying power" or market power are the ones we need to worry about in antitrust and market power issues. Is that the case with feeders?"

If dropping your price to reflect your needs is market manipulation than it has to apply to every segment of the industry not be discriminatory against the LARGE EVIL CORPORATE PACKER.

Kindergarten: "SH, if the delivery was for the same day, how can you claim there was a difference in time between the two markets that accounts for price differences? It is only an excuse. If it smells like a rose........"

Hahaha! You gotta be kidding me! This is just about as stupid as your statement regarding packers doing their own grading.

The delivery of the cattle has nothing to do with the fact that the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks.

Your chasing fools gold again.



~SH~

SH, If you want to change the law, go get elected and rewrite it..... or go get your robe on and be a liberal "lets rewrite it so we can win" judge like appellate court is trying to do.

If "the delivery of cattle has nothing to do with the fact the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks", then what are they based on? Boxed beef prices as you suggest?

It would seems Mike C.'s statement about this issue seems more and more reasonable all of the time.

 

[agman]

Wouldn't a true Daubert issue be brought up BEFORE the trial?

The expert witness is not cross examined before trail. It was the cross exam at trial that buried Taylor.

The cross examination during the trial is not Daubert. Thus the problem with the 11th Circuit finding.

You are correct that cross exam is not "Daubert". Daubert merely sets guidelines for expert witness qualification and other requirements of the witness. However, it was during cross exam that the credibility of the expert witness's testimony was unveiled.

Answer yes or no for the readers. Is it not required under "Daubert" that theories advanced at trial must be tested for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" of "no" answer. Second question, did Taylor not admit under cross exam and under oath that he failed to test this own "six" theories for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" or "no" answer to the second question also. End of discussion............

 

[ocm]

The expert witness is not cross examined before trail. It was the cross exam at trial that buried Taylor.

The cross examination during the trial is not Daubert. Thus the problem with the 11th Circuit finding.

You are correct that cross exam is not "Daubert". Daubert merely sets guidelines for expert witness qualification and other requirements of the witness. However, it was during cross exam that the credibility of the expert witness's testimony was unveiled.

Answer yes or no for the readers. Is it not required under "Daubert" that theories advanced at trial must be tested for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" of "no" answer. Second question, did Taylor not admit under cross exam and under oath that he failed to test this own "six" theories for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" or "no" answer to the second question also. End of discussion............

The "expert" witness for Tyson testified that fat cattle were transported in padded trucks. Since this was false should all of his testimony be thrown out because this "expert" testified to something so patently false?

Taylor's causation mechanisms were not substantial to his primary testimony any more than the padded trucks were to what's his name. The hypotheses behind his regression analysis were tested over and over. If Strom had wanted to exclude padded trucks or causation mechanisms from the jury's consideration because they were untested he could have done that. If Strom was in that much error, they should do the trial again.

 

[agman]

The cross examination during the trial is not Daubert. Thus the problem with the 11th Circuit finding.

You are correct that cross exam is not "Daubert". Daubert merely sets guidelines for expert witness qualification and other requirements of the witness. However, it was during cross exam that the credibility of the expert witness's testimony was unveiled.

Answer yes or no for the readers. Is it not required under "Daubert" that theories advanced at trial must be tested for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" of "no" answer. Second question, did Taylor not admit under cross exam and under oath that he failed to test this own "six" theories for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" or "no" answer to the second question also. End of discussion............

The "expert" witness for Tyson testified that fat cattle were transported in padded trucks. Since this was false should all of his testimony be thrown out because this "expert" testified to something so patently false?

Taylor's causation mechanisms were not substantial to his primary testimony any more than the padded trucks were to what's his name. The hypotheses behind his regression analysis were tested over and over. If Strom had wanted to exclude padded trucks or causation mechanisms from the jury's consideration because they were untested he could have done that. If Strom was in that much error, they should do the trial again.

I see that you totally evaded answering my two simple amid basic questions that would allow readers to better understand why Judge Strom ruled the way he did and the Circuit Court upheld his ruling. Rather you divert to one statement from Hausman, who was never presented by the defense as a cattle expert. However, you fail to mention that Jerry Hausman is a world renowned Econometrician, unlike Taylor who I believe is a production economist who was presented as a livestock expert. Question: How many publications has Taylor ever published regarding cattle. Hint, how many noses do you have.

Since you and Econ101 have constantly evaded answering my two basic questions I will post the correct answer to the questions I posed. The questions are an exact copy from my perevious post. Answer yes or no for the readers. Is it not required under "Daubert" that theories advanced at trial must be tested for validity? The readers deserve a "yes" of "no" answer. Second question, did Taylor not admit under cross exam and under oath that he failed to test this own "six" theories for validity?

The answer to both questions is "YES". Now let the readers decide how valid Taylor's testimony was. With all due respect the case is over and so is this discussion.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Kindergarten: "Only those who have enough "buying power" or market power are the ones we need to worry about in antitrust and market power issues. Is that the case with feeders?"

If dropping your price to reflect your needs is market manipulation than it has to apply to every segment of the industry not be discriminatory against the LARGE EVIL CORPORATE PACKER.

Kindergarten: "SH, if the delivery was for the same day, how can you claim there was a difference in time between the two markets that accounts for price differences? It is only an excuse. If it smells like a rose........"

Hahaha! You gotta be kidding me! This is just about as stupid as your statement regarding packers doing their own grading.

The delivery of the cattle has nothing to do with the fact that the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks.

Your chasing fools gold again.



~SH~

SH, If you want to change the law, go get elected and rewrite it..... or go get your robe on and be a liberal "lets rewrite it so we can win" judge like appellate court is trying to do.

If "the delivery of cattle has nothing to do with the fact the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks", then what are they based on? Boxed beef prices as you suggest?

It would seems Mike C.'s statement about this issue seems more and more reasonable all of the time.

So your telling me that calves bought in September for January delivery will be the same price as the January cash market?

 

[Econ101]

Agman, I know the avenue for publication well. The fingers run deep. Publishing articles in the current ag. economic publications doesn't mean a thing. I could give you example after example of that problem. Are you saying that to not have "Daubert" issues you have to be published in the current ag.eco publications? That is a joke. The current USDA/economics funding is and should be scrutinized. If the USDA can not come up with the right reporting in the cattle industry to be able to clearly see if market power is exerted (which is the main criticism or the panhandle studies in the peer review) then why should they be able to pull the money strings of economic papers and research at the land grant universities? Their incompetence is only multiplied.

You refer to Hauseman. How much did he get paid from any source? Are you willing to expose his potential bias?

You don't want this discussion to go any further because too many people will see what you don't want them to see.

 

[agman]

Wouldn't a true Daubert issue be brought up BEFORE the trial?

The expert witness is not cross examined before trail. It was the cross exam at trial that buried Taylor.

Every pre-trial deposition I have ever been to the opposing side has asked questions of the expert witness.

There was evn a "Daubert" hearing in addition to depositions pre-trial in Pickett in which the attorneys were allowed to question and make motions before the judge. I quote:

"On March 13, 2003, the court held a Daubert hearing at which both parties presented evidence. In addition to reviewing the testimony from the Daubert hearing, the Court has also reviewed the parties' briefs, evidentiary submissions, and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, IBP's motions will be granted in part and denied in part."

From the same ruling:

"IBP does not seem to quarrel with the methodology Dr. Taylor used; regression analysis is a commonly accepted method of reaching such conclusions."
"Although the methodology itself is reliable, IBP contends that Dr. Taylor's application of such methodology is unreliable and does not meet the Daubert test."
"Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant's objection to the foregoing proposed testimony of Dr. Taylor should be denied."

Filed April 10, 2003 with the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama

Once again you make an ardent attempt to confuse readers with pre-trial activity with trial findings during cross exam. While you are posting please post footnote #7, page 13 of the Appellate Court ruling for readers to see. That comment, which I suggest you post, by the court was determined from information or more importantly the lack thereof during the trial and cross exam of Dr Taylor. Why are you once again diverting from that issue?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "If "the delivery of cattle has nothing to do with the fact the prices were based on supply and demand factors for separate weeks", then what are they based on?"

I have to admit that I am not very adept at presenting this information at a kindergarten level so someone as ignorant as yourself will understand it but here goes.............


DISCLAIMER: THIS IS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ACTUAL PRICES.


JAN.1 - JAN.7 - BEEF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS (boxed beef prices) = $67 fat cattle.

JAN. 8 - JAN.15 - BEEF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS (boxed beef prices) = $65 fat cattle.

Supply and demand factors that changed from the week of Jan. 1 - Jan.7 to week of Jan.8 - Jan. 15. included increase in carcass weights, increase in slaughter rates, decrease in competitive meat prices due to an increase in competitive meat supplies, and a decrease in beef sales.


JAN. 8 - JAN.15 - "NON" NEGOTIATED BASE PRICE FORMULA CATTLE THAT WERE DELIVERED THIS WEEK WERE BASED OFF LAST WEEK'S CASH MARKET.

READ THAT AGAIN UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT...........

THE "NON" NEGOTIATED BASE PRICE FOR FORMULA CATTLE IS THE WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE CASH MARKET THE WEEK PRIOR WHICH MAY BE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE.

Jan. 8 - Jan. 15 cash catte delivered this week = $65
Jan. 8 - Jan. 15 formula cattle delivered this week = $67 (Jan.1 - Jan.7 cash price)


I'll bet you still don't understand it.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

The expert witness is not cross examined before trail. It was the cross exam at trial that buried Taylor.

Every pre-trial deposition I have ever been to the opposing side has asked questions of the expert witness.

There was evn a "Daubert" hearing in addition to depositions pre-trial in Pickett in which the attorneys were allowed to question and make motions before the judge. I quote:

"On March 13, 2003, the court held a Daubert hearing at which both parties presented evidence. In addition to reviewing the testimony from the Daubert hearing, the Court has also reviewed the parties' briefs, evidentiary submissions, and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, IBP's motions will be granted in part and denied in part."

From the same ruling:

"IBP does not seem to quarrel with the methodology Dr. Taylor used; regression analysis is a commonly accepted method of reaching such conclusions."
"Although the methodology itself is reliable, IBP contends that Dr. Taylor's application of such methodology is unreliable and does not meet the Daubert test."
"Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant's objection to the foregoing proposed testimony of Dr. Taylor should be denied."

Filed April 10, 2003 with the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama

Once again you make an ardent attempt to confuse readers with pre-trial activity with trial findings during cross exam. While you are posting please post footnote #7, page 13 of the Appellate Court ruling for readers to see. That comment, which I suggest you post, by the court was determined from information or more importantly the lack thereof during the trial and cross exam of Dr Taylor. Why are you once again diverting from that issue?

If you will read the question asked to you there is hardly diversion in my reply. I simply acknowledged that the "Daubert" issues you so willingly refer to were addressed before the trial and they met all the tests needed to be valid before the court and at the trial.

You're comment:"The expert witnees is not cross examined before the trial", was not exactly a truthful statement either, was it?

Talk about diverting!!!!!!!!!

If you want to post any quotes from the court documents please feel free to do so, it's an open board!

How's the Colorado football team doing this year? :roll:
(Now THAT'S diverting!) :wink:

 

[agman]

Every pre-trial deposition I have ever been to the opposing side has asked questions of the expert witness.

There was evn a "Daubert" hearing in addition to depositions pre-trial in Pickett in which the attorneys were allowed to question and make motions before the judge. I quote:

"On March 13, 2003, the court held a Daubert hearing at which both parties presented evidence. In addition to reviewing the testimony from the Daubert hearing, the Court has also reviewed the parties' briefs, evidentiary submissions, and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, IBP's motions will be granted in part and denied in part."

From the same ruling:

"IBP does not seem to quarrel with the methodology Dr. Taylor used; regression analysis is a commonly accepted method of reaching such conclusions."
"Although the methodology itself is reliable, IBP contends that Dr. Taylor's application of such methodology is unreliable and does not meet the Daubert test."
"Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant's objection to the foregoing proposed testimony of Dr. Taylor should be denied."

Filed April 10, 2003 with the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama

Once again you make an ardent attempt to confuse readers with pre-trial activity with trial findings during cross exam. While you are posting please post footnote #7, page 13 of the Appellate Court ruling for readers to see. That comment, which I suggest you post, by the court was determined from information or more importantly the lack thereof during the trial and cross exam of Dr Taylor. Why are you once again diverting from that issue?

If you will read the question asked to you there is hardly diversion in my reply. I simply acknowledged that the "Daubert" issues you so willingly refer to were addressed before the trial and they met all the tests needed to be valid before the court and at the trial.

You're comment:"The expert witnees is not cross examined before the trial", was not exactly a truthful statement either, was it?

Talk about diverting!!!!!!!!!

If you want to post any quotes from the court documents please feel free to do so, it's an open board!

How's the Colorado football team doing this year? :roll:
(Now THAT'S diverting!) :wink:

Thanks for asking about Colorado. They have 6 wins and two losses. The losses are to Miami and Texas.

If the comments I posted did not come from the trial testimony when Taylor was cross examined then you can say I am diverting. I believe you know I posted the correct information derived during cross exam. Please admit that truth to readers.

Challenges are issued to expert witness testimony pre-trail. That occurs for both sides. That is vastly different from cross-exam at trial. I think you know that is also a fact; nice try anyway. The defense attorney undressed Taylor during cross exam or should I say Taylor undressed himself with guidance from the defense attorney. It is precisely for that reason that the defense rested the case after only four days versus three weeks for the plaintiffs. I believe, not absolutely certain, that he was RECALLED, after previously testifying very early in the trail, to the stand and was the last witness before the defense rested their case. There was a reason for that.

The courts did not say there were serious "Daubert" issues with Taylor's testimony just for kicks. Just a reminder, that statement was made AFTER cross exam. Also remember, this was not the first such case for Judge Strom. It was because of his experience with similar cases that he was selected to handle this case.

Sometimes jurors do get it wrong. That is precisely why a LAW exists for the judge to void the verdict. Thankfully that is so. Leaving Taylor's testimony aside how did the jury, on their own, without any evidence ever presented at trial, conclude IBP had no legitimate business purpose for using marketing agreements desired by producers? Are jurors there just to make things up or are they on their own or are they supposed to pay attention to the testimony? Remember, the even the largest cattle feeder to testify for the plaintiffs said that if those contracts were not offered by IBP he would sell cattle to another packer who did offer those contractual agreements. The best witnesses for the defense were supplied by the plaintiffs. They, by their own testimony under oath, supported IBP's position. Is that not a hoot. It is all in the trial transcripts-no diversion. Thanks again-nice try. Go BUFFS

 

[Econ101]

Agman,

It was up to the jury to decide if the Tyson lawyers "undressed" Taylor, not the judge or you. They provided no details in their rulings that point to evidence that over rule the jury's decisions on all their questions. Not one scintilla of evidence.

They then passed judgement on a professor of economic's qualifications while proving their own ineptitude of economics with their RPA example. That is like my 5 year old preschool child over ruling her teacher when it comes to a math problem (I warn you, she is smart and might could do it).

Whether IBP had a legitimate reason for having "captive" supplies or not never was the central question to the allegation of market manipulation. Never. In asserting this is the case you make a rather large diversion and show your ignorance of the allegations and understanding of the price manipulation case.

The question is whether the cash market was discriminated against in favor of the captive supply FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TIME PERIOD. Pickett proved to the jury that is was. Saying there was a difference in time period of one week when the supply could have been delivered at the same time is a red herring and you know it.

If USDA is not smart enough to ask for the right information (captive supply dated pricing information) time period, why should they help write the court's appellate brief and economic reasoning? On both economics and protection of the market, they have failed. Has USDA changed that?

This does bring back the commodity trading scam by Hillary Clinton where she obtained insider information from Tyson's cheif counsel, Blair in the commodity trading scam where she recieved about +- $100,000.00 in profits. In those days, the trades were not time stamped. If they had been, the connection between Hillary and Blair would have been easier to prove and there well might have been a case of insider commodity trading against Hillary. Now those trades are time stamped. They could be traced back and a case made today.

The Pickett case falls under the same scenario. In trial the plaintiffs asked what the details of the pricing arrangements of captive supply were during the periods in question and Tyson failed to disclose that information. The USDA could have required manditory reporting of this information, as in the above Hillary case, but the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration is either too dumb and influenced by the packers too much, or just plain corrupt to get at the truth. It is interesting to me that the OGC attorney that prosecuted the similar case to Pickett at the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration and lost, was elevated to the position of Secretary of GIPSA. Why advance incompetence?

It is obvious when I look at this case, as many others that fall under the GIPSA jurisdiction, you find government incompetence repeated. And repeated. And repeated. Where is the oversight by the Agriculture committees? Oh, I forgot, they are busy collecting campaign contributions from Tyson and the other market manipulators while they are supposed to be making sure Agriculture in the U.S. is fair and equitable. If farmers were as incompetent in their jobs as GIPSA is there would be a real food shortage in the U.S. and in the world.

 

[Anonymous]

Once again, another birage of Kindergarten's "OPINIONS" with no supporting facts. You claim the jury got it right but you can't even argue what evidence was presented that allowed them to "SUPPOSEDLY" get it right. By your own admission you admit to not having read the court proceedings yet you act like you know so much about the case. You can't even get the basic pricing mechanisms right so how could you even be remotely qualified to offer an opinion on market manipulation?

Your packer blaming bias screams!

The plaintiffs never had a case. If they did, you would be able to present it. Your argument about a difference between the cash price and the formula price has been completely dismantled based on the fact that they are priced on seperate weeks.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Once again, another birage of Kindergarten's "OPINIONS" with no supporting facts. You claim the jury got it right but you can't even argue what evidence was presented that allowed them to "SUPPOSEDLY" get it right. By your own admission you admit to not having read the court proceedings yet you act like you know so much about the case. You can't even get the basic pricing mechanisms right so how could you even be remotely qualified to offer an opinion on market manipulation?

Your packer blaming bias screams!

The plaintiffs never had a case. If they did, you would be able to present it. Your argument about a difference between the cash price and the formula price has been completely dismantled based on the fact that they are priced on seperate weeks.


~SH~

I asked those questions before coming to my conclusions, not after. Some of those answers came from postings since I have been on the forum. My interest is in the inefficiencies of the exertion of market power, not just the beef industry. It was central to the case in the Pickett trial.

Here is a question for you, SH, if you can not answer it then for heavens sake stop accusing me of being factually void:

Did the Pickett plaintiffs present evidence (whether you believed it or not) in the trial that there was a bias against the cash market by Tysons?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Did the Pickett plaintiffs present evidence (whether you believed it or not) in the trial that there was a bias against the cash market by Tysons?"

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market would bias the formula market. A falling cash market would bias the formula market over the cash market. A rising cash market would bias the cash market over the formula market. The next week the exact opposite could occur.

Yes Pickett could present a bias towards the formula market in a falling cash market just as Tyson could provide a bias in the cash market during a climbing cash market. The bias switches back and forth between the cash market and the formula market but that is not market manipulation.

Fools gold!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Did the Pickett plaintiffs present evidence (whether you believed it or not) in the trial that there was a bias against the cash market by Tysons?"

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market would bias the formula market. A falling cash market would bias the formula market over the cash market. A rising cash market would bias the cash market over the formula market. The next week the exact opposite could occur.

Yes Pickett could present a bias towards the formula market in a falling cash market just as Tyson could provide a bias in the cash market during a climbing cash market. The bias switches back and forth between the cash market and the formula market but that is not market manipulation.

Fools gold!


~SH~

SH, under your scenario, why would packers use the captive supply at a higher price when they could get a lower price in the cash market for the same delivery date?