If the plaintiffs would have been successful what future effect would it have on feedlots talking fats here, and packers having marketing arrangements. The plaintiffs will persue the matter. Callcrate owns a feedlot so do I where could this go? what effect is it going to have on my arrangements directly with a packer on my fats. how about the other producers your marketing arrangements with packers could be effected by this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Mike
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Mike,
Since you have talked candidly and set aside the name calling, I will do likewise.
You called me a liar Mike.
A liar is defined as someone who states something that is untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD. A lie is not just simply stating something untrue.
I would never state anything that was untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD. Mike Callicrate lied under oath WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD and you compared me to him. That hurts!
I don't really care what you call me in regards to the manner in which I post nor do I care what you call me in regards to my lack of tolerance for lies and deception but when you call me a liar you are walking on my fighting side which is why I reacted in kind.
The truth is exactly why I am here practically on a daily basis. The truth is exactly why I loathe R-CULT/OCM. The truth is my only bias and that is reflected in my personality and my posts.
I am going to explain this to you one last time so listen up.
The information that I was privy to stated that one or more of the plaintiffs had entered into "captive supply arrangements" with the Tyson/ibp. That is exactly what I was told by a very credible source who was involved with the case and actually provided testimony. Where I was wrong was to assume that "captive supply arrangement" meant "forward contract". I admit to that mistake only. I am sorry that my misinterpretation of "captive supply arrangement" put you in a position of repeating something that was not totally accurate.
My assumption was based on the true definition of "captive supply" which is GIPSA's definition. I had not considered the fact that "captive supply arrangment" in this case included formula and grid cattle which is wrong for all practical purposes because formula and grid cattle do not meet the definition of "captive supply" as it pertains to the market manipulation conspiracy theory.
Now you should certainly be able to understand where my misunderstanding came from. I apologize for that but that is the only thing I am wrong about here.
The issue of hypocrisy still exists because one of the plaintiffs did enter into a "captive supply arrangement" with tyson (ie formula/grid arrangement) which is exactly what the case was against.
Now read that again and read it very carefully. The hypocrisy issue is still there with TYSON on the plaintiff that sold cattle TO TYSON on the "formula or grid". My misunderstanding about forward contracts changes nothing regarding the hypocrisy of this case.
Another plaintiff did enter into a "captive supply arrangement" with a different major packer which is just as hypocritical.
Numerous witnesses of the plaintiffs entered into "captive supply arrangments" with the major packers WHICH INCLUDED FORWARD CONTRACTS. Even if the plaintiffs themselves had not entered into an actual FORWARD CONTRACT WITH TYSON, they called witnesses that had.
Actually, based on my reasearch of this case, the issue of hypocrisy is even worse than I had originally thought based on the plaintiff's witnesses that were called.
Now I don't know how I can explain it any better than that. If you want to prove me wrong you need to prove what I have stated here that is wrong, not what I misunderstood previously.
Once again, I readily admit to being wrong about the interpretation of "captive supply arrangement" as it pertained to this case but that is the only thing I am wrong about.
Now if you still don't believe me, I suggest you get a copy of the court proceedings and be man enough to admit that they hypocrisy issue is very much alive and well with this case.
As far as the ankle biter, he's proven repeatedly what kind of deceptive pathetic individual he is and I certainly could care less what he thinks of me. I would be offened if he liked me.
"But, but whether or not the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts doesn't give the Tyson the right to accept them."
That says more about ankle biter than anything I could say.
I believe you are a better man than this Mike. I believe you should be able to understand perfectly where my misunderstanding in this issue came from. Either way, the issue of the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs and their witnesses in this case screams and you can hang your hat on that with Pickett.
Once again, I apologize for misundertanding "captive supply arrangement" as it pertained to this case and any problems that created for you. The fact remains the hypocrisy in this case literally screams and that is one of the many reasons this case went down in flames.
Now show us what kind of a man you really are Mike.
~SH~
I will say this now. I do appreciate some sort of civility from here out. Since I have GOT to get some outside work done, we will take this up again later.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Old Fart: "what effect is it going to have on my arrangements directly with a packer on my fats. how about the other producers your marketing arrangements with packers could be effected by this?"
Yours is the million dollar question.
The plaintiffs cannot see that far down the road.
The whole basis for the plaintiff's case is that when a major packer enters into a "captive supply agreement" with a feeder, those cattle then do not have to be purchased in the cash market therefore driving down cash prices due to the packers now needing less cattle.
Old Fart, if the plaintiffs had won this case it would mean that if you forward contracted half of your calves to Superior Livestock and sold the balance of those calves for less money to the same buyer in the cash market, you could sue your cattle buyer for market manipulation because he bid less agressively on your cash cattle due to having already purchased your contract calves.
That is how completely insane this case is.
Another thing, the jurors awarded the plaintiffs with $1.28 "BILLION" dollars which is more damages than ibp's entire profits during that period of time. That would have effectively removed ibp from the cattle buying equation further concentrating this industry.
That's how damn ignorant these packer blamers really are.
EXCELLENT QUESTION!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Old Fart,
I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size. These contracts can be used to lower cash prices if one outfit holds enough contracts. A packer slaughtering a thousand head a week can't manipulate markets simply because 1000 head is a drop in the bucket. They can't manipulate anything if they tried. Tyson, on the other hand, almost IS the bucket. Because of their size, they can't help but affect the market no matter what they do.
I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size. These contracts can be used to lower cash prices if one outfit holds enough contracts. A packer slaughtering a thousand head a week can't manipulate markets simply because 1000 head is a drop in the bucket. They can't manipulate anything if they tried. Tyson, on the other hand, almost IS the bucket. Because of their size, they can't help but affect the market no matter what they do.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Old Fart,
Consider that ibp's profit information was subpoenoed (sp?) into court. The PER HEAD profits for the period of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was $26 per head. That is for the most efficient packer in their better years. If that is what Sandhusker or the other packer blamers considers "market manipulation" I would say ibp did a pretty piss poor job of it wouldn't you?
My local packer almost pays that much money to have his ofal hauled off.
There was no market manipulation. It's nothing more than a bullsh*t conspiracy theory for packer blamers to justify low markets and their lack of profitability.
We just saw the highest cattle prices ever recorded and nothing changed about packer concentration and virtually nothing changed about the number of captive supply cattle.
These guys got nothing and that is why they lost in court and lost in appeal.
~SH~
Consider that ibp's profit information was subpoenoed (sp?) into court. The PER HEAD profits for the period of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was $26 per head. That is for the most efficient packer in their better years. If that is what Sandhusker or the other packer blamers considers "market manipulation" I would say ibp did a pretty piss poor job of it wouldn't you?
My local packer almost pays that much money to have his ofal hauled off.
There was no market manipulation. It's nothing more than a bullsh*t conspiracy theory for packer blamers to justify low markets and their lack of profitability.
We just saw the highest cattle prices ever recorded and nothing changed about packer concentration and virtually nothing changed about the number of captive supply cattle.
These guys got nothing and that is why they lost in court and lost in appeal.
~SH~
sandhusker you summed up my grievances when you said
I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size.
-but the power that SOME can weild because of them-
from where and how I do business you and the others are the SOME. directly or indirectly your actions could effect how I am able to buy or sell the cattle that i put on feed. You want the power to control who uses these agreements which in itself, effects the agreement itself.
a 1000 head a day MIGHT BE THE bucket depends on your location and conditions.
I am aware of the slaughter plants that have closed their doors. was it not here on this board that there was mention of a cow plant smaller capacity that suffered because they did not have the supply of culls due to a major movement in the past from a drought cull and the loss of access to canadian cattle.
sh
I understand the insanity of this case. If they somehow manage to put restrictions on packer and feeder marketing arrangments what and who is to say that the nect step won't be restricting my ability to enter into fall or spring delivery contracts with cow-calf producers to fill my feedlot. Why should my business mangement be hindered and controlled by the persons who chose not to use forward contracts . Where and by whom is this line going to be drawn?
What are the plaintiffs asking for?
that everyone receive exactly the same dollr as everyone else? I see fluctuating prices in contracts and cash from one week to the next, from one day to the next. They are putting everyone in exactly the same positions and allowing for no premium or discount for quality, condition, supply or demand or any of the other hunderds of factors that result in a fluctuating market.
I just want a quarantee that I can continue to choose my marketing arrangement based on my abilities. If joe blow wants to use strictly one method or another that is his choice. Don't restrict my options because of your choices.
I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size.
-but the power that SOME can weild because of them-
from where and how I do business you and the others are the SOME. directly or indirectly your actions could effect how I am able to buy or sell the cattle that i put on feed. You want the power to control who uses these agreements which in itself, effects the agreement itself.
a 1000 head a day MIGHT BE THE bucket depends on your location and conditions.
I am aware of the slaughter plants that have closed their doors. was it not here on this board that there was mention of a cow plant smaller capacity that suffered because they did not have the supply of culls due to a major movement in the past from a drought cull and the loss of access to canadian cattle.
sh
I understand the insanity of this case. If they somehow manage to put restrictions on packer and feeder marketing arrangments what and who is to say that the nect step won't be restricting my ability to enter into fall or spring delivery contracts with cow-calf producers to fill my feedlot. Why should my business mangement be hindered and controlled by the persons who chose not to use forward contracts . Where and by whom is this line going to be drawn?
What are the plaintiffs asking for?
that everyone receive exactly the same dollr as everyone else? I see fluctuating prices in contracts and cash from one week to the next, from one day to the next. They are putting everyone in exactly the same positions and allowing for no premium or discount for quality, condition, supply or demand or any of the other hunderds of factors that result in a fluctuating market.
I just want a quarantee that I can continue to choose my marketing arrangement based on my abilities. If joe blow wants to use strictly one method or another that is his choice. Don't restrict my options because of your choices.
oldfart said:sandhusker you summed up my grievances when you said
I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size.
-but the power that SOME can weild because of them-
from where and how I do business you and the others are the SOME. directly or indirectly your actions could effect how I am able to buy or sell the cattle that i put on feed. You want the power to control who uses these agreements which in itself, effects the agreement itself.
a 1000 head a day MIGHT BE THE bucket depends on your location and conditions.
I am aware of the slaughter plants that have closed their doors. was it not here on this board that there was mention of a cow plant smaller capacity that suffered because they did not have the supply of culls due to a major movement in the past from a drought cull and the loss of access to canadian cattle.
sh
I understand the insanity of this case. If they somehow manage to put restrictions on packer and feeder marketing arrangments what and who is to say that the nect step won't be restricting my ability to enter into fall or spring delivery contracts with cow-calf producers to fill my feedlot. Why should my business mangement be hindered and controlled by the persons who chose not to use forward contracts . Where and by whom is this line going to be drawn?
What are the plaintiffs asking for?
that everyone receive exactly the same dollr as everyone else? I see fluctuating prices in contracts and cash from one week to the next, from one day to the next. They are putting everyone in exactly the same positions and allowing for no premium or discount for quality, condition, supply or demand or any of the other hunderds of factors that result in a fluctuating market.
I just want a quarantee that I can continue to choose my marketing arrangement based on my abilities. If joe blow wants to use strictly one method or another that is his choice. Don't restrict my options because of your choices.
Well said old fart,and as long as your options dont manipulate my choices we are in agreement.............ps welcome to the board & forget about the guarantees
Well said old fart,and as long as your options dont manipulate my choices we are in agreement.............ps welcome to the board & forget about the guarantees
How do I manipulate your choices haymaker?
I may be reading your comment wrong but understand it to be a stab at myself because I choose to use contracted margeting arrangements. and from what I have read here you are in favor with the plaintiffs case.
-forget about the guarantees-
with this I assume you may take action against feedlots, such as myself, which purchase their cattle directly from cow-calf producers .
How do I manipulate your choices haymaker?
I may be reading your comment wrong but understand it to be a stab at myself because I choose to use contracted margeting arrangements. and from what I have read here you are in favor with the plaintiffs case.
-forget about the guarantees-
with this I assume you may take action against feedlots, such as myself, which purchase their cattle directly from cow-calf producers .
Sandhusker
Well-known member
I know what you're saying, Old Fart, and your point is very well taken. I've struggled with that myself but have found an answer that I am comfortable with.
I'm generally for turning everything loose and letting people do what they want with as little governmental intervention as possible. The problem is, somebody always ruins it for everybody else. If you think about it, most of the laws we have are simply to close loop holes because somebody had to push things too far.
That's what you've got here with Tyson. They've turned what is generally a valid marketing tool for anybody into an angle for them. You either let it go and let them exploit the situation or you put on restrictions that affect everybody.
As much as I don't like the idea, I'm inclined to say "restrictions." The reason I can do this is because we have already done it so many times in the interests of maintaining the fairest markets possible. Look at the futures markets - there are restrictions on how many contracts one can own. You also get reported with a small holding. Look at the stock market. There are laws on who can hold stock, how much you can buy, how much you can sell, when you can do it, etc... It doesn't seem right that these restrictions exist (poor Martha) , but they are there for a reason, and that reason is for the fairest, smoothest markets possible.
It would be nice to lower the gates and declare a free-for-all with call your own fouls, but that simply doesn't work in real life with money. Someone always has to get greedy and screw it up.
I'm generally for turning everything loose and letting people do what they want with as little governmental intervention as possible. The problem is, somebody always ruins it for everybody else. If you think about it, most of the laws we have are simply to close loop holes because somebody had to push things too far.
That's what you've got here with Tyson. They've turned what is generally a valid marketing tool for anybody into an angle for them. You either let it go and let them exploit the situation or you put on restrictions that affect everybody.
As much as I don't like the idea, I'm inclined to say "restrictions." The reason I can do this is because we have already done it so many times in the interests of maintaining the fairest markets possible. Look at the futures markets - there are restrictions on how many contracts one can own. You also get reported with a small holding. Look at the stock market. There are laws on who can hold stock, how much you can buy, how much you can sell, when you can do it, etc... It doesn't seem right that these restrictions exist (poor Martha) , but they are there for a reason, and that reason is for the fairest, smoothest markets possible.
It would be nice to lower the gates and declare a free-for-all with call your own fouls, but that simply doesn't work in real life with money. Someone always has to get greedy and screw it up.
oldfart said:If they somehow manage to put restrictions on packer and feeder marketing arrangments what and who is to say that the nect step won't be restricting my ability to enter into fall or spring delivery contracts with cow-calf producers to fill my feedlot. Why should my business mangement be hindered and controlled by the persons who chose not to use forward contracts . Where and by whom is this line going to be drawn?
I just want a quarantee that I can continue to choose my marketing arrangement based on my abilities. If joe blow wants to use strictly one method or another that is his choice. Don't restrict my options because of your choices.
Think about this. The main objection to captive supply is the unpriced contracts (which is 98% of marketing agreements). Would you sell your calves for next fall delivery without an established price? It would go something like this. You deliver your calves to me the 1st week of November. We will determine the price I pay you in the following manner. I will give you the average price of the calves I buy the week before. Deal? I will make the same deal with 99 others. When the last week of October comes what will determine what I'm going to pay for cash market calves that week. I am going to be pricing, not 2 or 3 loads, but 100 loads. I'm going to be bottom of the market if I have to buy the worst quality. I may even go out into the country and look for somebody desperate. I may even give him a no shrink weigh up in exchange for a lower price.
Who has the power.? The buyer. Who gets hurt? Everybody.
The $64,000 question. Should we prohibit such a practice. After all, the other 2 buyers you could deal with do the same thing.
sandhusker do we just keep closing door s and putting on restrictions? as you said
ocm
to my knowledge 98% of contracts are not unpriced. If so why would so many folks sign on the dooted line all the while knowing of the possible risks you explain. and no I wouldn't sell my calves for next fall delivery without an established price , that established price will have some slide worked in. And depending on what kind of job I and my calves get done by delivery time it could work in my favor.
Those folks signed the contract knowing it could work against them or for them. THEIR choice after reading AND signing the contract. THEIR CHOICE
and there are more than the other 2 buyers . There are ample marketing opportunites and buyers, it is the sellers best interest to "market" his or her cattle not restrict yourself to a small group. Some of the folks I buy calves from skip my offer a time or two. I couldn't offer them more than the other guy, they didn't just wait for me to hand them a contract they actively went out and searched for a better price than I could offer at that time. A few of them draw up there own contracts and I have to accept or decline . Their choice to set the ground rules, my choice to accept them or not. Same as the folks that sign the unpriced contracts you spoke of.
you commented on the regualtions in place already I bet those that initiated those regualtions thought they would fix all the problems. there will always be someone there to screw it up. from every level not just the packers and processers. You'll regulate yourself to death because there will always be someone who can outfigger the system.Someone always has to get greedy and screw it up.
ocm
to my knowledge 98% of contracts are not unpriced. If so why would so many folks sign on the dooted line all the while knowing of the possible risks you explain. and no I wouldn't sell my calves for next fall delivery without an established price , that established price will have some slide worked in. And depending on what kind of job I and my calves get done by delivery time it could work in my favor.
Those folks signed the contract knowing it could work against them or for them. THEIR choice after reading AND signing the contract. THEIR CHOICE
and there are more than the other 2 buyers . There are ample marketing opportunites and buyers, it is the sellers best interest to "market" his or her cattle not restrict yourself to a small group. Some of the folks I buy calves from skip my offer a time or two. I couldn't offer them more than the other guy, they didn't just wait for me to hand them a contract they actively went out and searched for a better price than I could offer at that time. A few of them draw up there own contracts and I have to accept or decline . Their choice to set the ground rules, my choice to accept them or not. Same as the folks that sign the unpriced contracts you spoke of.
ocm
to my knowledge 98% of contracts are not unpriced. If so why would so many folks sign on the dooted line all the while knowing of the possible risks you explain. and no I wouldn't sell my calves for next fall delivery without an established price , that established price will have some slide worked in. And depending on what kind of job I and my calves get done by delivery time it could work in my favor.
Those folks signed the contract knowing it could work against them or for them. THEIR choice after reading AND signing the contract. THEIR CHOICE
and there are more than the other 2 buyers .
98% of the marketing agreements ARE unpriced. Also one other difference with fat cattle is that you can't hold them indefinitely. If they are ready the 1st week of November you don't hold till the 1st week of December. One incentive in these unpriced contracts is that you are guaranteed a market--you can ship. I've seen times when there is no cash market. You can't ship.
Also I am aware of markets where there are only 2 fat buyers, period. No other options unless you want to try to sell 40 head a week to a local butcher who can only handle 5.
Jason
Well-known member
ocm said:98% of the marketing agreements ARE unpriced. Also one other difference with fat cattle is that you can't hold them indefinitely. If they are ready the 1st week of November you don't hold till the 1st week of December. One incentive in these unpriced contracts is that you are guaranteed a market--you can ship. I've seen times when there is no cash market. You can't ship.
Also I am aware of markets where there are only 2 fat buyers, period. No other options unless you want to try to sell 40 head a week to a local butcher who can only handle 5.
You can't hold fat cattle unless there is no cash trade that week? So if there is no cash market packers can't buy either then. It's a wonder cattle ever get killed then.
With only 2 fat buyers the seller has the option to find out what other plants are offering. Transportation costs are always involved. The seller ALWAYS has the option to say no to an offer...but but but if he has to sell because the cattle are close to overweight...then he wasn't doing a very good job of marketing his cattle.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
You've got a point, Old Fart. Nobody said this would be easy. You add rules or you allow abuse.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "I think the root of the problem is not the agreements themselves, but the power that SOME can weild because of them - and the power increases with size. These contracts can be used to lower cash prices if one outfit holds enough contracts."
That is nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no proof to support this allegation. Bidding less money for cattle because you already have part of your needs bought is not market manipulation, it's business pure and simple. If the packers had the ability to manipulate markets they would never show a loss. It's nothing more than a baseless bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by facts.
Old fart: "Why should my business mangement be hindered and controlled by the persons who chose not to use forward contracts."
My sentiments exactly!
What you have here is a bunch of packer blamers most of which do not even sell fat cattle, telling those of us who do sell fat cattle HOW WE ARE GOING TO MARKET THEM, then force us to report the price WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE, then pick and chose who can and who cannot bid on our feeder calves.
What you have here is the Democrat party of the cattle/beef industry looking for more government intervention into our business WHEN THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION.
This is the same crowd that claims to be in the "cattle industry" and not the "beef industry" yet they think they know more about the "beef industry" than those who actually sell beef.
These blamers are the plague of this industry.
You bet it will impact you Old Fart. It will limit your market options because these folks think they know more about marketing your cattle than you do. They are the epitomy of arrogance.
Old Fart: "What are the plaintiffs asking for?"
They don't even know what they want. What they say they want they already have, competitive markets. In their ignorance of not realizing this, they are trying to destroy the markets we do have.
Old Fart: "that everyone receive exactly the same dollr as everyone else?"
That's part of it. These are the folks who wanted the government to force feeders to report their prices. A price means nothing if you don't know the value of the cattle. Yeh, you could say that is exactly what they want, "socialized cattle marketing" where everyone gets the same price and the LMA carves their commission dollars out of the pie. The LMA would love to have all fat cattle sold through their sale barns so they could sell them as calves, yearlings, and fats and get three shots at those commission dollars.
Old Fart: "They are putting everyone in exactly the same positions and allowing for no premium or discount for quality, condition, supply or demand or any of the other hunderds of factors that result in a fluctuating market."
You got it figured out partner!
Congratulations!
I wish more producers could see through the smokescreen of R-CALF/OCM/LMA.
Old Fart: "Don't restrict my options because of your choices."
Amen Old Fart! My words from your mouth. Like I said a while back, this Captive Supply Reform Act bullcrap will be a bloody battle for the very reasons you mentioned.
Guys like OCM want to save you from yourself and tell you how you need to market your fat cattle. He probably doesn't even sell fat cattle himself.
OCM: "The main objection to captive supply is the unpriced contracts (which is 98% of marketing agreements)."
This objection coming from many producers who do not even sell fat cattle.
98% of marketing agreements are not unpriced.
That is absolutely untrue.
75% of captive supply cattle are forward contract cattle which have a price established at the time of the contract.
25% of captive supply cattle are packer owned cattle.
Grid and formula cattle are not captive supply because they are not owned by packers long enough to have any impact on the market. Most are sold on Thursday or Friday and delivered the following week. I know because I have sold cattle on virtually every formula out there.
OCM doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just repeating what he's heard.
Old Fart: "If so why would so many folks sign on the dooted line all the while knowing of the possible risks you explain."
Old Fart: "Those folks signed the contract knowing it could work against them or for them. THEIR choice after reading AND signing the contract. THEIR CHOICE"
EXACTLY!
Guys like OCM and Sandman think they know how to market your cattle better than you do.
Old Fart, do me a favor and tell your Senators and Representatives exactly what you told me because these packer blamers will try to change how you and I do business but I can assure you it will not be without a bloody fight. I'm sick and tired of these conspiracy theorists dictating to others how they will market their cattle.
Keep on fighting the good fight Old Fart, you damn sure got it figured out.
~SH~
There is absolutely no proof to support this allegation. Bidding less money for cattle because you already have part of your needs bought is not market manipulation, it's business pure and simple. If the packers had the ability to manipulate markets they would never show a loss. It's nothing more than a baseless bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by facts.
I can tell you slept through history class. You're one of those guys doomed to repeat it. You should read Adam Smith. Also wouldn't hurt if you read the economic history surrounding the American Revolution. If you lived then and had your current attitude you would have to be a Tory.
Why would those American Colonialists want to punish the successful East India Company by throwing all that tea overboard?
You cannot possibly make sense out of what's going on in the world today with your appalling ignorance of history, philosophy, and even theology. You are unbelievably out of sync with the great founders of this country.
Here are some kind things Adam Smith said about merchants.
The capricious ambition of kings and ministers has not, during the present and the preceding century, been more fatal to the repose of Europe, than the impertinent jealousy of merchants and manufacturers. The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy: but the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit, of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot, perhaps, be corrected, may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of anybody but themselves.
"That it was the spirit of monopoly which originally both invented and propagated this doctrine, cannot be doubted and they who first taught it, were by no means such fools as they who believed it. …nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves; so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market."
James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
But the fact is that they are not, not even when they run "successful" corporations. Governing them is necessary.
A
Anonymous
Guest
.......and it remains a baseless bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by facts.
98% of "captive supply marketing agreements are not unpriced. I won't say it's a lie because you obviously just don't know any better.
Your history lesson of what happened in different times under different circumstances is not going to hold up in court where the facts of what is happening today are far more relevant.
You got nothing OCM!
That's why you lost in court.
~SH~
98% of "captive supply marketing agreements are not unpriced. I won't say it's a lie because you obviously just don't know any better.
Your history lesson of what happened in different times under different circumstances is not going to hold up in court where the facts of what is happening today are far more relevant.
You got nothing OCM!
That's why you lost in court.
~SH~
Your history lesson of what happened in different times under different circumstances is not going to hold up in court where the facts of what is happening today are far more relevant.
You have confirmed why you're ideas are so unworkable and inconsistent.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Gosh, ya really buried me with the facts on that last one.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Wake me when you are ready to enter the debate armed with more than meaningless statements.
~SH~
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Wake me when you are ready to enter the debate armed with more than meaningless statements.
~SH~
Mike said:SH:The fact remains, there was never any proof of market manipulation because it was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory and one more chapter in the packer blamer's empty book.
I would like to interject my assessment of the Appeals court decision here.
There was proof of the lowering of cash cattle prices by marketing agreements, that proof was offered by Pickett and was available to the jury, so says the Appeal Documents.
The problem came in that whether Tyson was using these marketing agreements to screw the cattle owners, or whether they were using these marketing agreements for use as competition against their packer rivals.
The Appeals Court decided that Tyson had the right to use these marketing agreements because they were authored by cattlemen, and that the use of them would help them be competitive against those other packers.
Fair enough?
Mike, "If everyone else is stealing so I have to also to keep up my standard of living" is a crook's reply.