Agman and/or SH

[Sandhusker]

Both of you gents said the PSA was about competition between packers. I asked both of you to point out where it alludes as such. While I've been waiting for your replies, I've had time to read it again - still can't see it. You guys want to get your heads together and explain it? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the act was regarding the relationship between packers and producers.

 

[agman]

Both of you gents said the PSA was about competition between packers. I asked both of you to point out where it alludes as such. While I've been waiting for your replies, I've had time to read it again - still can't see it. You guys want to get your heads together and explain it? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the act was regarding the relationship between packers and producers.

Even if your interpretation was correct, the courts who have a better understanding of law than either you or I disagree with your interpretation. The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers. Such collusion was never demonstrated in the Pickett trail nor have I ever heard any claims of packer collision regarding marketing agreements.

How convinced am I that the courts interpretation of the PSA was correct? I will stand for that $100 bet that the Supreme Court will not even review this case. The Pickett case was defeated so overwhelmingly and convincingly at the Appellate level. It was a unanimous decision. Later when the plaintiff's attorneys requested an "en banc" hearing not even one judge in the entire 11th Circuit Court district even asked for a vote on the hearing itself. Have the plaintiff's attorneys not informed you yet of that defeat or would that knowledge impair the fund raising via calf sales?

The aforementioned was a basic problem with the Pickett case when any downward price was incorrectly attributed to Tyson's use of marketing agreements. The plaintiff's own witnesses testified repeatedly that Tyson was not always the price leader. How then could they be accused of being responsible for lower prices?

 

[ocm]

Both of you gents said the PSA was about competition between packers. I asked both of you to point out where it alludes as such. While I've been waiting for your replies, I've had time to read it again - still can't see it. You guys want to get your heads together and explain it? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the act was regarding the relationship between packers and producers.

Even if your interpretation was correct, the courts who have a better understanding of law than either you or I disagree with your interpretation. The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers. Such collusion was never demonstrated in the Pickett trail nor have I ever heard any claims of packer collision regarding marketing agreements.

How convinced am I that the courts interpretation of the PSA was correct? I will stand for that $100 bet that the Supreme Court will not even review this case. The Pickett case was defeated so overwhelmingly and convincingly at the Appellate level. It was a unanimous decision. Later when the plaintiff's attorneys requested an "en banc" hearing not even one judge in the entire 11th Circuit Court district even asked for a vote on the hearing itself. Have the plaintiff's attorneys not informed you yet of that defeat or would that knowledge impair the fund raising via calf sales?

The aforementioned was a basic problem with the Pickett case when any downward price was incorrectly attributed to Tyson's use of marketing agreements. The plaintiff's own witnesses testified repeatedly that Tyson was not always the price leader. How then could they be accused of being responsible for lower prices?

Collusion was not only the thing PSA was supposed to prevent. Also note that Kendrick from Wyoming was the sponsor. How many packing plants did he envision this law protecting.

The issue of how the courts are now interpreting PSA just shows that they are not originalists. I would still like to see what Scalia says about it. Too many judges understand Sherman but not PSA. They assume PSA is like Sherman, but it is not.

As far as I know, the plaintiffs are not having calf sales to raise money. Do you have any different information?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers."

That is but a part of PSA. You still didn't answer my question; Where is the part about competition between packers?

 

[agman]

Agman, "The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers."

That is but a part of PSA. You still didn't answer my question; Where is the part about competition between packers?

Preventing collusion by default encourages competition-end of discussion.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers."

That is but a part of PSA. You still didn't answer my question; Where is the part about competition between packers?

Preventing collusion by default encourages competition-end of discussion.

Agman, that is WEAK! You've offered nothing but a SHesque opinion based on a looooooong reach! Why can't you prove your point using quotes and extractions from the act itself? Bring something solid!

 

[ocm]

Agman, "The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers."

That is but a part of PSA. You still didn't answer my question; Where is the part about competition between packers?

Preventing collusion by default encourages competition-end of discussion.

What interest would a Senator from Wyoming have in protecting packers from one another? How many packing plants were there in Wyoming in 1920?

That fact alone shoots down your whole idea.

You obviously are not an originalist. You want the law to evolve by judicial action--at least you defend it when it does.

 

[Econ101]

The funny thing is, deep in the economic reasoning, is the realization that Section 202 a) and b), which are producer protections, are essential elements of competition. They are found in competitive markets. If you don't agree with a buyer and there are many, many buyers, you can just go to the next one. In cattle there are few buyers (oligopsony) so this is not possible. The breaking of the prohibitions of Section 202 a) and b) also create barriers of entry to new competitors. If you did not have a) and b) you essentially limit competitors to the existing competitors. Agman, there is no way you can say this is beneficial to competition. Remember, you already brought up the airline industry as an example.

Agman, your economic acuity is limited by your packer bias. Take off the glasses.

The judges in the the case are economic illiterates, liberal "make up the law as you want to", or just plain corrupt. No, Agman, I don't believe judges are above everyone else and you have a problem if you think that they are.

 

[pointrider]

Econ, is there a law school anywhere that teaches its law students that they must be economic literates before they can enter the field of law (which leads to judgeships)? I doubt it. Do you suppose this is why they depend on "expert witnesses" who have done their work properly? What other choices do they have?

 

[Anonymous]

Econ, is there a law school anywhere that teaches its law students that they must be economic literates before they can enter the field of law (which leads to judgeships)? I doubt it. Do you suppose this is why they depend on "expert witnesses" who have done their work properly? What other choices do they have?

Actually Pointrider that is the reason we have juries-- to make decisions from the evidence and testimony provided and relate it to what they have garnered from every day life situations to formulate a decision...

Sad thing is in this instance one man who sets on a pedestal (and possibly remembers little about being out in the real world) decided that he knew more than those 12 citizens on the jury.......

 

[fedup2]

I am only adding information that might shed some light on this, not chosing sides! LOL! This is from the history of the NCBA. (not some peta site! LOL!)

At the urging of the Market Committee of the American
National Live Stock Association, the Federal Trade Commission
conducted a study that was presented to President
Woodrow Wilson in July 1919. It was terribly damaging to
the packers and could have resulted in criminal charges.
The packers then proposed what was called “The Consent
Decree.” In it, they admitted no guilt but did consent to the
following, among other things:
To sell all their holdings in public stockyards
To sell all their interests in stockyard railroads and terminals
To sell all their interests in market newspapers
To dispose of all their interests in public cold storage warehouses
To forever disassociate themselves from the retail meat business
To forever disassociate themselves from wholesale groceries
To submit perpetually to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District
Court under an injunction forbidding conspiracy or monopoly.
But cattlemen did not believe the packers would live up
to this consent decree without expensive legal battles for
cattlemen, so they pushed for federal legislation to control
the packers.

Packers and Stockyards Act

The new president of the Association in 1919 was a
United States Senator and a tenacious rancher from Wyoming,
John B. Kendrick. Some historians would later call
him “the greatest man in the West.” Senator Kendrick wrote
a bill that would greatly restrict packers. But packers claimed
this was unfair and a conflict of interest for the president of
the National Live Stock Association (NLSA) to be writing
such legislation, and they waged a huge campaign of adver
tising and lobbying against it. So another member of Congress
picked up sponsorship of the bill, changed the language
slightly, and in 1921 got passed the Packers and Stockyards
Act, under which we still operate.
This perhaps is the greatest single legislative victory for
the industry, because of 1) the time required to get it passed
(6 yr); 2) the scope of the Act, in that it applies to the entire
livestock industry; and 3) its sustainability.

 

[Sandhusker]

Thanks, Fedup. A little history behind what led up to the legislation sheds a great deal on the purpose behind it. As ocm pointed out, why would Kendrick be concerned about competition between packers? History suggests he would be more concerned about the packer's relationships with those they do business with and how that business was/is transacted. A reading of the PSA itself confirms this.

I think anybody who would propose this law's primary intention was to foster competition between packers and not to protect those who do business with the packers is either involved in deception to others as well as themselves or simply needs to put on their glasses and study it again.

Regardless, I'd take all their posts with healthy pinch of salt.

 

[agman]

Thanks, Fedup. A little history behind what led up to the legislation sheds a great deal on the purpose behind it. As ocm pointed out, why would Kendrick be concerned about competition between packers? History suggests he would be more concerned about the packer's relationships with those they do business with and how that business was/is transacted. A reading of the PSA itself confirms this.

I think anybody who would propose this law's primary intention was to foster competition between packers and not to protect those who do business with the packers is either involved in deception to others as well as themselves or simply needs to put on their glasses and study it again.

Regardless, I'd take all their posts with healthy pinch of salt.

Why would anyone be concerned about competition amongst packers? Simply put, to get producers the best and fair price. Is that not why we have the PSA to prevent the type of collusion that existed in the early 1900's.

 

[Econ101]

Thanks, Fedup. A little history behind what led up to the legislation sheds a great deal on the purpose behind it. As ocm pointed out, why would Kendrick be concerned about competition between packers? History suggests he would be more concerned about the packer's relationships with those they do business with and how that business was/is transacted. A reading of the PSA itself confirms this.

I think anybody who would propose this law's primary intention was to foster competition between packers and not to protect those who do business with the packers is either involved in deception to others as well as themselves or simply needs to put on their glasses and study it again.

Regardless, I'd take all their posts with healthy pinch of salt.

Why would anyone be concerned about competition amongst packers? Simply put, to get producers the best and fair price. Is that not why we have the PSA to prevent the type of collusion that existed in the early 1900's.

And yet you use competition on the boxed beef side of the middlemen packers to justify their actions on the producer side. You can not have both, Agman. Confuse a few judges, but not the rest of us.

 

[Sandhusker]

Thanks, Fedup. A little history behind what led up to the legislation sheds a great deal on the purpose behind it. As ocm pointed out, why would Kendrick be concerned about competition between packers? History suggests he would be more concerned about the packer's relationships with those they do business with and how that business was/is transacted. A reading of the PSA itself confirms this.

I think anybody who would propose this law's primary intention was to foster competition between packers and not to protect those who do business with the packers is either involved in deception to others as well as themselves or simply needs to put on their glasses and study it again.

Regardless, I'd take all their posts with healthy pinch of salt.

Why would anyone be concerned about competition amongst packers? Simply put, to get producers the best and fair price. Is that not why we have the PSA to prevent the type of collusion that existed in the early 1900's.

I think you're throwing up a strawman, Agman. Yes, you're correct, but what is that the heart of the legislation? The foundation of the act is section 202. If you read that section, you'll see the packer/packer relationship is not what is being protected. You see the words "manipulate and control prices" and "monopoly" featured many times. If you ask yourself who the manipulation, control, and monopolies would be directed against you will know what relationship this act is concerned with.

 

[agman]

Thanks, Fedup. A little history behind what led up to the legislation sheds a great deal on the purpose behind it. As ocm pointed out, why would Kendrick be concerned about competition between packers? History suggests he would be more concerned about the packer's relationships with those they do business with and how that business was/is transacted. A reading of the PSA itself confirms this.

I think anybody who would propose this law's primary intention was to foster competition between packers and not to protect those who do business with the packers is either involved in deception to others as well as themselves or simply needs to put on their glasses and study it again.

Regardless, I'd take all their posts with healthy pinch of salt.

Why would anyone be concerned about competition amongst packers? Simply put, to get producers the best and fair price. Is that not why we have the PSA to prevent the type of collusion that existed in the early 1900's.

I think you're throwing up a strawman, Agman. Yes, you're correct, but what is that the heart of the legislation? The foundation of the act is section 202. If you read that section, you'll see the packer/packer relationship is not what is being protected. You see the words "manipulate and control prices" and "monopoly" featured many times. If you ask yourself who the manipulation, control, and monopolies would be directed against you will know what relationship this act is concerned with.

Thanks for admitting I am correct. The "buts" are just diversion from the real issue.

 

[Econ101]

Why would anyone be concerned about competition amongst packers? Simply put, to get producers the best and fair price. Is that not why we have the PSA to prevent the type of collusion that existed in the early 1900's.

I think you're throwing up a strawman, Agman. Yes, you're correct, but what is that the heart of the legislation? The foundation of the act is section 202. If you read that section, you'll see the packer/packer relationship is not what is being protected. You see the words "manipulate and control prices" and "monopoly" featured many times. If you ask yourself who the manipulation, control, and monopolies would be directed against you will know what relationship this act is concerned with.

Thanks for admitting I am correct. The "buts" are just diversion from the real issue.

\

Competition of the packers on the retail side is no excuse for anti-competitive behavior and market power plays on the producer side. That is the argument you erroneously make, Agman. They are two different things.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Thanks for admitting I am correct. The "buts" are just diversion from the real issue"

Don't be doning the laurel wreath quite yet, you're correct in the sense as that is the strategy behind a strawman - making a statement that can't be refuted but at the same time tangenting off the topic.....

The real issue can be found in Section 202. Have you read it? Would you care to explain how those 7 subdivisions deal with competition between packers and not the packer/producer relationship? Here, let my throw out subdivision (e); It shall be unlawful for any packer.....Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.

Now, are you still going to tell us the PSA is not about the packer/producer relationship?

 

[agman]

Agman, "Thanks for admitting I am correct. The "buts" are just diversion from the real issue"

Don't be doning the laurel wreath quite yet, you're correct in the sense as that is the strategy behind a strawman - making a statement that can't be refuted but at the same time tangenting off the topic.....

The real issue can be found in Section 202. Have you read it? Would you care to explain how those 7 subdivisions deal with competition between packers and not the packer/producer relationship? Here, let my throw out subdivision (e); It shall be unlawful for any packer.....Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.

Now, are you still going to tell us the PSA is not about the packer/producer relationship?

Yes and thanks. You have made my point. Where is the word producer?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Thanks for admitting I am correct. The "buts" are just diversion from the real issue"

Don't be doning the laurel wreath quite yet, you're correct in the sense as that is the strategy behind a strawman - making a statement that can't be refuted but at the same time tangenting off the topic.....

The real issue can be found in Section 202. Have you read it? Would you care to explain how those 7 subdivisions deal with competition between packers and not the packer/producer relationship? Here, let my throw out subdivision (e); It shall be unlawful for any packer.....Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce.

Now, are you still going to tell us the PSA is not about the packer/producer relationship?

Yes and thanks. You have made my point. Where is the word producer?

Where is the word "competiton"? Who do you think would be the target of manipulated or controlled prices or a monopoly?