Agman and/or SH

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Your hyer-biased opinions and interpretations have no value to me.Z"

Understandably! You're too ignorant and to blamer biased to understand them.

Sandbag: "The PSA itself is easily accessable - I'd like some direct quotes from the act. Think you can do that, Mr. Facts?"

They've already been posted many times Mr. NO FACTS!


~SH~

Yes they have been posted many times, I think ocm even posted section 202 yesterday. With that in mind, it would seem to me that it would be easy for you to cut and paste from the act items that would prove your point. Why do you keep dancing instead of bringing something direct from the PSA? I think I know... :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag,

Most of the PSA deals with market manipulation and price fixing that would hinder competition between packers. Competition between packers must be mantained for the benefit of producers. What's so hard to figure out about that? OH, silly me, forgot who I was talking to again. Never mind!

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article 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; or

(e) 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; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

Everyone of the bolded statements addresses the issues of price fixing and/or market manipulation which is a result of a lack of competition between packers.

What fools gold are you chasing this time Sandbag?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag,

Most of the PSA deals with market manipulation and price fixing that would hinder competition between packers. Competition between packers must be mantained for the benefit of producers. What's so hard to figure out about that? OH, silly me, forgot who I was talking to again. Never mind!

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article 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; or

(e) 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; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

Everyone of the bolded statements addresses the issues of price fixing and/or market manipulation which is a result of a lack of competition between packers.

What fools gold are you chasing this time Sandbag?


~SH~

I've recommended you take a reading comprehension class, now I think you should be banned from this board until you have proved you have.

(a) Is a general statement that covers everybody, not just other packers.

(c) How can a monopoly of packers be against another packer? By the very definition of "monopoly", all the packers would have to be involved! Do you know what a monopoly is? A monopoly would not act against itself, but would act against others for more of the consumer's dollar!

(d) Same thing as in (c)!

(e) Same thing as in (c) and (d)!

(f) If packers split up territories between them, what would stop a packer who was out of the loop from buying anywhere they wanted to? This would actually be beneficial to the packer not included as they would now have less competition in that region! On the other hand, what would happen if producers had only one packer in their territory that would buy their product?

SLAM DUNK! YOU'RE TOO EASY! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Come back and show me where I'm wrong.

Your only bias is the truth?

 

[agman]

There doesn't need to be any direct communication. Tyson, Cargill and Swift each buys a different kind of cattle. There is a little overlap, but not much. Tyson goes for yield, Cargill goes for grade and Swift is kind of in between. On any given pen of cattle I have heard buyers say something like this. Swift: "They're not done yet, call Tyson." You might get a bid from Tyson, but nobody else yet. Two weeks later Tyson says they're overdone, to call Swift or Cargill. Swift will give you a bid, but Cargill says they're not done yet.

Different cattle types will also make a difference in who is willing to bid, too. These three packers have tacitly(without speaking) divided the market. There is some, but very little head to head competition on any given bunch of cattle.

Econ: Jason makes valid points. If theyr'e shallow, why so? Please shoot the message, not the messager.

OCM: You must be referencing a very regional or personal situation. All three actively and aggressively procure and recruit quality AND yield in TX, OK, KS, CO. All three also have grid programs which reward for quality AND yield. The competition is very significant.

Beefman

In testimony at the Pickett trial provided by Tyson it was that indicated that Tyson bought for yield while Cargill bought for grade. That was not regional.

Each packer's grid is set up differently to reward (that should be penalize) different aspects. They have effectively divided the market. It has been done , not through active collusion but rather passive collusion. What you describe differs from both Pickett trial testimony and my own experience.

OCM...even from you your opinion is an extreme reach. Has it ever dawned on you that the packers do not serve identical customers with identical needs. Once again it is your own ignoracne of the entire marketing system that allows you to make such foolish and unsupported statements. Get real...learn about the entire beef industry, not just as you perceive it to be. Ignorance is the breeding ground for conspiracy theorists. You and Conman prove that daily.

 

[agman]

Econ, you covered a lot of ground here. In one paragraph, I read about grids / formulas, the countries founders, the judicial system, juries, P&S, senate committees, and ended with deadweight losses and mercantilism. Those damn grids and formulas really get you going, don't they!

Here's an analogy, just so you know what this paragraph sounded like. If your television system is like mine, I can count on the following movies showing at least 50 times a month: The Blue Brothers, Grease, Pure Country, and Animal House. In Animal House, while the fraternity is before the review board, Otter---in his testimony while pleaing for the life of his frat, states that "an indictment against our fraternity is like an indictment against the USA". The analogy was truely hilarious.

Kinda like what you just stated.

Beefman

You really need to quit deceiving readers with you position that jurors are absolute in their verdict. The legal systems says that is not always true. Thus, the law allows for a judge to void the verdict when there is compelling evidence that if the jury understood the testimony they would not have voted the way they did. The evidence was so overwhelming that the Appellate Court upheld Judge Storm ruling unanimously. Furthermore ALL judges in the 11th district rejected completely the request for an en banc hearing by the plaintiffs. We are supposed to believe they are all wrong and your are correct. Give the world a break from your fantasies.

No more real knowledge than you have ever demonstrated about the cattle business there is no reason for anyone to believe your interpretation of legal events and the law.

The plaintiff's case got crushed just as your phony and unsupported accusations get crushed daily on these forums. You continue to fool no one.

Arlen Specter and company have been at work "behind closed doors". If the Republicans think they can control the country in this fashion they while arguing war politics and abortion politics as side issues, let them try.

The religious right is starting to come around on these issues instead of being held captive to the empty moral arguments the Republicans make but do not adhere to.

Go back and read Pareto. He was right then and history will prove him right again. It is unfortunate for all that have to re-live this BS.

Who cares about what you say. Provide proof of this new allegation of "behind closed doors" or just admit you are a blatant liar. You have not supported one of your endless stream of allegations yet.

I doubt if you have ever succeeded at anything. Thus, you have an excuse to lay blame for everything to take the blame and responsibility away from your own misfortune - how pathetic.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Hey, SH, have you found in PSA anything that would allude to the act being about packer/packer and not packer/producer per your comments? I think that was the original challenge."

Who said the PSA was not about packer/producer pricing? Nobody ever said that accept you. Agman eluded to the fact that the PSA addresses competition between packers. YOUR SPIN JOB TRANSFORMED THAT INTO THE PSA NOT BEING BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND PACKERS. Agman never said the PSA WAS NOT about packer to producer pricing, he said it was about mantaining competition between packers. I agree with him. This is not an "either/or" (packer/packer vs. packer/producer) situation. That was your pathetic deceptive spin job again.

You set up a "producer/packer vs. packer/packer" strawman than argue with yourself. What an idiot! You continually do what you accuse others of. I guess it must be another confusing chapter in the "conscience cleansing for blamers" book huh? Accuse others of exactly what you do best?

Maintaining competition between packers by preventing monopolies and price fixing was the original intent of this law which affects producer pricing. NOBODY SUGGESTED OTHERWISE!

Maintaining competition between packers assures fair pricing to producers. Why do I constantly have to argue with you about things that are so elementary. Do you take pride in acting like such an idiot Randy Schneider or are you really this stupid?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I'll let the board decide who the idiot is.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I'll let the board decide who the idiot is."

You'll always have your mindless followers.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Weebsters Dictionary says - Mindless follower - He who Cargill and Tyson don't even have to pay to stand up for our ethical business practices.

 

[Econ101]

SH, all of the protections of the PSA were spelled out clearly. They were spelled out clearly and were ENUMERATED in Section 202 because the writers of the law knew there would be some stupid judges that thought they knew economics. They were right.

Look at all of Section 202 and especially b). What does it say? It is clearly enumerated in the law. Here is the operative Section 202 (do you know what "and" means?:

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article 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; or

(e) 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; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

Did Pickett prove that the cash market was discriminated against compared to the captive supply? YES, to 12 jurors who the court said wasted their time.

This decision, and others out of the 11th circuit show that ALL of those judges should retire and work for the industry they really work for or go back for remediation English. I have an aunt that could teach them the difference between "and" and "or". I would even pay for the tutoring.

Heck, with SH, BMR, Jason(who really needs to wash clean his brown nose), Agman, and some others, she would have a full class.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Did Pickett prove that the cash market was discriminated against compared to the captive supply? YES, to 12 jurors who the court said wasted their time.

This decision, and others out of the 11th circuit show that ALL of those judges should retire and work for the industry they really work for or go back for remediation English. I have an aunt that could teach them the difference between "and" and "or". I would even pay for the tutoring."'

Pickett never provided anything but "OPINIONS" and "ILLUSIONS" of market manipulation suggesting that a drop in price in the cash market compared to the formula market is market manipulation to a jury who knew nothing about fat cattle marketing and were left to evaluate the "UNTESTED THEORIES" of one Dr. Taylor ("Mr. nuts").

These same arguments were presented before and those court cases reached the same conclusions. WERE THOSE JURIES BOUGHT OFF???

You simply cannot accept the fact that Judge Strom and the 11th circuit found no violation of the PSA. Why have judges if they can't judge a verdict in accordance with the laws?

You're just crying in your beer cause you lost. If you had any proof of market manipulation you would be spreading it all over this web site.

YOU GOT NOTHING CONMAN! The packer blamers lost with their factually void arguments.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Did Pickett prove that the cash market was discriminated against compared to the captive supply? YES, to 12 jurors who the court said wasted their time.

This decision, and others out of the 11th circuit show that ALL of those judges should retire and work for the industry they really work for or go back for remediation English. I have an aunt that could teach them the difference between "and" and "or". I would even pay for the tutoring."'

Pickett never provided anything but "OPINIONS" and "ILLUSIONS" of market manipulation suggesting that a drop in price in the cash market compared to the formula market is market manipulation to a jury who knew nothing about fat cattle marketing and were left to evaluate the "UNTESTED THEORIES" of one Dr. Taylor ("Mr. nuts").

These same arguments were presented before and those court cases reached the same conclusions. WERE THOSE JURIES BOUGHT OFF???

You simply cannot accept the fact that Judge Strom and the 11th circuit found no violation of the PSA. Why have judges if they can't judge a verdict in accordance with the laws?

You're just crying in your beer cause you lost. If you had any proof of market manipulation you would be spreading it all over this web site.

YOU GOT NOTHING CONMAN! The packer blamers lost with their factually void arguments.


~SH~

When it is the recurring "opinion" and 12 members of the jury believe the same"illusion", and the judges have to turn "or"s into "and"s, then there is a problem. It isn't with me.

By the way, the same terminology "behind closed doors" was used to describe Vanderbilt and Gould's clash over the Erie. It described the same thing that is happening today. Now that is erie.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I am just trying to save some from that fate.

Agman, your little analysis on demand was pathetic. I absolutely do not know why anyone gives you any credence at all--- Oh, I forgot, you are just trying to get people signed up for captive supplies as it "is going to happen anyway". Anyone with the insider trading knowledge of Tyson's positions can predict what is going to happen in the cash market.

I will post another website that supports my "tight supplies" terminology and it will also put the Canadian beef trade in a little perspective.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Agman, your little analysis on demand was pathetic. I absolutely do not know why anyone gives you any credence at all--- Oh, I forgot, you are just trying to get people signed up for captive supplies as it "is going to happen anyway". Anyone with the insider trading knowledge of Tyson's positions can predict what is going to happen in the cash market."

Any real economists that listened to your bullsh*t would laugh you off the planet or usher you to the door. Here, you can get away with your "behind closed doors" lies and court conspiracies.

This insider trading knowledge conspiracy is just one more example of what a complete idiot you are. Bet you have all kinds of proof of that too don't you??????????? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Conman: "I will post another website that supports my "tight supplies" terminology and it will also put the Canadian beef trade in a little perspective."

Why? So you can read your own bullsh*t?



~SH~

 

[agman]

Conman: "Did Pickett prove that the cash market was discriminated against compared to the captive supply? YES, to 12 jurors who the court said wasted their time.

This decision, and others out of the 11th circuit show that ALL of those judges should retire and work for the industry they really work for or go back for remediation English. I have an aunt that could teach them the difference between "and" and "or". I would even pay for the tutoring."'

Pickett never provided anything but "OPINIONS" and "ILLUSIONS" of market manipulation suggesting that a drop in price in the cash market compared to the formula market is market manipulation to a jury who knew nothing about fat cattle marketing and were left to evaluate the "UNTESTED THEORIES" of one Dr. Taylor ("Mr. nuts").

These same arguments were presented before and those court cases reached the same conclusions. WERE THOSE JURIES BOUGHT OFF???

You simply cannot accept the fact that Judge Strom and the 11th circuit found no violation of the PSA. Why have judges if they can't judge a verdict in accordance with the laws?

You're just crying in your beer cause you lost. If you had any proof of market manipulation you would be spreading it all over this web site.

YOU GOT NOTHING CONMAN! The packer blamers lost with their factually void arguments.


~SH~

When it is the recurring "opinion" and 12 members of the jury believe the same"illusion", and the judges have to turn "or"s into "and"s, then there is a problem. It isn't with me.

By the way, the same terminology "behind closed doors" was used to describe Vanderbilt and Gould's clash over the Erie. It described the same thing that is happening today. Now that is erie.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I am just trying to save some from that fate.

Agman, your little analysis on demand was pathetic. I absolutely do not know why anyone gives you any credence at all--- Oh, I forgot, you are just trying to get people signed up for captive supplies as it "is going to happen anyway". Anyone with the insider trading knowledge of Tyson's positions can predict what is going to happen in the cash market.

I will post another website that supports my "tight supplies" terminology and it will also put the Canadian beef trade in a little perspective.

You don't even know what "demand" is let alone how to measure demand. You are the total fool who tried to convince readers that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". Do I have to make a copy of your previous pathetic attempt at explaining demand. Your comment clearly displayed how totally inept you are in the field of Economics-all show and no go, a total fraud. As I have previously stated, I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis than you will ever know.

 

[agman]

I'll let the board decide who the idiot is.

Sandhusker, why did you not even answer one of the question I posed?

These are the questions that I posed that you totally ignored and failed to answer. You can have another crack at them!

Answer these question? Does the law allow a jury verdict to be voided by a judge? What are the grounds for such a dismissal? Do you know, yes or no? Did Judge Strom violate the law when he voided the jury verdict? Did the appellate court violate any law when they unanimously upheld Judge Strom's ruling? Did ALL the federal judges in the 11th district violate any law when they ALL refused to even call a vote on an en banc hearing requested by the plaintiff's lawyers? Do you believe ALL these federal judges are wrong and only you are right?

If you think you are right and they are wrong are you willing to bet that $100 dollars against my position that the Supreme Court will not even consider a review the Pickett case?

 

[Sandhusker]

I didn't see your questions and I'll gladly take a crack at them.

No, Agman, I don't believe they violated the law. I also don't believe I have ever stated as such. Who do you have me confused with?

What I believe is that Strom is legislating from the bench. I believe he read the PSA and couldn't see the forest thru the trees. The notion that having a valid reason for the very same tool that is used to break the law negates any crime is rediculous. I guess you don't.

Your arguements have also been far from convincing. I believe I asked you how packers could have a monopoly against themselves - never got an answer.

 

[Econ101]

I happen to agree totally with Sandhusker on this one. When there is legislating from the bench, there is a power being taken from one of the three legs of the balance of power in the U.S. by another.

Agman, I absolutely do not believe that the judges had the economic training to be able to interpret an economic law. They overstepped their expertise and your little argument that they know more about the "law" does not excuse their actions, either by Judge Strom or the appellate courts, or the 11th circuit. It shows a real problem we have in this country in the judiciary. The current makeup of the Senate Judiciary and their inability to see these problems is concerning. Of course the money trail shows who they have taken money from----corporate interests. It is very concerning. It is the Mexicanization of our political system.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Agman, I absolutely do not believe that the judges had the economic training to be able to interpret an economic law. They overstepped their expertise and your little argument that they know more about the "law" does not excuse their actions, either by Judge Strom or the appellate courts, or the 11th circuit. It shows a real problem we have in this country in the judiciary. The current makeup of the Senate Judiciary and their inability to see these problems is concerning. Of course the money trail shows who they have taken money from----corporate interests. It is very concerning. It is the Mexicanization of our political system."

It was the jury in this case that didn't understand economic law. The fact that producers WILLINGLY enter into forward contract arrangements and formula pricing to fill the packers needs and packers drop their price in the cash market accordingly is nothing more than a factor of supply and demand. Not market manipualtion as the conspiracy theorists led the jury to believe. Pickett vs. ibp is not the only court case that this issue was tried in. The packer blamers in Kansas lost a similar case.

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit got it right. Nothing proved the lack of understanding of the jury more than to award damages higher than ibp's profits when there is no way in hell that the plaintiffs would be entitled to more than ibp's total profits.

Thank God our judicial system still allows Judges to overrule short sighted verdicts.

This trial should have been conducted in Nebraska or Kansas in a rural area where people understand cattle feeding. Not Alabama with it's anti-corporate bias. That was part of the packer blamer's plan. Find an uninformed jury that they could baffle with their bullsh*t. Judge Strom was sharp enough to catch Mike Callicrate lying uder oath.

Conman, by your own admission you didn't even read the court testimony. Your packer blaming bias just screams. All you know about this case is what some other packer blamer has fed you. You are a complete phony.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Agman, I absolutely do not believe that the judges had the economic training to be able to interpret an economic law. They overstepped their expertise and your little argument that they know more about the "law" does not excuse their actions, either by Judge Strom or the appellate courts, or the 11th circuit. It shows a real problem we have in this country in the judiciary. The current makeup of the Senate Judiciary and their inability to see these problems is concerning. Of course the money trail shows who they have taken money from----corporate interests. It is very concerning. It is the Mexicanization of our political system."

It was the jury in this case that didn't understand economic law. The fact that producers WILLINGLY enter into forward contract arrangements and formula pricing to fill the packers needs and packers drop their price in the cash market accordingly is nothing more than a factor of supply and demand. Not market manipualtion as the conspiracy theorists led the jury to believe. Pickett vs. ibp is not the only court case that this issue was tried in. The packer blamers in Kansas lost a similar case.

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit got it right. Nothing proved the lack of understanding of the jury more than to award damages higher than ibp's profits when there is no way in hell that the plaintiffs would be entitled to more than ibp's total profits.

Thank God our judicial system still allows Judges to overrule short sighted verdicts.

This trial should have been conducted in Nebraska or Kansas in a rural area where people understand cattle feeding. Not Alabama with it's anti-corporate bias. That was part of the packer blamer's plan. Find an uninformed jury that they could baffle with their bullsh*t. Judge Strom was sharp enough to catch Mike Callicrate lying uder oath.

Conman, by your own admission you didn't even read the court testimony. Your packer blaming bias just screams. All you know about this case is what some other packer blamer has fed you. You are a complete phony.



~SH~

SH, just because cattlemen were given two choices and they picked the better of the two, it does not mean that the choices were "fair" choices. Your reasoning on that one is just wrong. Fool an old judge and scam up a federal appeals court. This has happened before. It is only a matter of time before this is fixed. Just like the Pickett manipulation, the longer it takes, the more the damages. This truly is the "all or nothing" curve for Tyson. Let us see how they like their own medicine.

 

[ocm]

Econ: Jason makes valid points. If theyr'e shallow, why so? Please shoot the message, not the messager.

OCM: You must be referencing a very regional or personal situation. All three actively and aggressively procure and recruit quality AND yield in TX, OK, KS, CO. All three also have grid programs which reward for quality AND yield. The competition is very significant.

Beefman

In testimony at the Pickett trial provided by Tyson it was that indicated that Tyson bought for yield while Cargill bought for grade. That was not regional.

Each packer's grid is set up differently to reward (that should be penalize) different aspects. They have effectively divided the market. It has been done , not through active collusion but rather passive collusion. What you describe differs from both Pickett trial testimony and my own experience.

OCM...even from you your opinion is an extreme reach. Has it ever dawned on you that the packers do not serve identical customers with identical needs. Once again it is your own ignoracne of the entire marketing system that allows you to make such foolish and unsupported statements. Get real...learn about the entire beef industry, not just as you perceive it to be. Ignorance is the breeding ground for conspiracy theorists. You and Conman prove that daily.

I actually considered saying something about the differences in their customers as an indication that they buy different kinds of cattle. But I thought it would divert from the point. How they arrived at a division of the market is irrelevant PSA offers no out. You are consistent in believing that a violation of PSA is not really a violation if it has a justification.

You have affirmed for me the fact that the big 3 packers indeed buy different kinds of cattle. But I didn't see any comments about how ignorant ~SH~ and Beefman are on that point.