Agman and/or SH

[Anonymous]

Conman: "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."

WHAT?

How could they not be fair choices? What a stupid statement!

Conman: "Your reasoning on that one is just wrong.

You are not smart enough to discern wrong from right nor can you prove that my resoning is wrong. You haven't backed any of your views with supporting facts and I doubt you ever will. All you can do is blame.

Conman: "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."

The packer conspiracy theorist minority will not be telling the majority of cattle feeders how they will market their cattle. WRITE IT DOWN! The Captive supply reform act will be shot down in flames. The ball is already rolling.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Quote:
Conman: "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."


WHAT?

How could they not be fair choices? What a stupid statement!

Their choice was between a discriminated week old cash market price (that set the formula price) or a current cash price that with the help of captive supply, could be discriminated against further.

Do you not know anything about the cattle markets?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Their choice was between a discriminated week old cash market price (that set the formula price) or a current cash price that with the help of captive supply, could be discriminated against further."

No, they're choice was selling on the grid knowing that the base price was based on the weekly weighted average of the week prior WHICH COULD BE HIGHER THAN THIS WEEK'S CASH MARKET or this week's cash market reflective of normal supply and demand factors including whether or not the packer had their needs fulfilled and dropped their price.

In order for the price to be truly discriminatory, every packer would have to have their needs filled in the formula market to drop their price in the cash market.

Anyone that knows anything about cattle market and is not a packer blaming conspiracy theorist like you knows that Tyson, Swift, USPB, Smitfhield, Greater Omaha, and Excel do not all fill their needs at the same time.

Your market manipulation conspiracy theory is nothing more than unsupported BULLSH*T! Pure and simple.

Conman: "Do you not know anything about the cattle markets?"

Far more than you will ever know.


How can Tyson manipulate the markets if Excel and Swift are paying more for cattle than Tyson?

Yet another common sense question that you cannot answer.


~SH~

 

[agman]

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.

I never said that you said Strom violated the law. I just posed a question. Why did you fail to answer all the questions I posed, especially the one granting a judge the legal right to overturn a jury verdict.

The reality is that neither you or I are legal experts. You believe your interpretation of the law is correct when all the judges in the 11th district refused to even call a vote on the plaintiff's request for an en banc hearing. Why do you think that is so? Are you to be believed while ALL the judges are to be disbelieved? Do you actually think you have a better understanding of economic and ecometric analysis than Judge Storm who specializes in such cases?

 

[agman]

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.

Who cares what you think, you are a total fraud.

 

[Econ101]

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.

Who cares what you think, you are a total fraud.

No, Agman, you are a total fraud. You can't even pony up to the fact that imports hurt domestic producers.

 

[Jason]

No one on this board, and especially not Agman, has EVER said unlimited imports are not harmful to producers.

The questions discussed are current and historic imports.

Canadian imports have only had a small impact on US producers, some of those imports have been high quality cattle that have helped fill lucrative export markets.

Lean trim import has always been price positive.

If the borders were to open to any and all beef imports there would most likely be harm done to US producers, but that isn't the case.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, when imports are a part of the upswing in the cattle market, then they take away from domestic producers when markets are good for cattlemen.
My arguments here are not against Canadian cattle, they are against packers pushing the cattle markets through manipulation as in the Pickett case and then using imports to make more money for themselves.

It is self serving and does not help cattlemen. Agman knows this and doesn't want to own up to it. I am not talking about "unlimited" imports, I am talking about imports after the domestic supply has been reduced due to low prices following price manipulation schemes.

You of all people should understand this, being from Canada.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Who cares what you think

Agman--I can tell by your arrogance that you are a good dues paying, good old boy NCBA member-- that is the same impression they have given me for the last few years on how they felt about most cattlemen, consumers, and especially anyone that questioned them-"Our way or no way- we are never wrong".....

 

[Jason]

Jason, when imports are a part of the upswing in the cattle market, then they take away from domestic producers when markets are good for cattlemen.
My arguments here are not against Canadian cattle, they are against packers pushing the cattle markets through manipulation as in the Pickett case and then using imports to make more money for themselves.

It is self serving and does not help cattlemen. Agman knows this and doesn't want to own up to it. I am not talking about "unlimited" imports, I am talking about imports after the domestic supply has been reduced due to low prices following price manipulation schemes.

You of all people should understand this, being from Canada.

Explain how supplies were manipulated downward by the packers in the US in 2004 when prices were climbing.

You have stated the packers drive the price down to create artificially low supplies of cattle. For what I don't know, less cattle it takes less demand to move the price higher. In a market with record demand why would packers want to lower supplies? How did they do it this time?

The prices in 2004 advanced yet the supplies dropped. Good manipulation. When there is more demand for beef make sure there isn't enough of it to sell everyone that wants it.

Your take on supply and demand is a$$ backwards.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, when imports are a part of the upswing in the cattle market, then they take away from domestic producers when markets are good for cattlemen.
My arguments here are not against Canadian cattle, they are against packers pushing the cattle markets through manipulation as in the Pickett case and then using imports to make more money for themselves.

It is self serving and does not help cattlemen. Agman knows this and doesn't want to own up to it. I am not talking about "unlimited" imports, I am talking about imports after the domestic supply has been reduced due to low prices following price manipulation schemes.

You of all people should understand this, being from Canada.

Explain how supplies were manipulated downward by the packers in the US in 2004 when prices were climbing.

You have stated the packers drive the price down to create artificially low supplies of cattle. For what I don't know, less cattle it takes less demand to move the price higher. In a market with record demand why would packers want to lower supplies? How did they do it this time?

The prices in 2004 advanced yet the supplies dropped. Good manipulation. When there is more demand for beef make sure there isn't enough of it to sell everyone that wants it.

Your take on supply and demand is a$$ backwards.

I never said they did that in 2004. Supply is based on a long term production cycle. That is the point.

The assumption that cattle prices are manipulated all the time because of the possibility of manipulation is not mine. It is SH's and Agmans.

 

[Jason]

If the normal cattle cycle overcomes any supposed manipulation then it really isn't much of a detriment is it?

Another basic fact of life is every transaction in business manipulates the market.

I can conceed the packers manipulate the market, but only through their normal business practices.

Consumers manipulate the market far more.

 

[Econ101]

If the normal cattle cycle overcomes any supposed manipulation then it really isn't much of a detriment is it?

Another basic fact of life is every transaction in business manipulates the market.

I can conceed the packers manipulate the market, but only through their normal business practices.

Consumers manipulate the market far more.

So now your excuse is a conspiracy of consumers?

 

[Jason]

If it makes you feel better to use the words conspiracy and maniplulation, yes consumers are the reason beef and cattle markets move.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "No, Agman, you are a total fraud. You can't even pony up to the fact that imports hurt domestic producers."

You are the one who is too ignorant to understand how Cheap imported lean trimmings add to producer profitability because they add value to our surplus 50/50 trim while we get paid a higher price for our chucks and rounds that are not ground.

You are the one who is too ignorant to understand that our imports will not disappear off the world market if we ban imports AND WE ARE IN THE WORLD MARKET.

If Canadian imports absorb an equivalent portion of our export markets, WHAT DID WE GAIN BY BANNING IMPORTS???

Not a damn thing but you're too ignorant to understand that.

Conman: "The assumption that cattle prices are manipulated all the time because of the possibility of manipulation is not mine. It is SH's and Agmans."

That is a damn lie!

Neither of us ever stated that. This is more of your typical deceptive slime ball lying tactics. Can't win an argument based on factual merit so you have to make sh*t up.

We simply posed the question, "if packers can manipulate markets sometimes, why can't they at other times" I asked "what factors allow manipulation to occur sometimes and not others"? That was another question you couldn't answer so you changed it into a statement that we never made.

You are a complete phony Conman. You prove it with every post.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "No, Agman, you are a total fraud. You can't even pony up to the fact that imports hurt domestic producers."

You are the one who is too ignorant to understand how Cheap imported lean trimmings add to producer profitability because they add value to our surplus 50/50 trim while we get paid a higher price for our chucks and rounds that are not ground.

You are the one who is too ignorant to understand that our imports will not disappear off the world market if we ban imports AND WE ARE IN THE WORLD MARKET.

If Canadian imports absorb an equivalent portion of our export markets, WHAT DID WE GAIN BY BANNING IMPORTS???

Not a damn thing but you're too ignorant to understand that.

Conman: "The assumption that cattle prices are manipulated all the time because of the possibility of manipulation is not mine. It is SH's and Agmans."

That is a damn lie!

Neither of us ever stated that. This is more of your typical deceptive slime ball lying tactics. Can't win an argument based on factual merit so you have to make sh*t up.

We simply posed the question, "if packers can manipulate markets sometimes, why can't they at other times" I asked "what factors allow manipulation to occur sometimes and not others"? That was another question you couldn't answer so you changed it into a statement that we never made.

You are a complete phony Conman. You prove it with every post.



~SH~

Thank you for the direct question, SH.

When it is in their best interest to do so.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Thank you for the direct question, SH."

I'll take that as your admission that we never made the assumption you claimed we made you damn liar.

What assumption? This assumption:

"The assumption that cattle prices are manipulated all the time because of the possibility of manipulation is not mine. It is SH's and Agmans."

Conman: "When it is in their best interest to do so."

If they could manipulate prices, it would always be in their interest to do so.

Since it would obviously always be in the packers best interest to manipulate fat cattle prices lower, what factors allow them to manipulate markets at some times and not at others?

There's another direct question for you to divert Conman!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Thank you for the direct question, SH."

I'll take that as your admission that we never made the assumption you claimed we made you damn liar.

What assumption? This assumption:

"The assumption that cattle prices are manipulated all the time because of the possibility of manipulation is not mine. It is SH's and Agmans."

Conman: "When it is in their best interest to do so."

If they could manipulate prices, it would always be in their interest to do so.

Since it would obviously always be in the packers best interest to manipulate fat cattle prices lower, what factors allow them to manipulate markets at some times and not at others?

There's another direct question for you to divert Conman!


~SH~

When it serves their interests in substitutes that they really make money on.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "When it serves their interests in substitutes that they really make money on."

Explain yourself and prove it. This is just more cheap talk!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "When it serves their interests in substitutes that they really make money on."

Explain yourself and prove it. This is just more cheap talk!


~SH~

SH, I have done it many times. The benefits to Swift, and Tyson for swinging the cattle markets via the price manipulation Pickett proved to the jury is found in the additional profitability that the substitutes bring in when the supply of cattle gets tight. The substitutes follow beef up in price on the upswing of the prices. Go look at the data. It is pretty clear.