• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ranchers.net

Agman,

I have been trying to bait you for a long time on this one. You stated in one of your posts that the Robinson Patman Act (RPA) allows for discrimination. Are you prepared to elaborate on your statement and support it? Are you contending that the "discrimination" embodied in the act supports the discrimination alleged in the price manipulation of the Pickett case?

Let us go into the economics of your answer and see how little the appellate courts know about economics, market power, and their OWN (incorrect, I allege) interpretation of the economic principles behind the RPA and the PSA (Packers and Stockyards Act).

May we find all of the biases and the truth. Please keep all name calling out of this thread. This is not personal, it is trying to understand the concepts behind the two acts and how they apply to the markets. Agree to disagree if you want, but keep it nice.

The RPA, the PSA, the Clayton and Sherman Anti-trust Acts all have to do with competition and the exercise of market power. The exercise of market power creates deadweight losses to an economy and shifts costs and rewards due to market power instead of supply/demand and competitive markets.


These acts are readily available on the net. Agman, Are you willing to back up your claim on the RPA and discrimination or are you just a scared packer backer?

Please vote after we discuss it on this thread.

I had another option that I could not get on the poll:

I don't know enough to make a decision, lets rodeo!!!
Top