Manitoba_Rancher
Well-known member
Econ- What education do you have because the way you make a fool of yourself on here it would seem you have an elementary grade school education. If your going to dispute get your facts straight! :roll:
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.
Agman Refuted by Tyson president and chief operating officer
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Manitoba_Rancher said:Econ- What education do you have because the way you make a fool of yourself on here it would seem you have an elementary grade school education. If your going to dispute get your facts straight! :roll:
MR, if you have a problem understanding my posts, maybe you should avoid them.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "Dropping prices in the cash market due to needs being met would not have been a problem if they would not have used the cash market as a basis for the formula market. That made all the difference. It wasn't about just the difference in supply/demand, it was about manipulating the cash price for strategic (and illegal) reasons."
EVERY FEEDER THAT SELLS CATTLE ON A FORMULA KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT BASE PRICE IS DERIVED!!!!!!!!!!
Under that situation, there is nothing hidden. There can be no market manipulation when you have willing participants and the manner in which the base price is derived is disclosed prior to the sale.
There is times when the formula base price is higher than the cash market of fat cattle delivered the same week and there is times when the formula base price is lower than the cash market of the fat cattle delivered in the same week.
IF YOU KNOW THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU ENTER, THERE CAN BE NO MARKET MANIPULATION.
Taking it further, if feeders felt that this was market manipulation, they can sell in the cash market or they can forward contract, or they can "BID THE GRID".
They don't need some five and dime professor like you telling them how to market their cattle.
ARROGANT !%@&*!@%^&*!
~SH~
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Under that situation, there is nothing hidden. There can be no market manipulation when you have willing participants and the manner in which the base price is derived is disclosed prior to the sale.
SH, this is a faulty assumption you are making. Two people can enter into an agreement, with full disclosure on the agreement, and if one person doesn't fully comprehend the agreement, it allows the second an opportunity to twist conditions to their favor.
Full transparency does not necessarily mean educated.
And by the number of producers signing these ill-conceived cash market basis contracts, its obvious they don't understand how they are harming the market, even while there is full transparency. Both Econ and I have time and time again shown exactly how these types of contracts can hurt the market. Yet NO-ONE has shown any proof to the contrary.
Rod
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "You have even validated my conclusions with your own calculated values. I appreciate that."
You don't have any conclusions Conman, all you have is conspiracy theories which you cannot support with any factual data. You're a joke!
Conman: "I am accusing you of misrepresentation."
And your accusations are as empty as your head.
Conman: "Why couldn't they convince the jury?"
Why couldn't the jury convince the judge and the 11th circuit?
Who has more knowledge of law?
Conman: "The question was never whether a legitimate reason for marketing agreements could exist. It was whether or not the way Tyson used them was illegal."
Obviously feeders know exactly what kind of arrangement they are entering into when they sell their cattle. There can be nothing illegal about a marketing arrangement with willing participants and open terms.
Conman: "Why should they be able to interpret anything for the money paying corporations that have bought the hill and obviously the 11th circuit court?"
Yet another baseless conspiracy theory.
Where is your proof of "buying the hill"????
Right beside your proof of market manipulation I presume................ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?????
You are so.......WITHOUT, Conman!
Sandbag: "UNAMIOUS DECISION"
YES, THE 11TH CIRCUIT RULING WAS!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "Dropping prices in the cash market due to needs being met would not have been a problem if they would not have used the cash market as a basis for the formula market. That made all the difference. It wasn't about just the difference in supply/demand, it was about manipulating the cash price for strategic (and illegal) reasons."
EVERY FEEDER THAT SELLS CATTLE ON A FORMULA KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT BASE PRICE IS DERIVED!!!!!!!!!!
Under that situation, there is nothing hidden. There can be no market manipulation when you have willing participants and the manner in which the base price is derived is disclosed prior to the sale.
There is times when the formula base price is higher than the cash market of fat cattle delivered the same week and there is times when the formula base price is lower than the cash market of the fat cattle delivered in the same week.
IF YOU KNOW THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU ENTER, THERE CAN BE NO MARKET MANIPULATION.
Taking it further, if feeders felt that this was market manipulation, they can sell in the cash market or they can forward contract, or they can "BID THE GRID".
They don't need some five and dime professor like you telling them how to market their cattle.
ARROGANT !%@&*!@%^&*!
~SH~
IF YOU KNOW THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU ENTER, THERE CAN BE NO MARKET MANIPULATION.
Under your definition, there will have to be a lot of stock manipulation cases overturned. You are totally laughable.
A
Anonymous
Guest
If you had proof of market manipulation, you would have provided it many posts ago. You can't because it doesn't exist.
You are more than laughable. You are severly mentally unstable.
~SH~
You are more than laughable. You are severly mentally unstable.
~SH~
"If you had proof of market manipulation, you would have provided it many posts ago. You can't because it doesn't exist."~SH~ said:If you had proof of market manipulation, you would have provided it many posts ago. You can't because it doesn't exist.
You are more than laughable. You are severly mentally unstable.
~SH~
Pickett did at trial and 12 regular jurors agreed with him.
"You are more than laughable. You are severly mentally unstable."
Would you care to post your medical credentials or are you speaking from personal epxerience?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "Pickett did at trial and 12 regular jurors agreed with him."
Pickett didn't prove market manipulation!, THEY LOST!
JUDGE STROM'S RULING WAS UPHELD BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT!!!!!!
Go cry in your beer with your fellow anti-corporate packer blamers!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "Pickett did at trial and 12 regular jurors agreed with him."
Pickett didn't prove market manipulation!, THEY LOST!
JUDGE STROM'S RULING WAS UPHELD BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT!!!!!!
Go cry in your beer with your fellow anti-corporate packer blamers!
~SH~
Tyson already lost in the court that is above this one in a unanimous decision.
