Phil, I don't disagree with Schroeder's article in question.  I do disagree with Agman's definition of causuality of changes in demand.  Agman did some calculations but did not disclose where he got his numbers, what they were based on, the assumptions, etc.  He just presented them as gospel truth along with all the interpretation of those numbers. 

Agman first disputed my claim of supply driven price increases, then did an analysis that largely supported my claims (with his own calculations) but then argued with me on the number he attributed to demand.  I simply asked him to show his work so we could look into the interpretation and analysis to see if it was correct.  He did not provide that information, and wants to stick with his own interpretation even though the top guy at Tyson says differently publically. 

Coming from where you say you come from, Phil, you should be able to look into the details that I have asked for from Agman to support his claims, but instead you defend him in not showing his work. 

When you said you worked under Schroeder, I assumed it meant you had the education to be able to look into the facts, when presented, and be able to see if his "expert" conclusions are warranted.  I might have been mistaken.  You seem to want to believe Agman even though he has not shown or even told on this board where he got his underlying data and his underlying assumptions.

Schroeder's demand index is nothing more than a basis to compare numbers and is similar to the idea of parity (value always has this problem).  You have to know some of the other variables (like price and quantity of substitutes) to be able to draw any meaningfull conclusions.  I have asked Agman if those were included in his calculations and he has not answered.  Now I don't know if he is correct in his analysis, but if he does not reveal his methodology and assumptions, we will never know the answer.  Then we are left with his "expert opinion" on the issues.  They are no better than SH's opinions with a number assigned to them under these circumstances.

I did not call Agman(Conman) a name on this issue other than trying to goad him on providing the information that could possibly exonnerate his position.  It is people like you who give economists a bad name.  We should all ask for an "expert" opinion so we don't have to think for ourselves.  You seem to be supporting that position.  I do not.