Another question for SH

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You packer blamers lost in Pickett and you lost on appeal because YOU HAD NOTHING to support your position"

If Pickett had nothing, then explain Strom's comment "there was evidence to support the jury's decision". It is obvious "You had nothing" is untrue. By your definition, that is a lie.


SH, "Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation."

Yep, but that's not why prices were lowered. They were lowered because the pricing mechanism allowed for it. The number of cattle bought previous doesn't matter - all that matters is the price.

Your statement is incorrect. You have said another "SH Lie"

 

[Econ101]

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation.


If the cash market was a price setting mechanism for captive supply and it was used as a collusive "cap" for prices, it could be manipulation. Depends on the circumstances. Pickett proved those circumstances.

 

[agman]

DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.




~SH~

Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!


Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

This statement with regard to Taylor's testimony is not even close. His six causation mechanisms (not theories) were only a small part of Taylor's testimony.

I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone.

Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.

Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.

Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.

 

[agman]

They were proven to be a weapon.

I can tell that you never did any of those "connect-the-dots" games when you were a kid. You need to get a book and get caught up. 12 jurors connected the dots.

DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

Connect the dots, SH. They draw a picture.

I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation. I do not recall any of them ever saying prices were manipulated. To the contrary their conclusions have contrasted with Dr Taylor. The economists cited, with the exception of Dr Ted Schroeder did not testify, Taylor did. Dr Schroeder testified for the defense or Tyson.

Also the economists that I know that were listed have not completed any analysis examining the net impact of marketing agreements. Point: If I only look for and analyze days of cloudy weather would that suggest there is never any sunshine? Furthermore does it exclude the fact that there are more days of sunshine than not? The very reason Dr Azzam refused to testify for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs took his research out of context. He clearly stated in his works he only looked for any negative impact with total disregard for any net positive impact.

Your comment regarding Judge Strom's comment "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole". First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote? What Judge Strom said is that if he was the fact-finder in this case he would say Dr Taylor was nuts. The Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues with Taylor's testimony. In short, he could not and did support his own statements and findings regarding marketing agreements lowering prices. Your team lost because they were factually void.

The jury was fooled by Dr Taylor's testimony but not old Judge Strom and the Appellate Judges. Also their ruling was upheld by all federal judges in the 11th district when not even one would call a vote for an en banc hearing which was requested by the plaintiff's attorneys. That is nothing less than a clear and total victory for the defense and Tyson. Thus, the Appellate Court stated in their opinion that the plaintiffs lost on ALL counts. That is something else your side refuses to post in your faint attempt to support a case that had zero merit.

Agman, stop asking everyone else to post what you want posted. If you have an argument and want something posted, bring it up. Ask your secretary to type it up if you have one. The court does not have the right to make the decision on the trial, the jurors do.

As far as your economists go, post their testimony if you think it will help. We will see if they are real economists or just masquerading as such in the trial. You obviously have major problems in that regard.

The 11th circuit will have to defend themselves on this one. They legislated from the bench. If they can't tell the diffference between "and" and "or" in the law, they probably are not fit to sit. I guarentee the people who wrote the law know the difference.

Post your little things you want to argue over and stop whining about it. There is nothing worse than a whining packer backer.

Econ, for a self-anointed intellectual such as yourself your lack of knowledge of the law is a laugh a day. Did you lie again or are you just ignorant of the law when you stated above "The court does not have the right to make the decision on the trial, the jurors do."

The law specifically allows for a judge in a cases such as the Pickett case to void the jury verdict "if it is clear that if the jury truly understood the testimony provided they would not have voted as they did." Judge Strom was more expert in this type of case then the jurors and you. He did not get hoodwinked by Taylor's testimony as you and the jurors did. Rather he saw the deficiencies in Taylor's work and conclusions. Judge Strom did the right thing which he was legally OBLIGATED to do given the law granting judges such authority. Did you lie or are you just that ignorant of the law which you profess to know so mcuh about? You did lie; yes or no. You are ignorant of that law; yes or no. Which is it? Don't try to fool readers with another meaningless dissertation.

Your comment "Agman, stop asking everyone else to post what you want posted. If you have an argument and want something posted, bring it up."

My response...There is no argument, just the fact that you only post one sentence regarding what you think Taylor proved. You fail to post footnote #7 on page 13 of the Appellate court's decision. Why would that be Conman? Are you afraid to let the readers see the truth regarding the Appellate Court's concern regarding Taylor manipulation claim. I think you are getting disjointed as you are in over your head again. Facts will beat your phony accusations and meaningless dissertations every time.

Did Taylor not provide the list of credible economists in the article posted previously on this forum? Do you now want to claim they are not credible? Your idol "Taylor" listed them as esteemed economists. I just provided you and readers with their concern, which I have no disagreement with, and results of their findings but the very limited focus of their research regarding marketing agreements. I am on soild ground, you are in the muck again.

BTW, what am I whining about? That is another false claim on your part. Are there too many voices rattling your brain again? You have been unable to refute any post I have made. Meaningless dissertations don't cut it in the real world. Why would I whine, you make my day. I have never before had the privilege to deal with someone as totally inept as you. You fool no one but yourself. Are you intelligent enough to figure that out?

 

[agman]

I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation.

As a cattle producer, I'd prefer there be no "incentive to manipulate the market". Even if there wasn't any actual manipulation going on, some day the temptation would be too much for someone, and it would occur.

And please don't tell me that I'm a conspiracy theorist on that one. After 18 years of working with small and large corporations, I'm well aware of how often corporations push the envelope on legality. Even the smallest company that I worked for did it on a regular basis. Heck, my cattle ranch is about as small as a corporation can get, and my accountant pushes the envelope everytime he works the numbers.

Rod

Unfortunately we do not live in Utopia. No matter what method of pricing is used there will be an incentive to manipulate for the unscrupulous. That also includes producers.

If you are not a conspiracy theorist you are certainly working hard to prove otherwise.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "My response...There is no argument, just the fact that you only post one sentence regarding what you think Taylor proved. You fail to post footnote #7 on page 13 of the Appellate court's decision. Why would that be Conman? Are you afraid to let the readers see the truth regarding the Appellate Court's concern regarding Taylor manipulation claim. I think you are getting disjointed as you are in over your head again. Facts will beat your phony accusations and meaningless dissertations every time"

You know what Agman, I believe you think you're getting more mileage not posting footnote #7 instead of actually posting it. If you posted it, people would actually see what it was about and it would get torn up like it has been previous. By not posting it, it is a "mystery", or Agman's "Ace in the hole". If you think you've got something, post it. I don't think any of us Pickett supports are real afraid of what you've got.

Agman, "This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss"

Here's another reminder to readers; Judge Strom placed the requirment that Pickett had to prove Tyson had no legitimate use for marketing agreements. There was no way they could win with that requirement. The trial was over before it started. Apply that requirement to any other crime, if you will. An armed robbery prosecuter would have to prove the robber did not have a legitimate use for the gun. Note to would be robbers: Use a hunting rifle.

 

[Econ101]

I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation. I do not recall any of them ever saying prices were manipulated. To the contrary their conclusions have contrasted with Dr Taylor. The economists cited, with the exception of Dr Ted Schroeder did not testify, Taylor did. Dr Schroeder testified for the defense or Tyson.

Also the economists that I know that were listed have not completed any analysis examining the net impact of marketing agreements. Point: If I only look for and analyze days of cloudy weather would that suggest there is never any sunshine? Furthermore does it exclude the fact that there are more days of sunshine than not? The very reason Dr Azzam refused to testify for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs took his research out of context. He clearly stated in his works he only looked for any negative impact with total disregard for any net positive impact.

Your comment regarding Judge Strom's comment "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole". First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote? What Judge Strom said is that if he was the fact-finder in this case he would say Dr Taylor was nuts. The Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues with Taylor's testimony. In short, he could not and did support his own statements and findings regarding marketing agreements lowering prices. Your team lost because they were factually void.

The jury was fooled by Dr Taylor's testimony but not old Judge Strom and the Appellate Judges. Also their ruling was upheld by all federal judges in the 11th district when not even one would call a vote for an en banc hearing which was requested by the plaintiff's attorneys. That is nothing less than a clear and total victory for the defense and Tyson. Thus, the Appellate Court stated in their opinion that the plaintiffs lost on ALL counts. That is something else your side refuses to post in your faint attempt to support a case that had zero merit.

Agman, stop asking everyone else to post what you want posted. If you have an argument and want something posted, bring it up. Ask your secretary to type it up if you have one. The court does not have the right to make the decision on the trial, the jurors do.

As far as your economists go, post their testimony if you think it will help. We will see if they are real economists or just masquerading as such in the trial. You obviously have major problems in that regard.

The 11th circuit will have to defend themselves on this one. They legislated from the bench. If they can't tell the diffference between "and" and "or" in the law, they probably are not fit to sit. I guarentee the people who wrote the law know the difference.

Post your little things you want to argue over and stop whining about it. There is nothing worse than a whining packer backer.

Econ, for a self-anointed intellectual such as yourself your lack of knowledge of the law is a laugh a day. Did you lie again or are you just ignorant of the law when you stated above "The court does not have the right to make the decision on the trial, the jurors do."

1. The law specifically allows for a judge in a cases such as the Pickett case to void the jury verdict "if it is clear that if the jury truly understood the testimony provided they would not have voted as they did." Judge Strom was more expert in this type of case then the jurors and you. He did not get hoodwinked by Taylor's testimony as you and the jurors did. Rather he saw the deficiencies in Taylor's work and conclusions. Judge Strom did the right thing which he was legally OBLIGATED to do given the law granting judges such authority. Did you lie or are you just that ignorant of the law which you profess to know so mcuh about? You did lie; yes or no. You are ignorant of that law; yes or no. Which is it? Don't try to fool readers with another meaningless dissertation.

Your comment "Agman, stop asking everyone else to post what you want posted. If you have an argument and want something posted, bring it up."

2. My response...There is no argument, just the fact that you only post one sentence regarding what you think Taylor proved. You fail to post footnote #7 on page 13 of the Appellate court's decision. Why would that be Conman? Are you afraid to let the readers see the truth regarding the Appellate Court's concern regarding Taylor manipulation claim. I think you are getting disjointed as you are in over your head again. Facts will beat your phony accusations and meaningless dissertations every time.

3. Did Taylor not provide the list of credible economists in the article posted previously on this forum? Do you now want to claim they are not credible? Your idol "Taylor" listed them as esteemed economists. I just provided you and readers with their concern, which I have no disagreement with, and results of their findings but the very limited focus of their research regarding marketing agreements. I am on soild ground, you are in the muck again.

4. BTW, what am I whining about? That is another false claim on your part. Are there too many voices rattling your brain again? You have been unable to refute any post I have made. Meaningless dissertations don't cut it in the real world. Why would I whine, you make my day. I have never before had the privilege to deal with someone as totally inept as you. You fool no one but yourself. Are you intelligent enough to figure that out?

1. I know the law and in this case it is misused. The judge had the obligation to write specifically why he dismissed the juror's judgement and he did not provide those specifics in the case. Maybe he was fooled by all the dumb little argumements you have allowed your minions to post, Agman. Here are a few of the little misconceptions: "manipulation has to happen all the time or it isn't manipulation", "if the cash price ever goes up, then it is not a depressed price", "there are other choices for feeders other than Tyson's choices", blah, blah, blah blah. We have already been through all of these nonsensical recitations that were probably administered to Judge Strom. Was any of this done "behind closed doors"? You tell me, Agman. I did not see the deficiencies in Taylor's work, just accusations of deficiencies. In that regard, the appellate and Judge Strom's decisions were short on facts and long on dispersionary statements. I have simply asked for the facts, and you can not provide them. As I am fond of saying, Agman, wheres the beef?

2. Post the #7 page 13 if you want. I don't know what sentence you are talking about here of Taylor's that I posted. Post the citation you want to post. Are you trying to think of a reason that it will help your argument? We have already gone over the Daubert issues. It is funny that the court would say that we are not deciding the case on x so we will not look at x and then say they decided it on something else. We all know what the something else was, Agman, it was turning all the "or"s into "and"s. How does the footnote help in your argument at all? Make your case, if you have one. Stop floating around like you are trying a spell or something. The footnote did have the quote you admonished OCM on about calling Taylor "nuts". Here is your post to OCM:

Agman--"
Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law."

If this was an off the record comment, why does the appellate court cite it?

The fact is that your little footnote has nothing real valuable in it or you would have posted it. It is the same problem that the court decisons have. Where's the beef?

3. Taylor just said that those economists agreed with him and were heard saying that they agreed with him. What is your point that you "know" them? You were around Schroeder and his little article he posted on the demand index and yet you had little knowledge that in your statements on this forum of the difference between an increase in demand and an increase in quantity demanded. Face it , Agman, you calculate numbers and prices but know little about real economics. You keep saying that you forgot more than I will ever know. You seem to forget it about the time you reply to me on a post. My calculator is better than that, it has a memory button on it.

4. You are beginning to sound a little like SH, here, Agman. Can we keep this a little more substantive?

If you have any real valid points, I would love to see them.

 

[Econ101]

Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.




~SH~

Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!


Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

This statement with regard to Taylor's testimony is not even close. His six causation mechanisms (not theories) were only a small part of Taylor's testimony.

I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone.

1. Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

2. Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

3. Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.

4. Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.

5. Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.

6. Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.

7. Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.

1. Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman? Are you saying that the formula price, which was based on the previous week's cash price, was a price above or below the weighted average price for cattle secured in a particular week? Tell us how they were not tested, Agman. You only have a ficticious test to provide. The trial was the test. Taylor went over his numbers many different ways and the calculations numerous ways. The test was for the jury to see all the evidence and decide who was telling the truth. Pickett clearly won on all accounts with the jury and the judge did not refute ANY of the evidence, he just said it did not exist. The testimony and the calculations were the evidence. Strom never posted ANY of this in his brief and neither did the appellate court.

2. The last time you did any calculations, did you test your "theory" for your calculations? The last time we got in this argument you said "it was standard practice to hold other things constant......". Did you test that theory? The calculations are based on mathematical "theories". Did you test any of them? Your arguments are just circular. Bring up the "theory" that you think needed to be tested, Agman. Maybe you don't remember what you are talking about. Hit the memory button.

3. What did the question pertain to, Agman? What "theory" are you talking about that needed to be tested? Was it the mathematical "theories"? Was it Hausman's "theories"? If you can not tell the exact "theory" that Strom was talking about, then the question was ambiguous and not answerable. Bring on the exact question, Agman. We are all waiting.

4. What was the Hausman test of causuality referring to, Agman? Which calculations? You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded. If you can not be more specific (I have not seen the trial transcripts, so I really don't know), then your question is valueless. Are you referring to the difference between the cash price and the formula price for delivery of animals in the same week? Be a little more specific, if you can, Agman. I will warn you, MIT credentials do not impress me. Accuracy of the model and its application to real world data as well as the theoretical and actual results and interpretation all have to be there. I did not see anything in the decisions that showed the judges had a mastery of any of Taylor's calculations and yet they were dismissed out of hand. They probably would not even understand the nomenclature, Agman. Glad to say I've helped some along the way.

By the way, I had an aquaintence who wrote one of the first programs for scientific noomenclature that was widely used before the big boys took over. Cay Horstman. Interesting German.

5. See last post on this one.

6. Maybe the defense attorney asked nonsensical questions. If you can not answer the questions I posed in the above points, I will take it that was the case. Anyone would get disgrunteled if the defendant's attorney was asking nonsensical questions. Taylor's biggest problem was probably that he was not used to such irrational tactics from attorneys who don't have a case and have to make one out of thin air. The judge seemed to be in on this. It is quite interesting. Maybe that is why he was picked to be the judge on this case. Of course the jurors were there and had a chance to see if this was the case. They saw everything.

7. Yes, this is very concerning. But not for the reasons you cite, Agman. These judges got the reasoning of the Robinson Patman case completely wrong. They showed their economic illiteracy. Then they did the "legitimate" weapon scam(which was planted by the defendant's in trial) and then reinterpreted the law based on their reinterpretation in the London Case of the simple words, "or" into "and"s. Boy, those people who wrote the law made a big mistake with those words, didn't they, Agman?(sarcasm). And the Senators who passed the PSA, boy, they all got the "or"s wrong in a law that listed enumerated prohibitions. What a scam this 11th Circuit is. They are almost as bad as Cornyn. Money and power, ruin the U. S. and the laws on the books. The only interpretation is one that changes the law and gives a billion dollar verdict to big campaign contributors. What a scam!!!

 

[agman]

Agman, " First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote?"

Post it, for cripes sake! I said to post it, Econ said to post it. Post the dang thing!

I don't need to make the post. I know very clearly what footnote #7 on page 13 says. You are the ones who continually grasp to and post a partial statement to support your view that Taylor proved manipulation. By posting "the rest of the rest of the story", which all of you refuse to do, your belief in what Taylor claimed blows up in your face. I would rather see you pull the trigger than me! Do you really think I care what Econ says? He can't keep his position straight from one post to the next.

 

[agman]

SH, "You packer blamers lost in Pickett and you lost on appeal because YOU HAD NOTHING to support your position"

If Pickett had nothing, then explain Strom's comment "there was evidence to support the jury's decision". It is obvious "You had nothing" is untrue. By your definition, that is a lie.


SH, "Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation."

Yep, but that's not why prices were lowered. They were lowered because the pricing mechanism allowed for it. The number of cattle bought previous doesn't matter - all that matters is the price.

Your statement is incorrect. You have said another "SH Lie"

Quote from above "If Pickett had nothing, then explain Strom's comment "there was evidence to support the jury's decision". It is obvious "You had nothing" is untrue. By your definition, that is a lie.


Was that all Judge Strom said?

 

[Econ101]

Agman, " First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote?"

Post it, for cripes sake! I said to post it, Econ said to post it. Post the dang thing!

I don't need to make the post. I know very clearly what footnote #7 on page 13 says. You are the ones who continually grasp to and post a partial statement to support your view that Taylor proved manipulation. By posting "the rest of the rest of the story", which all of you refuse to do, your belief in what Taylor claimed blows up in your face. I would rather see you pull the trigger than me! Do you really think I care what Econ says? He can't keep his position straight from one post to the next.

Show me where this is the case, Agman, and not just as a figment of your imagination. Better yet, go into the details of my last post, point to point, if you can.

 

[agman]

Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!


Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

This statement with regard to Taylor's testimony is not even close. His six causation mechanisms (not theories) were only a small part of Taylor's testimony.

I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone.

1. Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

2. Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

3. Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.

4. Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.

5. Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.

6. Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.

7. Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.

1. Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman? Are you saying that the formula price, which was based on the previous week's cash price, was a price above or below the weighted average price for cattle secured in a particular week? Tell us how they were not tested, Agman. You only have a ficticious test to provide. The trial was the test. Taylor went over his numbers many different ways and the calculations numerous ways. The test was for the jury to see all the evidence and decide who was telling the truth. Pickett clearly won on all accounts with the jury and the judge did not refute ANY of the evidence, he just said it did not exist. The testimony and the calculations were the evidence. Strom never posted ANY of this in his brief and neither did the appellate court.

2. The last time you did any calculations, did you test your "theory" for your calculations? The last time we got in this argument you said "it was standard practice to hold other things constant......". Did you test that theory? The calculations are based on mathematical "theories". Did you test any of them? Your arguments are just circular. Bring up the "theory" that you think needed to be tested, Agman. Maybe you don't remember what you are talking about. Hit the memory button.

3. What did the question pertain to, Agman? What "theory" are you talking about that needed to be tested? Was it the mathematical "theories"? Was it Hausman's "theories"? If you can not tell the exact "theory" that Strom was talking about, then the question was ambiguous and not answerable. Bring on the exact question, Agman. We are all waiting.

4. What was the Hausman test of causuality referring to, Agman? Which calculations? You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded. If you can not be more specific (I have not seen the trial transcripts, so I really don't know), then your question is valueless. Are you referring to the difference between the cash price and the formula price for delivery of animals in the same week? Be a little more specific, if you can, Agman.

5. See last post on this one.

6. Maybe the defense attorney asked nonsensical questions. If you can not answer the questions I posed in the above points, I will take it that was the case. Anyone would get disgrunteled if the defendant's attorney was asking nonsensical questions. Taylor's biggest problem was probably that he was not used to such irrational tactics from attorneys who don't have a case and have to make one out of thin air. The judge seemed to be in on this. It is quite interesting. Maybe that is why he was picked to be the judge on this case. Of course the jurors were there and had a chance to see if this was the case. They saw everything.

7. Yes, this is very concerning. But not for the reasons you cite, Agman. These judges got the reasoning of the Robinson Patman case completely wrong. They showed their economic illiteracy. Then they did the "legitimate" weapon scam(which was planted by the defendant's in trial) and then reinterpreted the law based on their reinterpretation in the London Case of the simple words, "or" into "and"s. Boy, those people who wrote the law made a big mistake with those words, didn't they, Agman?(sarcasm). And the Senators who passed the PSA, boy, they all got the "or"s wrong in a law that listed enumerated prohibitions. What a scam this 11th Circuit is. They are almost as bad as Cornyn. Money and power, ruin the U. S. and the laws on the books. The only interpretation is one that changes the law and gives a billion dollar verdict to big campaign contributors. What a scam!!!

Your comment...You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded.

My response...You are even less intelligent than you appear. For one who does not even know the extent of the variable to determine demand your comment is truly laughable. I have stated previously I have forgotten more than you will ever know regarding demand analysis. You have not provide one bit of factual data per this subject. Who do you think you are kidding, the voices you are hearing again?

You might try reading the test of the Pickett case instead of drawing conclusion for which you have no basis. Eveything to you is based upon another phony manipulation theory of yours.

I assume you are now calling Taylor a liar since he said under oath he did NOT test his theoires. Your comment from above #1 "Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman?" Did Taylor lie under oath or are you trapped in another self made lie? Which is it Conman? You try so hard but just can't win. I feel sorry for you. Lies will trap you every time.

I noted with interest that you failed to answer the simple "yes or no" questions I posed. As usual you provide meaningless dissertations. As I said previously you are a laugh a day. The most inept person I have ever been entertained by. BTW, is your phone still tapped?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You packer blamers lost in Pickett and you lost on appeal because YOU HAD NOTHING to support your position"

If Pickett had nothing, then explain Strom's comment "there was evidence to support the jury's decision". It is obvious "You had nothing" is untrue. By your definition, that is a lie.


SH, "Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation."

Yep, but that's not why prices were lowered. They were lowered because the pricing mechanism allowed for it. The number of cattle bought previous doesn't matter - all that matters is the price.

Your statement is incorrect. You have said another "SH Lie"

Quote from above "If Pickett had nothing, then explain Strom's comment "there was evidence to support the jury's decision". It is obvious "You had nothing" is untrue. By your definition, that is a lie.


Was that all Judge Strom said?

If you think he said more, feel free to post it.

 

[Econ101]

1. Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

2. Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

3. Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.

4. Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.

5. Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.

6. Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.

7. Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.

1. Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman? Are you saying that the formula price, which was based on the previous week's cash price, was a price above or below the weighted average price for cattle secured in a particular week? Tell us how they were not tested, Agman. You only have a ficticious test to provide. The trial was the test. Taylor went over his numbers many different ways and the calculations numerous ways. The test was for the jury to see all the evidence and decide who was telling the truth. Pickett clearly won on all accounts with the jury and the judge did not refute ANY of the evidence, he just said it did not exist. The testimony and the calculations were the evidence. Strom never posted ANY of this in his brief and neither did the appellate court.

2. The last time you did any calculations, did you test your "theory" for your calculations? The last time we got in this argument you said "it was standard practice to hold other things constant......". Did you test that theory? The calculations are based on mathematical "theories". Did you test any of them? Your arguments are just circular. Bring up the "theory" that you think needed to be tested, Agman. Maybe you don't remember what you are talking about. Hit the memory button.

3. What did the question pertain to, Agman? What "theory" are you talking about that needed to be tested? Was it the mathematical "theories"? Was it Hausman's "theories"? If you can not tell the exact "theory" that Strom was talking about, then the question was ambiguous and not answerable. Bring on the exact question, Agman. We are all waiting.

4. What was the Hausman test of causuality referring to, Agman? Which calculations? You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded. If you can not be more specific (I have not seen the trial transcripts, so I really don't know), then your question is valueless. Are you referring to the difference between the cash price and the formula price for delivery of animals in the same week? Be a little more specific, if you can, Agman.

5. See last post on this one.

6. Maybe the defense attorney asked nonsensical questions. If you can not answer the questions I posed in the above points, I will take it that was the case. Anyone would get disgrunteled if the defendant's attorney was asking nonsensical questions. Taylor's biggest problem was probably that he was not used to such irrational tactics from attorneys who don't have a case and have to make one out of thin air. The judge seemed to be in on this. It is quite interesting. Maybe that is why he was picked to be the judge on this case. Of course the jurors were there and had a chance to see if this was the case. They saw everything.

7. Yes, this is very concerning. But not for the reasons you cite, Agman. These judges got the reasoning of the Robinson Patman case completely wrong. They showed their economic illiteracy. Then they did the "legitimate" weapon scam(which was planted by the defendant's in trial) and then reinterpreted the law based on their reinterpretation in the London Case of the simple words, "or" into "and"s. Boy, those people who wrote the law made a big mistake with those words, didn't they, Agman?(sarcasm). And the Senators who passed the PSA, boy, they all got the "or"s wrong in a law that listed enumerated prohibitions. What a scam this 11th Circuit is. They are almost as bad as Cornyn. Money and power, ruin the U. S. and the laws on the books. The only interpretation is one that changes the law and gives a billion dollar verdict to big campaign contributors. What a scam!!!

Your comment...You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded.

My response...You are even less intelligent than you appear. For one who does not even know the extent of the variable to determine demand your comment is truly laughable. I have stated previously I have forgotten more than you will ever know regarding demand analysis. You have not provide one bit of factual data per this subject. Who do you think you are kidding, the voices you are hearing again?

You might try reading the test of the Pickett case instead of drawing conclusion for which you have no basis. Eveything to you is based upon another phony manipulation theory of yours.

I assume you are now calling Taylor a liar since he said under oath he did NOT test his theoires. Your comment from above #1 "Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman?" Did Taylor lie under oath or are you trapped in another self made lie? Which is it Conman? You try so hard but just can't win. I feel sorry for you. Lies will trap you every time.

I noted with interest that you failed to answer the simple "yes or no" questions I posed. As usual you provide meaningless dissertations. As I said previously you are a laugh a day. The most inept person I have ever been entertained by. BTW, is your phone still tapped?

So you could not counter all the numbered points, agman. Not surprising. You are as empty as the court was. Long on theory and short on facts. But yet you act like the "expert". And you even have the advantage of the trial transcripts and access to some of the defendant's witnesses.

Your tell is showing big time here. You're a dandy.

 

[agman]

1. Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman? Are you saying that the formula price, which was based on the previous week's cash price, was a price above or below the weighted average price for cattle secured in a particular week? Tell us how they were not tested, Agman. You only have a ficticious test to provide. The trial was the test. Taylor went over his numbers many different ways and the calculations numerous ways. The test was for the jury to see all the evidence and decide who was telling the truth. Pickett clearly won on all accounts with the jury and the judge did not refute ANY of the evidence, he just said it did not exist. The testimony and the calculations were the evidence. Strom never posted ANY of this in his brief and neither did the appellate court.

2. The last time you did any calculations, did you test your "theory" for your calculations? The last time we got in this argument you said "it was standard practice to hold other things constant......". Did you test that theory? The calculations are based on mathematical "theories". Did you test any of them? Your arguments are just circular. Bring up the "theory" that you think needed to be tested, Agman. Maybe you don't remember what you are talking about. Hit the memory button.

3. What did the question pertain to, Agman? What "theory" are you talking about that needed to be tested? Was it the mathematical "theories"? Was it Hausman's "theories"? If you can not tell the exact "theory" that Strom was talking about, then the question was ambiguous and not answerable. Bring on the exact question, Agman. We are all waiting.

4. What was the Hausman test of causuality referring to, Agman? Which calculations? You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded. If you can not be more specific (I have not seen the trial transcripts, so I really don't know), then your question is valueless. Are you referring to the difference between the cash price and the formula price for delivery of animals in the same week? Be a little more specific, if you can, Agman.

5. See last post on this one.

6. Maybe the defense attorney asked nonsensical questions. If you can not answer the questions I posed in the above points, I will take it that was the case. Anyone would get disgrunteled if the defendant's attorney was asking nonsensical questions. Taylor's biggest problem was probably that he was not used to such irrational tactics from attorneys who don't have a case and have to make one out of thin air. The judge seemed to be in on this. It is quite interesting. Maybe that is why he was picked to be the judge on this case. Of course the jurors were there and had a chance to see if this was the case. They saw everything.

7. Yes, this is very concerning. But not for the reasons you cite, Agman. These judges got the reasoning of the Robinson Patman case completely wrong. They showed their economic illiteracy. Then they did the "legitimate" weapon scam(which was planted by the defendant's in trial) and then reinterpreted the law based on their reinterpretation in the London Case of the simple words, "or" into "and"s. Boy, those people who wrote the law made a big mistake with those words, didn't they, Agman?(sarcasm). And the Senators who passed the PSA, boy, they all got the "or"s wrong in a law that listed enumerated prohibitions. What a scam this 11th Circuit is. They are almost as bad as Cornyn. Money and power, ruin the U. S. and the laws on the books. The only interpretation is one that changes the law and gives a billion dollar verdict to big campaign contributors. What a scam!!!

Your comment...You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded.

My response...You are even less intelligent than you appear. For one who does not even know the extent of the variable to determine demand your comment is truly laughable. I have stated previously I have forgotten more than you will ever know regarding demand analysis. You have not provide one bit of factual data per this subject. Who do you think you are kidding, the voices you are hearing again?

You might try reading the test of the Pickett case instead of drawing conclusion for which you have no basis. Eveything to you is based upon another phony manipulation theory of yours.

I assume you are now calling Taylor a liar since he said under oath he did NOT test his theoires. Your comment from above #1 "Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman?" Did Taylor lie under oath or are you trapped in another self made lie? Which is it Conman? You try so hard but just can't win. I feel sorry for you. Lies will trap you every time.

I noted with interest that you failed to answer the simple "yes or no" questions I posed. As usual you provide meaningless dissertations. As I said previously you are a laugh a day. The most inept person I have ever been entertained by. BTW, is your phone still tapped?

So you could not counter all the numbered points, agman. Not surprising. You are as empty as the court was. Long on theory and short on facts. But yet you act like the "expert". And you even have the advantage of the trial transcripts and access to some of the defendant's witnesses.

Your tell is showing big time here. You're a dandy.

From the master of evasion and deception "Conman" I said you were a laugh a day.

I am not going to waste my time on a fool like you. You want me to answer your senseless and baseless dissertations when you constantly refuse to answer "yes or no" questions.

YOU got caught in another bold faced lie by me and this is the best you can do! Either Taylor lied under oath or you lied by saying "Taylor tested his theories". Are you now going to say that you did not say that? Reminder to all readers: Taylor stated under oath that "he did NOT test his six theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices." BTW, testing those theories is a legal requirement. That is another hole in the Pickett case.

You don't even have the integrity to admit to a blatant lie that you perpetrated regarding your idol "Taylor". Another lie is not too extreme for you to support your phony positions-par for you Conman. You have been trapped in your own lies before and all you do is dance and twist, then change your position. You are a total FRAUD and intellectual idiot. You have mastered accusations without support. That is what makes you a Conman. When asked for some proof you just come up with another accusation.

 

[Econ101]

Your comment...You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded.

My response...You are even less intelligent than you appear. For one who does not even know the extent of the variable to determine demand your comment is truly laughable. I have stated previously I have forgotten more than you will ever know regarding demand analysis. You have not provide one bit of factual data per this subject. Who do you think you are kidding, the voices you are hearing again?

You might try reading the test of the Pickett case instead of drawing conclusion for which you have no basis. Eveything to you is based upon another phony manipulation theory of yours.

I assume you are now calling Taylor a liar since he said under oath he did NOT test his theoires. Your comment from above #1 "Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman?" Did Taylor lie under oath or are you trapped in another self made lie? Which is it Conman? You try so hard but just can't win. I feel sorry for you. Lies will trap you every time.

I noted with interest that you failed to answer the simple "yes or no" questions I posed. As usual you provide meaningless dissertations. As I said previously you are a laugh a day. The most inept person I have ever been entertained by. BTW, is your phone still tapped?

So you could not counter all the numbered points, agman. Not surprising. You are as empty as the court was. Long on theory and short on facts. But yet you act like the "expert". And you even have the advantage of the trial transcripts and access to some of the defendant's witnesses.

Your tell is showing big time here. You're a dandy.

From the master of evasion and deception "Conman" I said you were a laugh a day.

I am not going to waste my time on a fool like you. You want me to answer your senseless and baseless dissertations when you constantly refuse to answer "yes or no" questions.

YOU got caught in another bold faced lie by me and this is the best you can do! Either Taylor lied under oath or you lied by saying "Taylor tested his theories". Are you now going to say that you did not say that? Reminder to all readers: Taylor stated under oath that "he did NOT test his six theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices." BTW, testing those theories is a legal requirement. That is another hole in the Pickett case.

You don't even have the integrity to admit to a blatant lie that you perpetrated regarding your idol "Taylor". Another lie is not too extreme for you to support your phony positions-par for you Conman. You have been trapped in your own lies before and all you do is dance and twist, then change your position. You are a total FRAUD and intellectual idiot. You have mastered accusations without support. That is what makes you a Conman. When asked for some proof you just come up with another accusation.

Agman, SH's questions were ambiguous. They were not yes or no questions. Taylor may have had the problem of not being in court a whole lot and flabbergasted at the little tricks they play. Your yes or no questions are an example of those little tricks. The defendant's attorneys had a chance to convince a jury of 12 people that they were correct and the jury probably saw right through these lawyer games. I don't fall for them. A sitting judge has a lot of power over how attorneys act and what they get away with in the court room. I was not there, so I don't know what happened. That is why I refer that judgement to the jury all of the time. Judge Strom's jury instructions and the way he was trying to tilt the court to his take was obvious even from the little information I had on the actual case.

If you can not tell me exactly what was being asked when Taylor answered the questions posed, you have absolutely nothing but smoke and mirrors. If there was any ambiguity in the questions then the answers are meaningless. You have the trial transcripts but will not post any actual testimony to support the case you argue. If there is anyone conning anyone here, it is you. Your posts to me have been full of innuendo, interpretation and judgement. You have presented no facts and yet that is what you call me on. I presented a simple example as to how marketing agreements could lower prices. I used real numbers and real math to do it. I have asked you to post your math on your analysis. I showed the reasons why packers would do what they did and I showed how it helps them. This post from you is so short on anything other than your personal opinion and self aggrandizing statements of superiority that you truely are the joke.

I would love to get into some substantive discussions with you on this board but I fear that you will not for what you fear. I have left the ball in your court on the last discussion and you have not had the ability to respond. I hate that these discussions have to digress into personal attacks instead of measured reason. We could probably both learn a lot from each other. Your pms to SH and strategy on deposing people are, well, amatureish. It is too bad anyone listens to you for anything other than calculations based on industry specific numbers.

Here is the only telling yes or no question I have for you, Agman, if you will answer it honestly:

Do you benefit in any way if the packers have the abilty to use marketing agreements or concentrate the markets even further?

yes or no

Go over and answer for SH on his questions to me. He needs your help. It may take both of you to outdistance me on these issues. I have learned a lot how you operate with the game up to now. It has been very
revealing.

 

[agman]

So you could not counter all the numbered points, agman. Not surprising. You are as empty as the court was. Long on theory and short on facts. But yet you act like the "expert". And you even have the advantage of the trial transcripts and access to some of the defendant's witnesses.

Your tell is showing big time here. You're a dandy.

From the master of evasion and deception "Conman" I said you were a laugh a day.

I am not going to waste my time on a fool like you. You want me to answer your senseless and baseless dissertations when you constantly refuse to answer "yes or no" questions.

YOU got caught in another bold faced lie by me and this is the best you can do! Either Taylor lied under oath or you lied by saying "Taylor tested his theories". Are you now going to say that you did not say that? Reminder to all readers: Taylor stated under oath that "he did NOT test his six theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices." BTW, testing those theories is a legal requirement. That is another hole in the Pickett case.

You don't even have the integrity to admit to a blatant lie that you perpetrated regarding your idol "Taylor". Another lie is not too extreme for you to support your phony positions-par for you Conman. You have been trapped in your own lies before and all you do is dance and twist, then change your position. You are a total FRAUD and intellectual idiot. You have mastered accusations without support. That is what makes you a Conman. When asked for some proof you just come up with another accusation.

Agman, SH's questions were ambiguous. They were not yes or no questions. Taylor may have had the problem of not being in court a whole lot and flabbergasted at the little tricks they play. Your yes or no questions are an example of those little tricks. The defendant's attorneys had a chance to convince a jury of 12 people that they were correct and the jury probably saw right through these lawyer games. I don't fall for them. A sitting judge has a lot of power over how attorneys act and what they get away with in the court room. I was not there, so I don't know what happened. That is why I refer that judgement to the jury all of the time. Judge Strom's jury instructions and the way he was trying to tilt the court to his take was obvious even from the little information I had on the actual case.

If you can not tell me exactly what was being asked when Taylor answered the questions posed, you have absolutely nothing but smoke and mirrors. If there was any ambiguity in the questions then the answers are meaningless. You have the trial transcripts but will not post any actual testimony to support the case you argue. If there is anyone conning anyone here, it is you. Your posts to me have been full of innuendo, interpretation and judgement. You have presented no facts and yet that is what you call me on. I presented a simple example as to how marketing agreements could lower prices. I used real numbers and real math to do it. I have asked you to post your math on your analysis. I showed the reasons why packers would do what they did and I showed how it helps them. This post from you is so short on anything other than your personal opinion and self aggrandizing statements of superiority that you truely are the joke.

I would love to get into some substantive discussions with you on this board but I fear that you will not for what you fear. I have left the ball in your court on the last discussion and you have not had the ability to respond. I hate that these discussions have to digress into personal attacks instead of measured reason. We could probably both learn a lot from each other. Your pms to SH and strategy on deposing people are, well, amatureish. It is too bad anyone listens to you for anything other than calculations based on industry specific numbers.

Here is the only telling yes or no question I have for you, Agman, if you will answer it honestly:

Do you benefit in any way if the packers have the abilty to use marketing agreements or concentrate the markets even further?

yes or no

Go over and answer for SH on his questions to me. He needs your help. It may take both of you to outdistance me on these issues. I have learned a lot how you operate with the game up to now. It has been very
revealing.

Thanks for a valid question. My answer is NO. My beliefs regarding marketing agreements developed long before they ever were implemented by producers. I addressed this issue at a speaking engagement in 1981, eight years before marketing agreements developed.

I have completed numerous analysis regarding market volatility, price changes, both short term and cyclical with comparative data going back to 1950. My opinions, independent of the beneficial price signal to producers that marketing agreements provide, is based on that extensive analysis. I know of no one in this industry who has done any comparative analysis to this extent.

In addition, when doing research I learned long ago the best way to prove one's point is to make every effort to disprove the conclusion. That process did not escape me in said analysis. Thanks again for an excellent question.

 

[Econ101]

So marketing agreements that have a base price that is determined by a dated cash price can not be used to influence the price of the cash market?

Tell the truth, Agman. Are you going to say that it is in the feeder's hands? Remember, as the recent review of the AMS report showed, they don't have all the timely market information to be able to make an educated decision, but the packers have the power over the offers in the cash market that they make.

I just want to make sure, Agman, do you in any way receive a benefit either monetarily or otherwise (this could include access to timely information) from your analysis or business from your stance on marketing agreements or anything else the packers want to push?

 

[mrj]

So marketing agreements that have a base price that is determined by a dated cash price can not be used to influence the price of the cash market?

Tell the truth, Agman. Are you going to say that it is in the feeder's hands? Remember, as the recent review of the AMS report showed, they don't have all the timely market information to be able to make an educated decision, but the packers have the power over the offers in the cash market that they make.

I just want to make sure, Agman, do you in any way receive a benefit either monetarily or otherwise (this could include access to timely information) from your analysis or business from your stance on marketing agreements or anything else the packers want to push?

Econ, are we allowed to ask you to reveal the sources of your income or other possible perks or benefits so that we may better judge the credibility of the information or positions on marketing and government that you post?

If yes, have at it.

If no, why not?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

So marketing agreements that have a base price that is determined by a dated cash price can not be used to influence the price of the cash market?

Tell the truth, Agman. Are you going to say that it is in the feeder's hands? Remember, as the recent review of the AMS report showed, they don't have all the timely market information to be able to make an educated decision, but the packers have the power over the offers in the cash market that they make.

I just want to make sure, Agman, do you in any way receive a benefit either monetarily or otherwise (this could include access to timely information) from your analysis or business from your stance on marketing agreements or anything else the packers want to push?

Econ, are we allowed to ask you to reveal the sources of your income or other possible perks or benefits so that we may better judge the credibility of the information or positions on marketing and government that you post?

If yes, have at it.

If no, why not?

MRJ

MRJ, you can ask. I don't have any financial interests in these issues other than the laws against market power being enforced (PSA) to its full potential for producers (which may or may not include myself). I am not getting paid for dessiminating what I think at this time nor have I in the past. I am not getting paid by the government. I also have no financial interests in the outcome of the Pickett case other than that of the law being enforced in this country. Yes, I am a U.S. citizen.

Does that answer your questions? Maybe you could get Agman to answer mine.