Another question for SH

[agman]

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?

The answer to your first question would be valid if prices only trended lower during periods of marketing agreements or failed to advance consistent with periods of no marketings agreements. The facts clearly state otherwise. As such, I do not believe marketing agreements lead to lower prices. I in fact believe, because of the empirical evidence, the opposite is true.

Knowledge is power so the challenge is to educate oneself rather than place blame knowing only partial information. Do producers have more information than packers and retailers regarding their production, Yes? Do packers have more information than retailers and producers regarding their production, yes? Do retailers have more information than packers or producers regarding the retail business, yes? It is the challenge of each segment to learn the facts regarding each different sector. Those who spend the most time educating themselves will be the winners. That holds true for corporations and individuals. Knowledge can be, should be, and is independent of size.

Your comment that packers have control over the cash offers they make is a clear example of limited knowledge. While they have the power to bid a price, the producer has the option to accept or reject. Is that power balanced evenly everyday? No, since supply and demand factors change constantly the balance of power is dynamic-it shifts constantly within seasonal and cyclical variations. Anyone truly knowledgeable of the market knows that to be true.

The answer to your final question is clearly NO. My positions are independent due to extensive research per subject matter. Unlike many, I am not a demagogue. Anyone who truly knows me will verify that. I say what I have to say immaterial who is in the audience or whom I am meeting with. That independence, willingness and courage to speak my mind, showing the research to support that position and/or disprove a position, is precisely why I have the quality of customers that I have. Those customers run the full gamut of the beef industry from small individual producers and companies to major agribusiness and financial institutions. I am very fortunate for that unique situation. That has placed me in a position to become more knowledgeable about each segment, a rarity in agriculture. Any client worth having would not pay anyone to tell them what they want to hear. I do not need nor do I have any such clients.

Do I or my customers benefit from that knowledge? Yes, that is the explicit purpose of endless hours of research and ongoing knowledge growth. Should I or any of my customers apologize to those who do not seek to improve their knowledge of the real and numerous factors that shape the market? The answer is clearly NO.

I have stated many times that conspiracy theories, false and/or unsupported assumptions and accusations are the product of the lack of knowledge or ignorance of the subject matter. I have not seen that belief disproved one time. To the contrary, the endless stream of unsupported accusations from those such as yourself only serve to reinforce and confirm that belief. No flame intended; just a fact.

 

[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?

The answer to your first question would be valid if prices only trended lower during periods of marketing agreements or failed to advance consistent with periods of no marketings agreements. The facts clearly state otherwise. As such, I do not believe marketing agreements lead to lower prices. I in fact believe, because of the empirical evidence, the opposite is true.

Knowledge is power so the challenge is to educate oneself rather than place blame knowing only partial information. Do producers have more information than packers and retailers regarding their production, Yes? Do packers have more information than retailers and producers regarding their production, yes? Do retailers have more information than packers or producers regarding the retail business, yes? It is the challenge of each segment to learn the facts regarding each different sector. Those who spend the most time educating themselves will be the winners. That holds true for corporations and individuals. Knowledge can be, should be, and is independent of size.

Your comment that packers have control over the cash offers they make is a clear example of limited knowledge. While they have the power to bid a price, the producer has the option to accept or reject. Is that power balanced evenly everyday? No, since supply and demand factors change constantly the balance of power is dynamic-it shifts constantly within seasonal and cyclical variations. Anyone truly knowledgeable of the market knows that to be true.

The answer to your final question is clearly NO. My positions are independent due to extensive research per subject matter. Unlike many, I am not a demagogue. Anyone who truly knows me will verify that. I say what I have to say immaterial who is in the audience or whom I am meeting with. That independence, willingness and courage to speak my mind, showing the research to support that position and/or disprove a position, is precisely why I have the quality of customers that I have. Those customers run the full gamut of the beef industry from small individual producers and companies to major agribusiness and financial institutions. I am very fortunate for that unique situation. That has placed me in a position to become more knowledgeable about each segment, a rarity in agriculture. Any client worth having would not pay anyone to tell them what they want to hear. I do not need nor do I have any such clients.

Do I or my customers benefit from that knowledge? Yes, that is the explicit purpose of endless hours of research and ongoing knowledge growth. Should I or any of my customers apologize to those who do not seek to improve their knowledge of the real and numerous factors that shape the market? The answer is clearly NO.

I have stated many times that conspiracy theories, false and/or unsupported assumptions and accusations are the product of the lack of knowledge or ignorance of the subject matter. I have not seen that belief disproved one time. To the contrary, the endless stream of unsupported accusations from those such as yourself only serve to reinforce and confirm that belief. No flame intended; just a fact.

Then what is it you sell, Agman?


You made the assertion that marketing agreements do not depress prices. It has clearly been shown that they do. The packers are still middlemen and have only a range that they work with in the cattle markets. No one has ever made the assertion that marketing agreements/manipulation is constant or that it happens all the time. Those are packer arguements and they only go to show that middlemen only have a range that they can work in. Not too hard to figure out.

It seems that in your analysis (in which you have failed to show your work) you claimed that there was a shift in demand. You did not take into consideration (again, you did not show your work, so how would anyone know how you came up with your numbers?) the factors that are really not factors of the shift in demand, but included factors that affect quantity demanded. You did not break these out, Agman.

The irony in your little analysis is that it is much more rudimentary than Taylor's. Taylor listed the causitive effects (which is more than you have done) and calculated his numbers on the cumulative total, which was exactly the calculation that needed to be done. Taylor tested these together for causuality. You keep saying that he did not test for them. He did. He didn't test for them individually because it wasn't necessary. It was not necessary to calculate the individual agents because they were all a part of the Total and under the control of Tyson in their manipulation. You are the one that demegogues the points, Agman, not I. When you get called on your little analysis you just say "I have done more analysis than you" type garbage. Be a man, show your numbers and when someone asks nicely, which I have done, explain them so that you can be understood in you calculations and your conclusions. You have provided neither.

Agman: "Your comment that packers have control over the cash offers they make is a clear example of limited knowledge. While they have the power to bid a price..."

Isn't that what I said? Why is this a clear example of my limited knowledge? The offers to the cash market are what are at issue, Agman. Packers are the ones limited by the prohibitions of the PSA, not cattlemen. If cattlemen all got together and did all the enumerated prohibitions listed in the PSA, they would be totally legal. The issue is the discrimination of the packers, not what cattlemen accepted. If packers were discriminating against the cash market in their bids, then that is a clear sign of market manipulation, especially given the fact that the discrimination paid off in lower prices of the cattle that were based on the cash price. Clear motive.

What is it you sell, Agman?

 

[agman]

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?

The answer to your first question would be valid if prices only trended lower during periods of marketing agreements or failed to advance consistent with periods of no marketings agreements. The facts clearly state otherwise. As such, I do not believe marketing agreements lead to lower prices. I in fact believe, because of the empirical evidence, the opposite is true.

Knowledge is power so the challenge is to educate oneself rather than place blame knowing only partial information. Do producers have more information than packers and retailers regarding their production, Yes? Do packers have more information than retailers and producers regarding their production, yes? Do retailers have more information than packers or producers regarding the retail business, yes? It is the challenge of each segment to learn the facts regarding each different sector. Those who spend the most time educating themselves will be the winners. That holds true for corporations and individuals. Knowledge can be, should be, and is independent of size.

Your comment that packers have control over the cash offers they make is a clear example of limited knowledge. While they have the power to bid a price, the producer has the option to accept or reject. Is that power balanced evenly everyday? No, since supply and demand factors change constantly the balance of power is dynamic-it shifts constantly within seasonal and cyclical variations. Anyone truly knowledgeable of the market knows that to be true.

The answer to your final question is clearly NO. My positions are independent due to extensive research per subject matter. Unlike many, I am not a demagogue. Anyone who truly knows me will verify that. I say what I have to say immaterial who is in the audience or whom I am meeting with. That independence, willingness and courage to speak my mind, showing the research to support that position and/or disprove a position, is precisely why I have the quality of customers that I have. Those customers run the full gamut of the beef industry from small individual producers and companies to major agribusiness and financial institutions. I am very fortunate for that unique situation. That has placed me in a position to become more knowledgeable about each segment, a rarity in agriculture. Any client worth having would not pay anyone to tell them what they want to hear. I do not need nor do I have any such clients.

Do I or my customers benefit from that knowledge? Yes, that is the explicit purpose of endless hours of research and ongoing knowledge growth. Should I or any of my customers apologize to those who do not seek to improve their knowledge of the real and numerous factors that shape the market? The answer is clearly NO.

I have stated many times that conspiracy theories, false and/or unsupported assumptions and accusations are the product of the lack of knowledge or ignorance of the subject matter. I have not seen that belief disproved one time. To the contrary, the endless stream of unsupported accusations from those such as yourself only serve to reinforce and confirm that belief. No flame intended; just a fact.

Then what is it you sell, Agman?


You made the assertion that marketing agreements do not depress prices. It has clearly been shown that they do. The packers are still middlemen and have only a range that they work with in the cattle markets. No one has ever made the assertion that marketing agreements/manipulation is constant or that it happens all the time. Those are packer arguements and they only go to show that middlemen only have a range that they can work in. Not too hard to figure out.

It seems that in your analysis (in which you have failed to show your work) you claimed that there was a shift in demand. You did not take into consideration (again, you did not show your work, so how would anyone know how you came up with your numbers?) the factors that are really not factors of the shift in demand, but included factors that affect quantity demanded. You did not break these out, Agman.

The irony in your little analysis is that it is much more rudimentary than Taylor's. Taylor listed the causitive effects (which is more than you have done) and calculated his numbers on the cumulative total, which was exactly the calculation that needed to be done. Taylor tested these together for causuality. You keep saying that he did not test for them. He did. He didn't test for them individually because it wasn't necessary. It was not necessary to calculate the individual agents because they were all a part of the Total and under the control of Tyson in their manipulation. You are the one that demegogues the points, Agman, not I. When you get called on your little analysis you just say "I have done more analysis than you" type garbage. Be a man, show your numbers and when someone asks nicely, which I have done, explain them so that you can be understood in you calculations and your conclusions. You have provided neither.

Agman: "Your comment that packers have control over the cash offers they make is a clear example of limited knowledge. While they have the power to bid a price..."

Isn't that what I said? Why is this a clear example of my limited knowledge? The offers to the cash market are what are at issue, Agman. Packers are the ones limited by the prohibitions of the PSA, not cattlemen. If cattlemen all got together and did all the enumerated prohibitions listed in the PSA, they would be totally legal. The issue is the discrimination of the packers, not what cattlemen accepted. If packers were discriminating against the cash market in their bids, then that is a clear sign of market manipulation, especially given the fact that the discrimination paid off in lower prices of the cattle that were based on the cash price. Clear motive.

What is it you sell, Agman?

When will you wise up and realize that Taylor got demolished at trail. So your contention of what he claimed to prove is wrong. His analysis failed the Hausman test for causality contrary to what you claim. Show me in any of his work that he ever did comparative analysis. For your information he only authored one paper, never subjected to peer review on cattle. He is a production economist, not an econometrician.

Since you have never seen my analysis you are again assuming it is more rudimentary then Taylor's. You are great at assuming but always absent facts. The fact is that Taylor failed to analyze many pertinent variables that influence pricing decisions by the packers and producers. No one that I know of, including Dr Taylor or any of those esteemed economists he mentioned in his article, has ever conducted any comparative analysis which I have conducted. Neither has Dr Taylor or any of those other esteemed economists he mentioned , most whom I know personally, measured the total and net impact of marketing agreements. If you have proof otherwise produce it.

Your comments regarding demand shifts or lack thereof remains truly laughable. You don't even know enough about any of those trends or periods to judge anyone's work. This stuff is way over your head. It is not even a contest - you are dead meat before you even get started on this subject with me. You make my day with your ill informed comments.

Packers having control over the cash bid does not mean they have control over the market. If that were so why would they ever pay up? Again your assumption of knowing how the market functions leaves you with your foot in your mouth. By your logic regarding packers controlling bids since producers determine their own offering price they control the market. That only show how shallow and illogical your conclusion is.

Why is it relevant to you what I sell, you could not afford it anyway? You are too busy dreaming up unsupported accusations and false charges. As I previously stated, your opinions are the result of your ignorance of the many subject matters that comprise the market and the entire beef industry. That is your problem, not mine. You continue to fool only yourself.

Finally, if you read the trail transcripts which you did not read you will discover that Taylor admitted under oath that he DID NOT TEST his six causation theories. Quit lying to yourself and readers by claiming he did. Do you understand how your lying gets you in trouble and destroys whatever little credibility you might ever have had?

 

[Econ101]

Agman, as long as you don't show your work for peer review, you just have meaningless numbers. I have asked you time and again to give those numbers and you have failed. We can only wonder why (some of us know).

You still did not answer my questions.

 

[mwj]

Agman, as long as you don't show your work for peer review, you just have meaningless numbers. I have asked you time and again to give those numbers and you have failed. We can only wonder why (some of us know).

You still did not answer my questions.

Since you ''know'' why not share with the rest of us. If as you have said before this is a place to come and learn from others please help with our education. I find it hard to learn by playing guessing games :???:

 

[agman]

Agman, as long as you don't show your work for peer review, you just have meaningless numbers. I have asked you time and again to give those numbers and you have failed. We can only wonder why (some of us know).

You still did not answer my questions.

"If you think you know then show your work." Why should I show you anything? The work I did present for the 99-01 period, independent of the Schroeder study you cited, you had no way to refute the results since you have never done any work per this subject. Instead, as usual you took one portion that you claim supported your position that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" but refused to acknowledge the balance of the data which crused your phony belief. In addition, you refused to even address other periods which clearly blew you phony assumptions apart. You don't even know without me posting those periods that they even exit. That is the extent of your so called knowledge. What a joke!! You have yet to answer any questions including a simple "yes" or 'no". You remain long on worthless dissertation and absent facts.

People who are actually qualified to make a peer review, which certainly excludes you, would not make the stupid statement that you made "meaningless numbers". You don't even know what the numbers are nor would you even know where to begin to do the proper research. Remember, that you are the fool who did not even know the level or trend in domestic per capita beef supplies. Yet you professed to claim all this knowledge about beef demand. Only another fool such as yourself would believe that nonsense and deception. Also remember, in your fantasy world you have convinced yourself that packers control the "cattle cycle" both here an abroad. Yet you cannot answer a simple quesion as to what governed or caused the cattle cycle in the decades before the current level of concentration or mulit-national packers. Your lies and phony assumptions will expose your ignorance everytime.

Many times your total ignorance has already clearly demonstrated for all to see. Your fantasies get in the way of reality. Your self proclaimed intelligence gets crushed by knowledge every-time. You remain a total fraud, even to the extent of believing your own lies. Since you possess neither the integrity or courage to acknowledge that Dr Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketings agreements could lower prices, which you CLAIM he did test, then either you or he have blatantly lied. I think all the readers on this forum know it was you that got trapped in another lie Conman.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, as long as you don't show your work for peer review, you just have meaningless numbers. I have asked you time and again to give those numbers and you have failed. We can only wonder why (some of us know).

You still did not answer my questions.

1. "If you think you know then show your work." Why should I show you anything? The work I did present for the 99-01 period, independent of the Schroeder study you cited, you had no way to refute the results since you have never done any work per this subject. Instead, as usual you took one portion that you claim supported your position that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" but refused to acknowledge the balance of the data which crused your phony belief. In addition, you refused to even address other periods which clearly blew you phony assumptions apart. You don't even know without me posting those periods that they even exit. That is the extent of your so called knowledge. What a joke!! You have yet to answer any questions including a simple "yes" or 'no". You remain long on worthless dissertation and absent facts.

2. People who are actually qualified to make a peer review, which certainly excludes you, would not make the stupid statement that you made "meaningless numbers". You don't even know what the numbers are nor would you even know where to begin to do the proper research. Remember, that you are the fool who did not even know the level or trend in domestic per capita beef supplies. Yet you professed to claim all this knowledge about beef demand. Only another fool such as yourself would believe that nonsense and deception. Also remember, in your fantasy world you have convinced yourself that packers control the "cattle cycle" both here an abroad. Yet you cannot answer a simple quesion as to what governed or caused the cattle cycle in the decades before the current level of concentration or mulit-national packers. Your lies and phony assumptions will expose your ignorance everytime.

1. You are afraid to post your calculations and the assumptions for them because you don't want anyone to question your conclusions.


2. Many times your total ignorance has already clearly demonstrated for all to see. Your fantasies get in the way of reality. Your self proclaimed intelligence gets crushed by knowledge every-time. You remain a total fraud, even to the extent of believing your own lies. Since you possess neither the integrity or courage to acknowledge that Dr Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketings agreements could lower prices, which you CLAIM he did test, then either you or he have blatantly lied. I think all the readers on this forum know it was you that got trapped in another lie Conman.

2. Post the question and replies from the trial, Agman, or be quiet about it. You claim you have the trial transcripts yet you will not post the actual question, in context, and the answers. You just want to interpret the answer the way you want with no basis in reality. The jurors saw the trial, they all believed the plaintiffs. They heard all the evidence and saw the witnesses. You can't even post the parts of the transcript that you claim make your case. Even I explained how marketing agreements depress the cash price. It was not hard to do. It was the jury's job to decide if that was the case in the trial and they unanimously said "YES".

You still did not answer my questions, Agman.

 

[mwj]

Econ what did you base your answer of the ''testing of theries'' on? At least that would give me a bit of a clue on what you are basing your position on. If you are not familiar with what went on during the court procedings how can you argue that it was so bad when the ruling was made at apeal?

 

[Econ101]

Econ what did you base your answer of the ''testing of theries'' on? At least that would give me a bit of a clue on what you are basing your position on. If you are not familiar with what went on during the court procedings how can you argue that it was so bad when the ruling was made at apeal?

The appellate ruling has little to do with the questions Agman is asking. The appellate ruling was based on the PSA being reinterpreted completely. Did you read the appellate ruling mwj?

 

[agman]

Agman, as long as you don't show your work for peer review, you just have meaningless numbers. I have asked you time and again to give those numbers and you have failed. We can only wonder why (some of us know).

You still did not answer my questions.

1. "If you think you know then show your work." Why should I show you anything? The work I did present for the 99-01 period, independent of the Schroeder study you cited, you had no way to refute the results since you have never done any work per this subject. Instead, as usual you took one portion that you claim supported your position that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" but refused to acknowledge the balance of the data which crused your phony belief. In addition, you refused to even address other periods which clearly blew you phony assumptions apart. You don't even know without me posting those periods that they even exit. That is the extent of your so called knowledge. What a joke!! You have yet to answer any questions including a simple "yes" or 'no". You remain long on worthless dissertation and absent facts.

2. People who are actually qualified to make a peer review, which certainly excludes you, would not make the stupid statement that you made "meaningless numbers". You don't even know what the numbers are nor would you even know where to begin to do the proper research. Remember, that you are the fool who did not even know the level or trend in domestic per capita beef supplies. Yet you professed to claim all this knowledge about beef demand. Only another fool such as yourself would believe that nonsense and deception. Also remember, in your fantasy world you have convinced yourself that packers control the "cattle cycle" both here an abroad. Yet you cannot answer a simple quesion as to what governed or caused the cattle cycle in the decades before the current level of concentration or mulit-national packers. Your lies and phony assumptions will expose your ignorance everytime.

1. You are afraid to post your calculations and the assumptions for them because you don't want anyone to question your conclusions.


2. Many times your total ignorance has already clearly demonstrated for all to see. Your fantasies get in the way of reality. Your self proclaimed intelligence gets crushed by knowledge every-time. You remain a total fraud, even to the extent of believing your own lies. Since you possess neither the integrity or courage to acknowledge that Dr Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketings agreements could lower prices, which you CLAIM he did test, then either you or he have blatantly lied. I think all the readers on this forum know it was you that got trapped in another lie Conman.

2. Post the question and replies from the trial, Agman, or be quiet about it. You claim you have the trial transcripts yet you will not post the actual question, in context, and the answers. You just want to interpret the answer the way you want with no basis in reality. The jurors saw the trial, they all believed the plaintiffs. They heard all the evidence and saw the witnesses. You can't even post the parts of the transcript that you claim make your case. Even I explained how marketing agreements depress the cash price. It was not hard to do. It was the jury's job to decide if that was the case in the trial and they unanimously said "YES".

You still did not answer my questions, Agman.

I have no reason to post the results of my research for you. Since you have done no researh at all on your own you would not be in postion to challenge the results anyway. You simply do not have enough knowledge to critique anyone's work.

Why don't you read the transcript yourself? Can't you do your own home work? Even if you read the transcripts you would lie and twist like you are now regarding Taylor's comments as you attempt to defend a defenseless position.

What is there to interpret when Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices? Those are his words. Only a total fraud like you would suggest he meant some thing else. Judge Strom asked him to repeat his answer. You would know these facts if you read the transcripts. Once again your opinions are from your fantasy land of blame, twist and lie if you have to. You are too ignorant and arrogant to realize how truly stupid your positions are. You are just a wannabe-a person who wants to appear intelligent but does not have the actual intelligence nor the knowledge of this industry to do so. Thus, you find yourself with a manipulation theory for every event. You are just simply a fraud.

I am certain in your warped mind you could provide a simple explanation as you claim of how marketing agreements lower prices. Yet you cannot explain why prices also went down more prior to marketing agreements. You are just too easy-the most inept self anointed intellectual I have had the privilege to encounter. You actually believe your own lies and believe others are as stupid as you and will believe those lies with you!! I have alot more faith in mankind than that.

 

[Econ101]

1. "If you think you know then show your work." Why should I show you anything? The work I did present for the 99-01 period, independent of the Schroeder study you cited, you had no way to refute the results since you have never done any work per this subject. Instead, as usual you took one portion that you claim supported your position that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" but refused to acknowledge the balance of the data which crused your phony belief. In addition, you refused to even address other periods which clearly blew you phony assumptions apart. You don't even know without me posting those periods that they even exit. That is the extent of your so called knowledge. What a joke!! You have yet to answer any questions including a simple "yes" or 'no". You remain long on worthless dissertation and absent facts.

2. People who are actually qualified to make a peer review, which certainly excludes you, would not make the stupid statement that you made "meaningless numbers". You don't even know what the numbers are nor would you even know where to begin to do the proper research. Remember, that you are the fool who did not even know the level or trend in domestic per capita beef supplies. Yet you professed to claim all this knowledge about beef demand. Only another fool such as yourself would believe that nonsense and deception. Also remember, in your fantasy world you have convinced yourself that packers control the "cattle cycle" both here an abroad. Yet you cannot answer a simple quesion as to what governed or caused the cattle cycle in the decades before the current level of concentration or mulit-national packers. Your lies and phony assumptions will expose your ignorance everytime.

1. You are afraid to post your calculations and the assumptions for them because you don't want anyone to question your conclusions.


2. Many times your total ignorance has already clearly demonstrated for all to see. Your fantasies get in the way of reality. Your self proclaimed intelligence gets crushed by knowledge every-time. You remain a total fraud, even to the extent of believing your own lies. Since you possess neither the integrity or courage to acknowledge that Dr Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketings agreements could lower prices, which you CLAIM he did test, then either you or he have blatantly lied. I think all the readers on this forum know it was you that got trapped in another lie Conman.

2. Post the question and replies from the trial, Agman, or be quiet about it. You claim you have the trial transcripts yet you will not post the actual question, in context, and the answers. You just want to interpret the answer the way you want with no basis in reality. The jurors saw the trial, they all believed the plaintiffs. They heard all the evidence and saw the witnesses. You can't even post the parts of the transcript that you claim make your case. Even I explained how marketing agreements depress the cash price. It was not hard to do. It was the jury's job to decide if that was the case in the trial and they unanimously said "YES".

You still did not answer my questions, Agman.

I have no reason to post the results of my research for you. Since you have done no researh at all on your own you would not be in postion to challenge the results anyway. You simply do not have enough knowledge to critique anyone's work.

Why don't you read the transcript yourself? Can't you do your own home work? Even if you read the transcripts you would lie and twist like you are now regarding Taylor's comments as you attempt to defend a defenseless position.

What is there to interpret when Taylor said under oath that he DID NOT TEST his theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices? Those are his words. Only a total fraud like you would suggest he meant some thing else. Judge Strom asked him to repeat his answer. You would know these facts if you read the transcripts. Once again your opinions are from your fantasy land of blame, twist and lie if you have to. You are too ignorant and arrogant to realize how truly stupid your positions are. You are just a wannabe-a person who wants to appear intelligent but does not have the actual intelligence nor the knowledge of this industry to do so. Thus, you find yourself with a manipulation theory for every event. You are just simply a fraud.

I am certain in your warped mind you could provide a simple explanation as you claim of how marketing agreements lower prices. Yet you cannot explain why prices also went down more prior to marketing agreements. You are just too easy-the most inept self anointed intellectual I have had the privilege to encounter. You actually believe your own lies and believe others are as stupid as you and will believe those lies with you!! I have alot more faith in mankind than that.

You don't want to show your work because you are a fraud but you don't want anyone to know it.

No one is as smart as you, Agman. Everyone has to take your word as the gospel truth. You are the only one who has the answers. Just like the Catholic church before the Bible was written for the common man, we have to get all the answers from you.

Did I tell you Martin Luther was one of my heros?

The trial was the test, Agman. Pickett won with the common man.

Your tell is showing.

Can you answer my questions or just divert from them?

 

[mwj]

Econ No I have not read the trial transcript. I am not arguing the results at length on this board. Do you ever answer a question without a question of your own? You say we should learn but will not help us to do so, how do you justify this line of reasoning? If you are on this board to just play word games please tell us so we can quit wasting our time reading your lengthy replies. This is not to be taken as a slam to you just as my opinion on how I spend my little free time on the net.

 

[Econ101]

Econ No I have not read the trial transcript. I am not arguing the results at length on this board. Do you ever answer a question without a question of your own? You say we should learn but will not help us to do so, how do you justify this line of reasoning? If you are on this board to just play word games please tell us so we can quit wasting our time reading your lengthy replies. This is not to be taken as a slam to you just as my opinion on how I spend my little free time on the net.

I am sorry if you are getting caught up in the argument that I am having with Agman. If you don't want to read the posts, don't do it.

Yes, I have answered a lot of questions, go look at SH's questions. You can not have meningful answers unless you understand the issues and you are not going to get that in a soundbite. If you are just looking for an expert advice, the packers have them bought. Go read the economic studies that have been coming out of the USDA if you want to see that. We are funding our land grant universities with earmarked money from the USDA that is being used to control the real studies coming out of our land grant universities. Go look at Tomilslav Vukina's early papers on the broiler industry and then see the premise for his recent collaborative hog study that GIPSA funded to the tune of $427,000.00. The USDA is being run by packer interests and the land grant university economists are under their control due to the pursestrings by the govt. at these public institutions. At least some of the better economists did not suck up to the panhandle study on the cattle industry Agman refers to that Schroder took part in.

 

[Jason]

So conman's true colors are starting to show. Was he rejected for some grant money, or was denied a position on one of these studies?

Looks like a typical case of class envy.

 

[Econ101]

So conman's true colors are starting to show. Was he rejected for some grant money, or was denied a position on one of these studies?

Looks like a typical case of class envy.

No, Jason, none of that. Go read the studies and let us talk about them. I warn you, some of these studies in economics have specific language that may be hard to understand. It should not deter you, however. It did not deter me. You did get one thing right, Jason. The money trail is the important thing, as always.