ANSWER ON TRIM

[Econ101]

When Conman starts answering direct questions I have posed multiple times I will educate him on what captive supplies means. However, it seems rather self explanitory.

Captive...

Supplies....

Of course to Conman he wants to try to say Tyson can make the Earth revolve backwards because of the power they have with captive supplies.

If you don't know, Jason, admit it and either learn about it or stop talking about it.

What is your direct question? I have answered a whole lot of your questions and it still hasn't helped you any.

 

[Jason]

You have never answered about the number 2 and 3 consuming nations in the world.

You have never offered proof of market manipulation.

You have never answered where the other sources of high quality grain fed beef would come from.

You have never answered the question about the cut out number you posted as a "real number" in response to my whole cow burger example.

Need I go on?

 

[Econ101]

You have never answered about the number 2 and 3 consuming nations in the world.

You have never offered proof of market manipulation.

You have never answered where the other sources of high quality grain fed beef would come from.

You have never answered the question about the cut out number you posted as a "real number" in response to my whole cow burger example.

Need I go on?

Jason, I'm not going to answer those questions for you. Does everyone around you jump when you say jump? You have a real propensity to take answers from questions, combine them the way you want, and then attribute the new twist you put on it to the person who said the answers. I don't want to play that game with you.



You make up quizzes all you want. I don't take quizzes from you, I thought I already explained that to you. If you want a good education, go to a good university and stop trying to get a free one from me.

You wouldn't understand what market manipulation is, so why explain it to you. You will never be a part of the U.S. jury pool, so to what end?

Your cut out example has too many assumptions that are incorrect. I have already posted some of them.


No, you needn't go on.

Do you know what captive supply is?

 

[agman]

You have never answered about the number 2 and 3 consuming nations in the world.

You have never offered proof of market manipulation.

You have never answered where the other sources of high quality grain fed beef would come from.

You have never answered the question about the cut out number you posted as a "real number" in response to my whole cow burger example.

Need I go on?

Jason, I'm not going to answer those questions for you. Does everyone around you jump when you say jump? You have a real propensity to take answers from questions, combine them the way you want, and then attribute the new twist you put on it to the person who said the answers. I don't want to play that game with you.



You make up quizzes all you want. I don't take quizzes from you, I thought I already explained that to you. If you want a good education, go to a good university and stop trying to get a free one from me.

You wouldn't understand what market manipulation is, so why explain it to you. You will never be a part of the U.S. jury pool, so to what end?

Your cut out example has too many assumptions that are incorrect. I have already posted some of them.


No, you needn't go on.

Do you know what captive supply is?

The question is not if Jason knows what "captive supply" is. The question is do you really know of have you just had another uneducated brainstorm as you have with every other post you have ever made. The judge in the Pickett case got that right also when stating the term "captive supply" is misleading and incorrect since producers have sole discretion as to whom they sell cattle to.

If a marketing agreement pays more for the type of cattle you produce why would you not commit to packer A as opposed to packer B. Producers are alot more intelligent than you think and you are a whole lot less intelligent and knowledgeable than you think you are. Your senseless and misguided comments are continuously the by-product of your own ignorance of the subject matter under discussion.

 

[Econ101]

You have never answered about the number 2 and 3 consuming nations in the world.

You have never offered proof of market manipulation.

You have never answered where the other sources of high quality grain fed beef would come from.

You have never answered the question about the cut out number you posted as a "real number" in response to my whole cow burger example.

Need I go on?

Jason, I'm not going to answer those questions for you. Does everyone around you jump when you say jump? You have a real propensity to take answers from questions, combine them the way you want, and then attribute the new twist you put on it to the person who said the answers. I don't want to play that game with you.



You make up quizzes all you want. I don't take quizzes from you, I thought I already explained that to you. If you want a good education, go to a good university and stop trying to get a free one from me.

You wouldn't understand what market manipulation is, so why explain it to you. You will never be a part of the U.S. jury pool, so to what end?

Your cut out example has too many assumptions that are incorrect. I have already posted some of them.


No, you needn't go on.

Do you know what captive supply is?

The question is not if Jason knows what "captive supply" is. The question is do you really know of have you just had another uneducated brainstorm as you have with every other post you have ever made. The judge in the Pickett case got that right also when stating the term "captive supply" is misleading and incorrect since producers have sole discretion as to whom they sell cattle to.

If a marketing agreement pays more for the type of cattle you produce why would you not commit to packer A as opposed to packer B. Producers are alot more intelligent than you think and you are a whole lot less intelligent and knowledgeable than you think you are. Your senseless and misguided comments are continuously the by-product of your own ignorance of the subject matter under discussion.

Agman, do you know what captive supply is?

 

[agman]

Jason, I'm not going to answer those questions for you. Does everyone around you jump when you say jump? You have a real propensity to take answers from questions, combine them the way you want, and then attribute the new twist you put on it to the person who said the answers. I don't want to play that game with you.



You make up quizzes all you want. I don't take quizzes from you, I thought I already explained that to you. If you want a good education, go to a good university and stop trying to get a free one from me.

You wouldn't understand what market manipulation is, so why explain it to you. You will never be a part of the U.S. jury pool, so to what end?

Your cut out example has too many assumptions that are incorrect. I have already posted some of them.


No, you needn't go on.

Do you know what captive supply is?

The question is not if Jason knows what "captive supply" is. The question is do you really know of have you just had another uneducated brainstorm as you have with every other post you have ever made. The judge in the Pickett case got that right also when stating the term "captive supply" is misleading and incorrect since producers have sole discretion as to whom they sell cattle to.

If a marketing agreement pays more for the type of cattle you produce why would you not commit to packer A as opposed to packer B. Producers are alot more intelligent than you think and you are a whole lot less intelligent and knowledgeable than you think you are. Your senseless and misguided comments are continuously the by-product of your own ignorance of the subject matter under discussion.

Agman, do you know what captive supply is?

No, I am going to wait for you to give me your version!!! I do know what "marketing agreements" are and who has control of that supply. Apparently you do not know which is par for you.

 

[Murgen]

Well, I can't wait, the suspense is killing me!

Isn't "Captive supplies" something every manufacturing industry uses. They buy/contract raw materials purchases. Sometimes they even own them for more than 14 days, to assure a steady supply of quality raw materials.

 

[Econ101]

Murgen, other markets are very different than the cattle markets due to the live animal and peculiarities therein as well as the many selling on one side and few buying on the other.

Agman, Thanks for telling us you know about marketing agreements and who has control of that supply. I will give you a very broad definition, but one that has utility to the argument of price manipulation. When I do, are you going to stop playing democrat and not attack, but give your definition?

You seem to want to take over the answer for Jason who has remained silent.

 

[Jason]

Not that it's any of your business but I have been busy. In winter we have more chores in Canada. Winter isn't a cloudy 60 degree day here.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Jason, I'm not going to answer those questions for you."

IMAGINE THAT?


~SH~

 

[agman]

Murgen, other markets are very different than the cattle markets due to the live animal and peculiarities therein as well as the many selling on one side and few buying on the other.

Agman, Thanks for telling us you know about marketing agreements and who has control of that supply. I will give you a very broad definition, but one that has utility to the argument of price manipulation. When I do, are you going to stop playing democrat and not attack, but give your definition?

You seem to want to take over the answer for Jason who has remained silent.

Those peculiarities you point out are there whether there are marketing agreements or not. In the real world not all produces are willing sellers every week. As such, both supply and demand are not static as you surmise in your hypothetical manipulation theory. Having many sellers and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry as you falsely claim.

 

[Econ101]

Murgen, other markets are very different than the cattle markets due to the live animal and peculiarities therein as well as the many selling on one side and few buying on the other.

Agman, Thanks for telling us you know about marketing agreements and who has control of that supply. I will give you a very broad definition, but one that has utility to the argument of price manipulation. When I do, are you going to stop playing democrat and not attack, but give your definition?

You seem to want to take over the answer for Jason who has remained silent.

Those peculiarities you point out are there whether there are marketing agreements or not. In the real world not all produces are willing sellers every week. As such, both supply and demand are not static as you surmise in your hypothetical manipulation theory. Having many sellers and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry as you falsely claim.

I do not refute anything you say in this post, Agman, except the part about the peculiarities of the industry. Having many seller and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry and I don't falsely claim that to be true as your post suggests. Again, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Maybe you could go back and have another try at it.

 

[agman]

Murgen, other markets are very different than the cattle markets due to the live animal and peculiarities therein as well as the many selling on one side and few buying on the other.

Agman, Thanks for telling us you know about marketing agreements and who has control of that supply. I will give you a very broad definition, but one that has utility to the argument of price manipulation. When I do, are you going to stop playing democrat and not attack, but give your definition?

You seem to want to take over the answer for Jason who has remained silent.

Those peculiarities you point out are there whether there are marketing agreements or not. In the real world not all produces are willing sellers every week. As such, both supply and demand are not static as you surmise in your hypothetical manipulation theory. Having many sellers and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry as you falsely claim.

I do not refute anything you say in this post, Agman, except the part about the peculiarities of the industry. Having many seller and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry and I don't falsely claim that to be true as your post suggests. Again, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Maybe you could go back and have another try at it.

Given your track record you should follow your own advice. BTW, how does the time differ in a marketing agreement versus a cash sale? The producer controls each date.

 

[Econ101]

Those peculiarities you point out are there whether there are marketing agreements or not. In the real world not all produces are willing sellers every week. As such, both supply and demand are not static as you surmise in your hypothetical manipulation theory. Having many sellers and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry as you falsely claim.

I do not refute anything you say in this post, Agman, except the part about the peculiarities of the industry. Having many seller and a limited number of buyers is not unique to the cattle industry and I don't falsely claim that to be true as your post suggests. Again, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Maybe you could go back and have another try at it.

Given your track record you should follow your own advice. BTW, how does the time differ in a marketing agreement versus a cash sale? The producer controls each date.

On the formula cattle, there was virtually no difference in the date and yet when making up the price for the formula the next week, only the cash market was considered as a base price and not a weighted average of the formula and the cash market. Therein lies the problem. The discrimination against the cash market had price setting consequences to next week's price for formula.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "On the formula cattle, there was virtually no difference in the date and yet when making up the price for the formula the next week, only the cash market was considered as a base price and not a weighted average of the formula and the cash market. Therein lies the problem. The discrimination against the cash market had price setting consequences to next week's price for formula."

Why would you need to use a weighted average of the formula and cash markets when the formula price is already a weighted average of the cash market? DUH!

You're in over your head again!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "On the formula cattle, there was virtually no difference in the date and yet when making up the price for the formula the next week, only the cash market was considered as a base price and not a weighted average of the formula and the cash market. Therein lies the problem. The discrimination against the cash market had price setting consequences to next week's price for formula."

Why would you need to use a weighted average of the formula and cash markets when the formula price is already a weighted average of the cash market? DUH!

You're in over your head again!


~SH~

Because the cash market was being discriminated against and not a representation of prices paid in the whole market.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Because the cash market was being discriminated against and not a representation of prices paid in the whole market."

The formula price and the cash price are based on seperate weeks. Last week's formula price is based on the cash market of the week prior. Last week's cash price that sets the base price for this weeks formula price was not based on the same supply and demand factors of last week's formula price. Based on that fact, you would not average the prices from two seperate week's supply and demand factors to determine the formula price for this week.

Another of your never ending idiotic statements.

NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Because the cash market was being discriminated against and not a representation of prices paid in the whole market."

The formula price and the cash price are based on seperate weeks. Last week's formula price is based on the cash market of the week prior. Last week's cash price that sets the base price for this weeks formula price was not based on the same supply and demand factors of last week's cash price. Based on that fact, you would not average the prices from two seperate week's supply and demand factors to determine the formula price for this week.

Another of your idiotic statements.

NEXT!



~SH~

I thought we had been through this one before, SH. When all of the elements of time are or can be the same, then there is no difference in time. Now I know why you have given up on higher education. Name calling will never excuse your incapacity to learn.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I thought we had been through this one before, SH. When all of the elements of time are or can be the same, then there is no difference in time."

You would understandably give up on it because you never did understand it. The elements of time between the formula and the cash prices are not the same. There is a difference in time. You're simply too ignorant to understand it.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "I thought we had been through this one before, SH. When all of the elements of time are or can be the same, then there is no difference in time."

You would understandably give up on it because you never did understand it. The elements of time between the formula and the cash prices are not the same. There is a difference in time. You're simply too ignorant to understand it.


~SH~

No, SH, they are not. It is just made up.