Are Cattle Prices High Because of "Tight Supply"?

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I implied nothing of the sort."

YOU LYING @%@!&$%^@!!

You said "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" and you just admitted saying it when I asked you. Anyone can read what you said.

Conman: "If I remember correctly, I was talking about a particular part of the cattle cycle where oversupply was the problem that led to decreased prices."

What part of the cycle was that?

Conman: "When the supply of those cattle is reduced, the market prices will go up."

NOT IF CONSUMER DEMAND IS DROPPING SIMULTANEOUSLY!

YOU ARE WRONG!

Conman: "From 1989 to the present, the consumption of beef per capita has been relatively stable based on the retail cut equivalent. Because of many variables, the price paid to the cattlemen has been much more erratic during that same time period. You can not pin everything on demand as Agman does. It is just a convenient out."

Agman doesn't pin everything on demand you damn liar. He measures supplies and demand and he knows what constitutes demand. You haven't contradicted a single thing he has presented yet and you won't because your a phony. All you can do is lie about his position and mine.

If you and Sandbag ever wanted positions with R-CULT I am sure you would come highly recommended. You are exactly the type of lying, deceptive, "illusionist", individuals they are looking for.

Conman: "Price spreads, inventory control, whether or not the items were used as loss leaders at the stores, prices of substitutes, and a whole lot more go into the value that cattlemen recieve for their product."

Price spreads are a measure of what cattlemen receive, NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR YOU MORON!

Inventory control affects boxed beef prices.
Prices of substitutes affects boxed beef prices.
loss leaders affect boxed beef prices.

As I have said all along, boxed beef prices is the primary driver in fat cattle prices.

Conman: "When supplies are not tight, you will have less margin on the packer side because the packers are actually competing with each other for those cattle."

Wrong again!

When supplies are tight you have more competition for those cattle, not when they are not tight. You can't get anything right.

Conman: "When supplies are not tight, you will more than likely see the price manipulation schemes being played out and the packer margins increase."

When supplies are not tight, you will see feeders less willing to accept the lower corresponding prices so they hold out, when they hold out they put more tonnage on the market, when they put more tonnage on the market AND DEMAND REMAINS THE SAME, fat cattle prices drop further. I guess you could argue that the feeders are manipulating the markets lower by not staying "current". Perhaps the packer blamers should be suing the feeders?

Conman: "Have you done the math on the substitution of chicken for beef yet?"

I'm not playing your stupid games. If you have a point, make it!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Quote:
Conman: "When supplies are not tight, you will have less margin on the packer side because the packers are actually competing with each other for those cattle."


Wrong again!

When supplies are tight you have more competition for those cattle, not when they are not tight. You can't get anything right.

You got me on that one. I changed it. The "not" doesn't belong in there. Like I said, I am at home with my sick child today and she needs my attention. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Like I said, I am at home with my sick child today and she needs my attention."

So why aren't you attending to her instead of spreading your lies here?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Like I said, I am at home with my sick child today and she needs my attention."

So why aren't you attending to her instead of spreading your lies here?


~SH~

She is asleep on the couch. What lie did I spread? ---That the wizard of oz might give you a brain?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "What lie did I spread?"

I'm not going to list them all every day. I address your lies as you tell them. You are a complete phony in every sense of the word.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "What lie did I spread?"

I'm not going to list them all every day. I address your lies as you tell them. You are a complete phony in every sense of the word.



~SH~

Prove it. Words are cheap.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Prove it. Words are cheap."

I JUST DID!


I asked you: "Did you say "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

To which you responded: "When the markets have an oversupply, yes."

I responded with "Prices do not always fall as supplies increase as you implied".

To which you responded: "I implied nothing of the sort".


What more proof does anyone need?

First you make an untrue statement ("prices can't go up unless supplies come down"), then you try to pretend you never said it ("I implied nothing of the sort"), then you ask me to prove that you lied creating the "illusion" that it never happened.

YOU SAID, "PRICES CAN'T GO UP UNLESS SUPPLIES COME DOWN".

That was a lie.

That is just one example out of many lies you have told here. You are a complete phony and you just proved it again.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Prove it. Words are cheap."

I JUST DID!


I asked you: "Did you say "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

To which you responded: "When the markets have an oversupply, yes."

I responded with "Prices do not always fall as supplies increase as you implied".

To which you responded: "I implied nothing of the sort".


What more proof does anyone need?

First you make an untrue statement ("prices can't go up unless supplies come down"), then you try to pretend you never said it ("I implied nothing of the sort"), then you ask me to prove that you lied creating the "illusion" that it never happened.

YOU SAID, "PRICES CAN'T GO UP UNLESS SUPPLIES COME DOWN".

That was a lie.

That is just one example out of many lies you have told here. You are a complete phony and you just proved it again.

This is why juries are so important. They can see through this kind of stuff you bring up.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "This is why juries are so important. They can see through this kind of stuff you bring up."

Hahaha!

Anyone on this forum can go back a few posts and see exactly what you wrote and now you deny saying it?

Have you no conscience?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "This is why juries are so important. They can see through this kind of stuff you bring up."

Hahaha!

Anyone on this forum can go back a few posts and see exactly what you wrote and now you deny saying it?

Have you no conscience?



~SH~

Any economics course by you is laughable. What grade did you complete?

 

[Econ101]

POP QUIZ

Is it possible for the average price received for a commodity to go up if the total supply of that commodity does not change and the demand for that total number of pounds of commodity does not change?

If you think it can, provide an example of how and when it can happen.

Pointrider, this happens every day. One example of this happening is in the hyperinflation countries. In that instance, all commodities go up because they are bought in a devaluing currency. In fairness, Agman did say in one of his posts he was talking about inflation adjusted. There are other examples too. What are you thinking about?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Any economics course by you is laughable."

Whatever you say Mr. "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down". Hahaha! That is so funny!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Any economics course by you is laughable."

Whatever you say Mr. "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down". Hahaha! That is so funny!


~SH~

In certain situations, that statement is correct. When there is oversupply and an inelastic demand curve, it is what happens over the course of time.

SH, nothing on this earth is definite (except maybe death and taxes). Per capita consumption of beef has been relatively flat over the last 15 years, averaging around 65 to 66 lbs. of beef per head. Interestingly enough, poor people buy more beef than the rich. Over this same time period, chicken has consumption has gone up 20 lbs. per capita.

While consumption is limited by supplies, supply increases of cattle or decreases are a function of price and the reproductive cycle of cattle.

Your and Agman's simplistic approach to defining demand is well, simplistic. Go do the calculations on the beef example and the substitution of pork and chicken and you will see my point. Like I said before, if math is not your suit, then ask Agman. He claims to make those calculations all the time. Let Agman be your calculator.

 

[Anonymous]

Consumption of beef is half of the equation. The other half of the equation is the price it is offered at. You are simply too ignorant to understand it.

Why do you continue to humiliate yourself by continually being corrected?

You're a joke! I have received numerous PM's by readers who cannot believe the stupid things you write. I honestly can't believe them myself particularly in light of your arrogant attitude.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Consumption of beef is half of the equation. The other half of the equation is the price it is offered at. You are simply too ignorant to understand it.

Why do you continue to humiliate yourself by continually being corrected?

You're a joke! I have received numerous PM's by readers who cannot believe the stupid things you write. I honestly can't believe them myself particularly in light of your arrogant attitude.


~SH~

SH, I don't care about you and your little pms friends. I don't appreciate every topic being taken over by your little name calling and your self rightous judgements. This should be a forum where people can talk about topics to understand them more and you make them into little propaganda fits for your packer loving biases. Everyone has an opinion of how they see the world. Your opinion is important too, but everyone already knows you will go off topic to rant and rave and call people names who don't agree with you. Even when you are proven wrong you act as if you have never been wrong. You expect everyone to answer your little questions but you do not answer any one else's. You make fun of people all the time but you can't take it. You promote division between cattlemen that benefits packer manipulation. Sometimes I don't know why you don't go make your own forum up, "Packer Backers".

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

I was here long before you brought your packer blaming dog and pony show to this forum. The popularity of this forum is mainly due to the fact that people can come here and hear the debate. They can hear both sides and they can see how phony packer blamers like you can't back your positions and get exposed for their phoniness. They can see how you are all talk and no action. That's why many R-CULTers have come and gone. Ask them one difficult question that they can't answer and they escape further humiliation. You are just arrogant and ignorant enough to not be bothered by being exposed for being a phony.

You are the one who needs to start your own forum where packer blamers like you can go and cry in their beer in unison without being bothered with facts and being exposed for their ignorance of these issues.

How about calling it PACKER BLAMING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ANNONYMOUS (PBCTA)? You could moderate and give out awards for the most outrageous conspiracy theory about "behind closed door meetings" and "phone taps".

You provide me a lot of entertainment but rest assured, as long as I can type or until I get banned, your bullsh*t will never go unchallenged at this site. I have converted many packer blamers over to the truth.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

The Gopher Trappin pastor says -

I have converted many packer blamers over to the truth.

:lol: :lol:

Anyone who doesn't agree with the Gopher Trapper is a packer balmer for crying out loud.

Just how many have you converted Gopher Preacher? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Many!


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Many all right.

In your dreams Gopher Trapper. In fact you live in your dreams a lot. All your talk about facts and proof :lol: :lol: . You are no different than anyone else on this site.

Lots of opinion and (wait a minute, I take that back) You are different than most. You chase people off this site SH. Your dreamworld that you live in that makes you right about everything also includes a rude and demeaning man who most people can simply not put up with. Humans don't really like being called rude and nasty names on a continual basis. So they simply go away.

I used to get annoyed with your childish crap, but after listenig to you tell a few fairy tales on this site of your own, I now simply find it entertaining.

I appreciate that you have a view SH. How you have come up with this view, no one will ever know. As far as facts and Proof. Whatever.

Enjoy that reality you call yours and I will enjoy mine. OR see if you can convert ME???????

 

[Anonymous]

Keep talking Randy.

The day you can bring facts to the table to contradict anything I have stated is the day you will be taken seriously. Until that day, blame and flame away!

Those who leave the site do so because they can't support their positions. Some, like you, are simply too ignorant to realize how foolish your "UNSUPPORTED" views are.

You claim the high ground on name calling. Hahaha! What a joke! Gopher trapper, suck hole, dumbass, you bet Randy! Tell me all about the name calling! LOL! What a self righteous hypocrite.

I treat people the way they treat me and that will continue! If you don't like it, I DON'T CARE!


~SH~