• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Atkins?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????


ANSWER THE QUESTION!


Conman: "I haven't had my teeth kicked in by your garbage yet, but you are pert nere toothless."

Nobody has presented more phoniness to this site than you have. You have been corrected continually. You haven't contradicted anything I have stated with opposing facts yet.

Here's a short list of what you have been corrected on:

1. Packers grading their own cattle.
2. A price difference between formula based grid pricing and the cash market being proof of market manipulation.
3. "Free trim" from lean carcasses.
4. Producer does not benefit from imported lean trimmings.
5. Providing proof of Pickett vs. ibp market manipulation.
6. Proof of "behind closed door" meetings with Judge Strom
7. What constitutes beef demand
8. Fat cattle buyers determining how cattle will grade and yield.


That's just off the top of my head.

You are the biggest phony to ever disgrace this site Conman. A total joke!


~SH~

SH, all of those are misrepresentations of what I said. Will you pay BIG C or R-CALF if I refute them all? You have to make up stuff to win arguments. You and Agman can win any arguments you have with yourselves. I have already stated that. These points do all go back to your reading comprehension skills.

What grade did you complete?

Did they pass you just to get you out of school?

How many busses did you wash while class was in session?
BIG C or R-Calf??????? I thought you weren't an R-Calf supporter? :lol: :lol:

Most Big -C supporters take personal exception to being lumped with a group who don't recognize the value of trade and who will use any means to prevent it.
 
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????


ANSWER THE QUESTION!




Nobody has presented more phoniness to this site than you have. You have been corrected continually. You haven't contradicted anything I have stated with opposing facts yet.

Here's a short list of what you have been corrected on:

1. Packers grading their own cattle.
2. A price difference between formula based grid pricing and the cash market being proof of market manipulation.
3. "Free trim" from lean carcasses.
4. Producer does not benefit from imported lean trimmings.
5. Providing proof of Pickett vs. ibp market manipulation.
6. Proof of "behind closed door" meetings with Judge Strom
7. What constitutes beef demand
8. Fat cattle buyers determining how cattle will grade and yield.


That's just off the top of my head.

You are the biggest phony to ever disgrace this site Conman. A total joke!


~SH~

SH, all of those are misrepresentations of what I said. Will you pay BIG C or R-CALF if I refute them all? You have to make up stuff to win arguments. You and Agman can win any arguments you have with yourselves. I have already stated that. These points do all go back to your reading comprehension skills.

What grade did you complete?

Did they pass you just to get you out of school?

How many busses did you wash while class was in session?
BIG C or R-Calf??????? I thought you weren't an R-Calf supporter? :lol: :lol:

Most Big -C supporters take personal exception to being lumped with a group who don't recognize the value of trade and who will use any means to prevent it.

Bill, your hate for R-CALF plays into the hands of packer ploys. I have no such bias. The value of trade is secondary to its use as captive supply in the U.S. domestic market. If you can not understand that concept, you will always be able to be used by the packers to lower prices below their equilibrium.
 
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
Econ101 said:
SH, all of those are misrepresentations of what I said. Will you pay BIG C or R-CALF if I refute them all? You have to make up stuff to win arguments. You and Agman can win any arguments you have with yourselves. I have already stated that. These points do all go back to your reading comprehension skills.

What grade did you complete?

Did they pass you just to get you out of school?

How many busses did you wash while class was in session?
BIG C or R-Calf??????? I thought you weren't an R-Calf supporter? :lol: :lol:

Most Big -C supporters take personal exception to being lumped with a group who don't recognize the value of trade and who will use any means to prevent it.

Bill, your hate for R-CALF plays into the hands of packer ploys. I have no such bias. The value of trade is secondary to its use as captive supply in the U.S. domestic market. If you can not understand that concept, you will always be able to be used by the packers to lower prices below their equilibrium.
Unlike you I admit to my bias. I have wittnessed first hand how a lieing group of protectionists has impacted my family and those around me. I am not a big fan of the mega-corps and have invested in two new packing plants but the choice between whether R-Calf or the packers want a healthy Canadian cattle industry is an easy decision.

Prices may have bounced back in the Canadian beef industry but the actions of R-Calf against Canadian producers will not be soon forgotten.
 
CONMAN: "SH, in economics, everything is relative. It is obvious that per capita consumption of red meats and poultry combined went from 194.7 in 2001., to 201.5 in 2002 to 200.8 in 2003 as measured by the data by ERS. This supports the theory that the Atkins diet had something to do with an increase in meat consumption per capita. Actual beef per capita consumption went down during this period of 3 years.

I think the data clearly shows that the supply of beef went down during this period. My statement saying that you attribute to me was probably in the context of the cattle cycle, and not this particular time frame. Go get the whole post and post it and ask me the question if you want to make the two related. I will not answer little snippets of my posts unless they are contextualized. "


DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



You keep talking about supplies. My question is asking about demand relative to those supplies. ANSWER THE QUESTION and quit diverting!



~SH~
 
I understand your point, Bill. My argument is for ALL producers, and you are included. So are the poultry producers. The ravages of market power affect them all. Packers have some very smart people helping them figure out these situations where they end up being the winners no matter what the situation is. Their abuse of market power in these instances is a necessary part of their strategy. In cattle it was the choice between a discriminated formula price and cash price that could be discriminated against with the use of captive supplies. In the poultry industry it is the take it or leave it contract where no bargaining power is allowed for producers.

Our government's blind eye to those actions because of campaign contributions and political influence is sickening. It is breeding incompetence-- and the seeds of revolt in the Republican party. As a republican (not alligned with the currrent corrupt and incompetent elements of this adminstration) this is very concerning to me and my friends. It must change. Even now the seeds of their power are being sown in the Democratic party as Agman alluded to earlier. The politics of war have upstaged these problems so they could be hidden more easily but it will not work for long.

I am sorry that you and I and everyone that these packer people touch are affected. They are selfish and manipulative. They are the worst that capitalism can achieve. When a person can not ethically check themselves and have the power to stop others from checking them, they are no longer in the far right. They are in the wrong. That is the line we are flirting with in both our countries.

NAFTA and the other "free trade agreements" were nothing more than a cover for internationalizing standards down to the lowest common denominator in whatever country that happened to be in the pact. It has nothing to do with free trade--except for the traders (and traitors). Look at your lumber situation for proof of that . I still do not have enough information to determine whether G W is that stupid as to believe all this stuff or is corrupt. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see if they buying off of public opinion can continually win elections, but that is the strategy. I personally think this is a losing strategy as history has many examples.

We are all actors on this stage of life. Choose your part well. I have chosen mine. It is for the producers, wherever they may be. I happen to like Murgen's quote on the bottom of his posts. We should all step back, look at the forest, marvel at its complexity and greatness, and then go back in and fell some trees before they are all taken from us.
 
Conman: "Packers have some very smart people helping them figure out these situations where they end up being the winners no matter what the situation is."

Only in the mind of a packer blaming conspiracy theorist.

The average per head packer profit through the nineties for the 5 major packers was $3.88 per head.

This stupid statement by Conman is easily refuted by the fact that packer margins go in the red.

More bullsh*t from Conman the phony!



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Packers have some very smart people helping them figure out these situations where they end up being the winners no matter what the situation is."

Only in the mind of a packer blaming conspiracy theorist.

The average per head packer profit through the nineties for the 5 major packers was $3.88 per head.

This stupid statement by Conman is easily refuted by the fact that packer margins go in the red.

More bullsh*t from Conman the phony!



~SH~

So are you saying that the calculation for packer margins is incorrect or are you saying that that cattle prices follow boxed beef prices and packers are always margin producers that all market gains are automatically passed down to the producer "theory" of yours is wrong?
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



It's obvious to everyone that you keep diverting this question! Afraid to expose your ignorance on supply and demand?



~SH~
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 
Did the Atkins diet help increase demand for meat? Why did chicken consumption increase but not beef? Who is running the show?
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 
Sure!

DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 
Go answer my math question on the substitutability of chicken for beef first.
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 
SH, the answer I give you depends on the depth that you understand the issue. Obviously shallow is the answer.

Do you want a little help with the math? Maybe Agman can help you out.
 
Conman: "SH, the answer I give you depends on the depth that you understand the issue."

Diversion! It's a yes or no question!


DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 
YESNO. Everything needs to be qualified. I did it on another post.
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES "OR" NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top