• 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?

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

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~

Maybe you should ask the wizard of oz.
 
Did Atkins increase the demand for meat and including beef? Yes, of course. Now go on down and ask the wizard your questions.
 
DOES THIS MEAN DEMAND FOR BEEF DECREASED BETWEEN 2001 AND 2003 CONMAN????

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



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

YES OR NO??????

ANSWER THE QUESTION!



~SH~

Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road.
 
Keep dancing Conman!

Wouldn't want to reveal your ignorance even further by answering the question would you?

Thanks again for proving what a complete phony you are by repeatedly diverting the question.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Keep dancing Conman!

Wouldn't want to reveal your ignorance even further by answering the question would you?

Thanks again for proving what a complete phony you are by repeatedly diverting the question.


~SH~

No, SH, I just don't dance to your tune. Never have. Never will. Go demand things from the sheep in your pasture, I am not one of them.
 
You pick and chose the questions you will answer. I would love to cross examine your phony ars on the witness stand. Just yesterday you thanked me for asking a direct quetion that you felt you could answer regarding when captive supplies affect the markets. This time I asked a yes or no question that I knew would hammer your ash to the wall and you diverted it knowing it would expose your ignorance.

You fool nobody but yourself!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
You pick and chose the questions you will answer. I would love to cross examine your phony ars on the witness stand. Just yesterday you thanked me for asking a direct quetion that you felt you could answer regarding when captive supplies affect the markets. This time I asked a yes or no question that I knew would hammer your ash to the wall and you diverted it knowing it would expose your ignorance.

You fool nobody but yourself!


~SH~

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!
 
You pick and chose the questions you will answer. I would love to cross examine your phony ars on the witness stand. Just yesterday you thanked me for asking a direct quetion that you felt you could answer regarding when captive supplies affect the markets. This time I asked a yes or no question that I knew would hammer your ash to the wall and you diverted it knowing it would expose your ignorance.

You fool nobody but yourself!

SH, you never answer my questions. In addition, you make little yes or no questions that can be answered either way. Everything has to be qualified, especially around you.
 
Conman: "SH, you never answer my questions. In addition, you make little yes or no questions that can be answered either way. Everything has to be qualified, especially around you."

Your questions are usually so off based that they only make sense to you. You've been proven wrong on so many issues I'm amazed you're still around. The only thing I can think of is that your too ignorant to realize how ignorant you really are.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "SH, you never answer my questions. In addition, you make little yes or no questions that can be answered either way. Everything has to be qualified, especially around you."

Your questions are usually so off based that they only make sense to you. You've been proven wrong on so many issues I'm amazed you're still around. The only thing I can think of is that your too ignorant to realize how ignorant you really are.



~SH~

If you don't know what I am asking, you could still enroll in a remedial reading course, or you could just ask. I was thinking about you as I watched the wizard of oz with my sick girl today. I think you make a great scarecrow.

Lions, tigers and bears, Oh My, SH!!!
 
Conman: "If you don't know what I am asking, you could still enroll in a remedial reading course, or you could just ask."

You don't even know what you are asking. You make sh*t up that sounds impressive to you. You are a complete phony and you are actually proud of it.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "If you don't know what I am asking, you could still enroll in a remedial reading course, or you could just ask."

You don't even know what you are asking. You make sh*t up that sounds impressive to you. You are a complete phony and you are actually proud of it.


~SH~

I am trying to find a common language with you but it is real hard. You don't even try to understand what some one else is saying.
 
Get used to it Econo.

This Scott fellow is a little manic I'm sure. He certainly is focused on his issues. Or shall I say, his packer mentors issues.

They must just love it when they come across a mental case like SH. Treat him good in the case room, and then laugh like hell as he leaves, knowing that everything that they have pumped into his poor pathetic brain will be spewed across the land, amplified to the umpteenth degree.

Sad thing that mental illness.
 
Conman: "I am trying to find a common language with you but it is real hard. You don't even try to understand what some one else is saying."

I know a phony when I see one. You didn't know that packers didn't grade their own cattle. You didn't know what trim was? You don't understand formula pricing. You think packer buyers can accurately predict grade and yield. You think prices can't go up unless supplies go down. You continually lie about my position. You think a difference between the formula price and cash price is proof of market manipulation. You admit you have not read the Pickett court proceedings yet claim to know what was in them. You have not offered any proof of market manipulation. You cannot understand Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is different from the U.S.'s position of slaughter capacity. You thought your phone was tapped. You make up lies about "behind closed door meetings". You make claims of political buyoffs. The list of your conspiracy theories goes on and on and on. Not once have you brought any facts to support your views. You rattle on and on with "theories", "opinions", "speculation", "conjecture" and never offer anything to support those ideas. Your a total fraud! I actually pity you!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I am trying to find a common language with you but it is real hard. You don't even try to understand what some one else is saying."

I know a phony when I see one. You didn't know that packers didn't grade their own cattle. You didn't know what trim was? You don't understand formula pricing. You think packer buyers can accurately predict grade and yield. You think prices can't go up unless supplies go down. You continually lie about my position. You think a difference between the formula price and cash price is proof of market manipulation. You admit you have not read the Pickett court proceedings yet claim to know what was in them. You have not offered any proof of market manipulation. You cannot understand Canada's situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity is different from the U.S.'s position of slaughter capacity. You thought your phone was tapped. You make up lies about "behind closed door meetings". You make claims of political buyoffs. The list of your conspiracy theories goes on and on and on. Not once have you brought any facts to support your views. You rattle on and on with "theories", "opinions", "speculation", "conjecture" and never offer anything to support those ideas. Your a total fraud! I actually pity you!


~SH~

I have posted more independent data on these boards than you have, SH. You are just full of yourself. Take this topic, for example. I provided the real data by the ERS on per capital meat consumption in each category up to the year 2003 and a website to back it up.

It is you that have been factually void. On other topics I have posted GAO reports and other independent data. All you can provide is your opinion and some "gospel" truth that comes from a Tyson employee. You are such a joke. You can not do basic high school math, as Sandhusker has proven, and you don't even know the difference of economic terms like quantity demanded vs. demand curve, elasticities, bargaining power, monsopsonies, oligopsonies, and other basic economic terminology. You bring something to this board that Agman has "taught" you and you can not even apply it to prove your case.

You misrepresent what other people post because that is the only way your little squirrel brain can combat anything more complex than the 7th grade education that you didn't even complete. And you expect anyone without a brain to follow you on your journey down the yellow brick road?

I have totally dismissed your ability reason and talk about matters that are over your head, which is just about everything. You will never learn anything because you are a know it all. Your solution to freeing the cattle markets is playing ball with the packers and cheating other cattlemen. I just don't happen to think that is the best way to go and all you do is call names.

I have known a lot of people from the country and they may not have the formal education that I have, but they are able to reason on their own and think on their own. You do not have that ability. You have to ask Agman and defer to him in his efforts to secure more captive supply and play market tricks on honest farmers and ranchers that just want to produce somenthing wholesome. You are a disgrace to all of those honest people.

Most one of the things you mentioned in the above quoted paragraph are incorrect or misquoted and the others you have provided no evidence to the contrary as you say. That is the only way you can win arguments. Misquote, or attribute something to someone that they did not say. Just make it up and claim it as truth. What a fraud you are.

SH, I hope you enjoy your little juant down the yellow brick road because that is all you have.
 
HAHAHAHA!

Ahh....ok! Whatever you say Conman and Randy the packer blamer!

Well that pretty much takes care of the "illusionist" evaluations, let's get back to the debate and let the readers decides who can back their position and who can't shall we?

Talk is cheap!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Bill, go look at the below website. It has the real data, or as close as you can get to it. While this article clearly states that chicken is in the "normal range", you can clearly see this is not the case. Per capita consumption of chicken rose from 77 lbs. in 2001 to 81 lbs in 2002 and 82 lbs. in 2003. You will have to go to another table to see the 2004 numbers. Beef consumption per capita went from 66 lbs to 67.5 lbs to 64.9 lbs in the respective years of 2001 to 2003. Total meat consumption went from 194.7 lbs to 201.5lbs to 200.3 lbs in 2001-2003 respectively.

Atkins or something definitely had an effect on total meat consumption. The article only quotes per capita consumption of red meat, which is selective picking of data for the article. As you can see by the tables of meat consumption, poultry has gained per capita consumption where beef has not. Atkins was the best "independent" advertising for the meat industries in recent years. Poultry just happened to take beef. I wonder why? May be Agman can explain or checkoff supporter MRJ."


Assuming the above information is correct, does this mean demand for beef decreased between 2001 and 2003?

Think real hard before you answer that or you might get your teeth kicked in again.



~SH~

The quote SH has given and the part he high lighted doesn't give enough information to answer the question he asked. Econ knows this and that is why he doesn't answer the question. SH knows this, but is trying to get a "got ya" quote to exploit against Econ.

I'm sure most of you already knew this and quit reading this thread sometime ago. The problem is the confusion it creates with consumption and demand(AGman could be clearer in the way he uses these terms).

Beef consumption is simply the amount of beef offered for sell in the USA market. Per capita consumption is 'beef consumption' divided by the USA population.

Demand is a function of 'beef consumption' and the price that beef is sold. Demand can rise while consumption declines.
65 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $195.00
60 lbs. X $3.50/lb retail = $210.00

Demand can rise while price declines.
60 lbs. X $3.25/lb retail = $195.00
70 lbs. X $3.00/lb retail = $210.00

Important to note that it takes a greater change in consumption to make up for a smaller change in price. That means price is dominate to consumption with respect to demand. The fact that beef consumption has changed very little over the past 10-15 years means changes in demand has been price dominated. As producers of the raw product, our portion of the industry grows when consumption increases. If consumption changes are supplied with imported beef, the USA cattle sector remains the same or decreases( as in my part of the USA). If the USA cattle sector is going to grow, we have to increase consumption of USA beef by the consuming public, not just get them to pay a higher price for the same amount of beef. Getting the public to consume more beef AND pay more for it is, as AGman says, the best demand scenario. If increased consumption is going to grow the USA cattle sector, USA beef has to be differentiated from imported beef and preferred by consumers. If not, increased consumption could be made up from increased imports passed off as USA beef by packers.
Hope I haven't made this more confusing! :?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top