Atkins?

[Econ101]

Moot point because you know that before you agree to a "NON" negotiated base price. If a feeder believes that the cash price is discrimated against due to packers already having their needs filled, they can sell to another packer or sell them in the cash market.

The people who set up frauds are the ones responsible for them, not the ones that participated in them unless they were part of the fraud. The discrimination of the cash market was all under the control of the buyers, no others.

I am glad you finished high school. What went wrong?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The people who set up frauds are the ones responsible for them, not the ones that participated in them unless they were part of the fraud."

Grid pricing with a weekly weighted average base price is not fraud when you have other marketing options.

Only an idiot like you would consider it fraud.

Conman: "The discrimination of the cash market was all under the control of the buyers, no others.'

Price discrimination by dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

Conman: "I am glad you finished high school. What went wrong?"

You mean why am I not a victim mentality advocate like you?

I learned the meaning of self reliance and also learned to despise phonies like you.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

New postPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Conman: "The people who set up frauds are the ones responsible for them, not the ones that participated in them unless they were part of the fraud."


Grid pricing with a weekly weighted average base price is not fraud when you have other marketing options.

Only an idiot like you would consider it fraud.

Was the grid pricing with a weekly weighted average base price averaging in the supply in the grid pricing or just the cash market?

If not the the cash market also, then it it was a collusive lid on the prices offered that was less than the actual market.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Was the grid pricing with a weekly weighted average base price averaging in the supply in the grid pricing or just the cash market?"

You really don't have a clue do you?

The weekly weighted average base price is a weighted average OF THE CASH MARKET ONLY the week prior to delivery.

Conman: "If not the the cash market also, then it it was a collusive lid on the prices offered that was less than the actual market."

RIDICULOUS!

If one packer doesn't pay up, the others will. You act like there is only one packer out there buying cattle.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Was the grid pricing with a weekly weighted average base price averaging in the supply in the grid pricing or just the cash market?"

You really don't have a clue do you?

The weekly weighted average base price is a weighted average OF THE CASH MARKET ONLY the week prior to delivery.

Conman: "If not the the cash market also, then it it was a collusive lid on the prices offered that was less than the actual market."

RIDICULOUS!

If one packer doesn't pay up, the others will. You act like there is only one packer out there buying cattle.



~SH~

So now you are admitting that the grid price would be lower than the over all market price for cattle during a given week if the cash market was EVER discriminated against. Sounds like the makings of fraud to me.

Keep talking about the competition in the cattle markets. The market concentration is huge. You are not going to convince anyone with a brain (including yourself) that there is not the potential for market power in the cattle business with the current cocentration of buyers.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So now you are admitting that the grid price would be lower than the over all market price for cattle during a given week if the cash market was EVER discriminated against. Sounds like the makings of fraud to me."

I thought you said it was discriminated against and now you are saying "IF" the cash market was "EVER discriminated against?

WHICH WAY IS IT CONMAN?

Is the cash market discriminated against or not? If it is, where is your proof?

Liars like you can never keep their stories straight.

If you consider "dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market" price discrimination, then yes, there is times when the grid price could be lower than it should. WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS JUST THE OPPOSITE CAN AND DOES ALSO OCCUR. You can also have a situation where the cash market is rising and your weekly weighted average cash price is higher than the cash price you were bid. Perhaps the packers should sue in that situation huh?

Dropping your price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation but rather a normal function of supply and demand practiced in virtually every barter system imagineable. I have had this discussion with other businesses not related to the cattle industry and they laugh about this market manipulation conspiracy theory. Their response is, if they think there is so much money in the packing industry, invest in the packing industry. I couldn't agree more. You know that you are taking a weekly weighted average when you agree to sell on the grid.

You continue to forget that there is not just one packer out there buying cattle.

Conman: "Keep talking about the competition in the cattle markets. The market concentration is huge. You are not going to convince anyone with a brain (including yourself) that there is not the potential for market power in the cattle business with the current cocentration of buyers."

PROVE IT!

I know, I know, you believe pickett proved it to 12 jurors that didn't understand cattle marketing blah blah blah. BRING THAT PROOF or you got nothing!

32% market share and 23% market share and 23% market share IS NOT HUGE CONCENTRATION! There is fierce competition between the three major companies to get the same cattle bought.

Market Power is AT&T and Microsoft, not Tyson with only 32% of the market share of beef. 32% isn't crap.

Studies have been done that show that Tyson would have to have double their market share to be able to have the kind of market influence they are accused of.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Let's see your study. Is it like the study that surmised cow farts were a major contributor to green house gases?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Let's see your study."

GO FIND IT or find a study that proves me wrong!

If you think I am going to play your stupid little game of backing every single statement that I make that you disagree with while you never support any statement you make with supporting facts, you can KMA!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I thought you said it was discriminated against and now you are saying "IF" the cash market was "EVER discriminated against?

SH, I can say both of those things at the same time and be correct. Where is the inconsistency? Here is the logic:

SH can go over the speed limit. Sometimes he does go over the speed limit.

Conclusion: SH goes over the speed limit. Sometimes SH goes over the speed limit.

You really need to finish your walk down the yellow brick road and get your brain (personally I don't believe anything will fix your problems).

If you consider "dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market" price discrimination, then yes, there is times when the grid price could be lower than it should. WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS JUST THE OPPOSITE CAN AND DOES ALSO OCCUR. You can also have a situation where the cash market is rising and your weekly weighted average cash price is higher than the cash price you were bid. Perhaps the packers should sue in that situation huh?

There is no problem with the packers dropping their prices as they secure all of the supplies they need. The problem is that the next week's offered formula price was based on a price that was not indicative of the market price. It was based only on a small part of the market, the cash market. That formula price then became a ceiling for everyone that sold into the formula market. If all of the packers used this mechanism for their formula base price, it is collusion. In this market set up, ANY discrimination of the cash market on ANY week would lead to the abuse of market power.

As far as explaining that the cash market is higher than the formula price on some weeks, good. It should be. The formula base price is not a "market" price. It is an agreed upon base price that is offered by packers. As you know, SH, the proof of the discrimination and the market manipulation in this case would be if cattle buyers for Tyson, Swift, or the others, gave lower offerings for their cash purchases than they did in their for their formula cattle for cattle delivered essentially at the same time. The plaintiffs proved that to the jury even though Tyson did not provide the discovery information on those points. The jury saw right through the defense's tactic of not admitting to this and saw the evidence the plaintiffs produced. They made their decision and all Tyson could do was work the judge who had little understanding of the economic merits of the case of market manipulation.

Agman already posted the fact that Judge Strom said that the decision of sellers to sell to the formula was their decision, and therefore not "captive supplies". This shows his complete ignorance of the fraud of market manipulation that was being played out.

Sure we have high cattle prices now because of this fraud being repeated over and over again to the tune of 2.something billion dollars. It shrank the supply of cattle in the U.S. over the cattle cycle over what it would otherwise have been. When you take 2 billion dollars worth of money out of a business, it wll have affects on the suppliers who are losing that much money. It shrinks the supply. Now we have the consumers paying the price in higher beef, pork, and chicken prices. Not taking into account the producer surplus has that effect.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The problem is that the next week's offered formula price was based on a price that was not indicative of the market price."

If that was the case, feeders would not use it. They know a hell of a lot more about cattle marketing alternatives than a conspiracy theorist like you.

Conman: "If all of the packers used this mechanism for their formula base price, it is collusion."

"IF"?????

Either they are or they aren't. If they are, let's discuss it. If they're not, it's a moot point. WHICH WAY IS IT??????

Conman: "In this market set up, ANY discrimination of the cash market on ANY week would lead to the abuse of market power."

That's bullsh*t! There is 5 major packers all competing for the same cattle.

Conman: "The formula base price is not a "market" price. It is an agreed upon base price that is offered by packers."

It is an agreed upon price that is accepted by producers who have numerous marketing alternatives available to them. They sure as hell don't need you to tell them how they need to be marketing cattle.

Conman: "As you know, SH, the proof of the discrimination and the market manipulation in this case would be if cattle buyers for Tyson, Swift, or the others, gave lower offerings for their cash purchases than they did in their for their formula cattle for cattle delivered essentially at the same time."

Wrong!

The formula and cash cattle slaughtered within a given week are priced on seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors.

Conman: "The plaintiffs proved that to the jury even though Tyson did not provide the discovery information on those points. The jury saw right through the defense's tactic of not admitting to this and saw the evidence the plaintiffs produced. They made their decision and all Tyson could do was work the judge who had little understanding of the economic merits of the case of market manipulation."

The plaintiffs never proved a damn thing. They simply convinced a jury that dropping your price to reflect your needs is market manipulation. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw right through it and the plaintiffs were sent packing AGAIN. The plaintiffs purposely picked Alabama hoping for an anti-corporate jury. Had they tried this case in the cattle feeding states of Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, or Iowa, where people understand cattle feeding, they would have been laughed out of the courtroom.

Conman: "Agman already posted the fact that Judge Strom said that the decision of sellers to sell to the formula was their decision, and therefore not "captive supplies". This shows his complete ignorance of the fraud of market manipulation that was being played out.'

You're the ignorant one here and only a handful of your packer blaming clones like Hayboy and Sandbag haven't got it figured out.

"Captive supplies" is defined as those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Formula cattle are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. YOU LOSE AGAIN!

Conman: "Sure we have high cattle prices now because of this fraud being repeated over and over again to the tune of 2.something billion dollars. It shrank the supply of cattle in the U.S. over the cattle cycle over what it would otherwise have been."

HAHAHA!

Feeders are still selling cattle in the formula market vs. the cash market just like they always were.

IT SHRANK THE SUPPLY OF CATTLE???

You just say whatever happens to come to your little brain don't you?

Conman: "When you take 2 billion dollars worth of money out of a business, it wll have affects on the suppliers who are losing that much money. It shrinks the supply."

THERE WAS ONLY $26 DOLLARS PER HEAD MORE AVAILABLE TO PUT TYSON IN A BREAKEVEN SITUATION.

Conman: " Now we have the consumers paying the price in higher beef, pork, and chicken prices. Not taking into account the consumer surplus has that effect."

Because of cattle producers who felt they were obligated to more of Tyson's $26 per head share????

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Higher beef, pork, and chicken prices are because CONSUMERS ARE SPENDING MORE ON THESE PRODUCTS YOU IDIOT!

Oh, wait a minute, you are the one who said prices can't go up unless supplies come down. Never mind. Scratch that. Almost forgot who I was talking to.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Quote:
Conman: "As you know, SH, the proof of the discrimination and the market manipulation in this case would be if cattle buyers for Tyson, Swift, or the others, gave lower offerings for their cash purchases than they did in their for their formula cattle for cattle delivered essentially at the same time."


Wrong!

The formula and cash cattle slaughtered within a given week are priced on seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors.

There you go with your backwards pricing again, SH. You keep making a compelling case that formula cattle are captive supplies with this reasoning.

Do you want to start numbering your points again? I would be more likely to answer them if they are numbered.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "There you go with your backwards pricing again, SH."

Call it what you want Conman. What I stated is the truth.

Conman: "You keep making a compelling case that formula cattle are captive supplies with this reasoning."

Formula cattle are not captive supply cattle because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.


NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "There you go with your backwards pricing again, SH."

Call it what you want Conman. What I stated is the truth.

Conman: "You keep making a compelling case that formula cattle are captive supplies with this reasoning."

Formula cattle are not captive supply cattle because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.


NEXT!



~SH~

Let us all take SH's definition of captive supply :roll: :lol:

SH, you are just about as bad as Clinton and his definition of "is".

:lol:

 

[Murgen]

SH can go over the speed limit. Sometimes he does go over the speed limit.

Conclusion: SH goes over the speed limit. Sometimes SH goes over the speed limit.

Would SH know he's breaking the law?

If the laws allowed his speeding would he do it? He would have to weigh the risk factor. Would he drive 60, 80, 120?

Just like those producers entering into a marketing agreement, it's not against the law. So if it is a benefit to them and it's a win-win situation, then do it.

I'm sure if you checked with producers, many have made millions off what you are trying to ban ECON!

 

[Econ101]

SH can go over the speed limit. Sometimes he does go over the speed limit.

Conclusion: SH goes over the speed limit. Sometimes SH goes over the speed limit.

Would SH know he's breaking the law?

If the laws allowed his speeding would he do it? He would have to weigh the risk factor. Would he drive 60, 80, 120?

Just like those producers entering into a marketing agreement, it's not against the law. So if it is a benefit to them and it's a win-win situation, then do it.

I'm sure if you checked with producers, many have made millions off what you are trying to ban ECON!

Murgen, I am not trying to ban marketing agreements. Do you not see the distnctions I am drawing? I am not for gun control---except for those who misuse guns. I like guns and have a few. I don't mind my neighbor having guns or almost anyone else. I do not want guns to be given to armed robbers however. The problem is that the courts do not have enough economic intelligence to determine who is an armed robber and who is not.

 

[Murgen]

The problem is that the courts do not have enough economic intelligence to determine who is an armed robber and who is not.

And 12, (maybe uneducated), people, who are "downtrodden' blaming the large corporations for all their inequality, do?

I would hope that your courts have a higher intellect than the average population!

Are you saying they don't!

We have an economist running for Prime Minister up here in Canada right now, but I think you would still vote for the Liberal business man, based on your ideoligies!

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The problem is that the courts do not have enough economic intelligence to determine who is an armed robber and who is not."

The problem is conspiracy driven packer blamers like you that simply cannot accept the truth.

Conman: "Let us all take SH's definition of captive supply"

It's not my definition. It's GIPSA's definition.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "The problem is that the courts do not have enough economic intelligence to determine who is an armed robber and who is not."

The problem is conspiracy driven packer blamers like you that simply cannot accept the truth.

Conman: "Let us all take SH's definition of captive supply"

It's not my definition. It's GIPSA's definition.

NEXT!


~SH~

Show me where it is GIPSA's definition. GIPSA's economists are about as smart as you, and that aint saying much. GIPSA is a captive agency and they just hired another NCBA'r that doesn't know squat about what has been going on in this industry. As recent as last Wednesday he has been quoted as saying that he is still waiting for someone to tell him what to do and that he hadn't heard about the London case or the Pickett case. This is just another one of the obvious frauds that the Secretary of Agriculture is playing on the American farmer/rancher. Musical chairs with JoAnn and McBride is about all they can do over at GIPSA. They haven't the "nuts" God gave a pigeon in providing the regulatory duties the Secretary of Agriculture has allocated to them in carrying out the PSA. It is by design, as your pms friend Agman would say.

 

[Murgen]

GIPSA's economists are about as smart as you, and that aint saying much

Same college alumni as you, eh, ECON? Did they not gain the same education and training as you?

What a hypocritical/arrogant statement.

"courts are not trained in economics, GIPSA's economists are not intelligent!"

Do you trust your wife? or is that a conspiracy too?

 

[Econ101]

GIPSA's economists are about as smart as you, and that aint saying much

Same college alumni as you, eh, ECON? Did they not gain the same education and training as you?

Not all ball players in the league are the same, Murgen. Some bring balls to the game and some do not. I am not constrained as some are.