Atkins?

[Anonymous]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

Here is a pretty good article on the subject. Note that the index used for calculating the model were based on the years from 1982 to 1998. Agman has been challenged to use the numbers in this index to show what happened from 2001 to 2003. Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics.

http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/bulletins_2/todays_market/Focusonbeefdemand.pdf

Is this aforementioned comment which you reference for real? "Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics." Did you not just previously say that in a monopsony there is no demand curve, it is set by the monopsonists? Boy-wonder you are really confused. You truly do not have a clue what you are talking about. You cannot confide in one statement which contradicts your previous statement. What is it that you really believe or do you even know?

So as not to confuse the readers with your phony and contradictory statements I willl point to key factors that determine demand in what I believe are consumer priorities. In order:

The price of beef
The price of beef realtive to competing meats
Consumer disposable and discretionary income
Demographics are intertwined with the previous three and affect various beef cuts differently

Food safety issues
advertising

Given the world a break from your fantasies Conman.

Agman- Are you and NCBA both in the same penthouse office building- smelling the same air and spouting the same spin...NCBA reminds me of the shyster horse trader of old- and you're avoidance of my questions and now Econ 101's is starting to give me the same impression...
You and SH demand answers to your questions and proof but you are "too good" to answer others? And instead you denigrate and slam anyone that questions you- makes me dubious of your "expertise" and any of your "expert" theories........

 

[Econ101]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

Here is a pretty good article on the subject. Note that the index used for calculating the model were based on the years from 1982 to 1998. Agman has been challenged to use the numbers in this index to show what happened from 2001 to 2003. Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics.

http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/bulletins_2/todays_market/Focusonbeefdemand.pdf

Is this aforementioned comment which you reference for real? "Real movers of demand include advertising, food safety issues and demographics." Did you not just previously say that in a monopsony there is no demand curve, it is set by the monopsonists? Boy-wonder you are really confused. You truly do not have a clue what you are talking about. You cannot confide in one statement which contradicts your previous statement. What is it that you really believe or do you even know?

So as not to confuse the readers with your phony and contradictory statements I willl point to key factors that determine demand in what I believe are consumer priorities. In order:

The price of beef
The price of beef realtive to competing meats
Consumer disposable and discretionary income
Demographics are intertwined with the previous three and affect various beef cuts differently

Food safety issues
advertising

Given the world a break from your fantasies Conman.

I like it when you quote the articles I post.

What I said about demand was that price times quantity does not equal demand except in competitive markets. With monopsonies, the price offered is what is in the monopsonist's best interest, and it does not necessarily reflect a real demand curve.

Agman:

Other economists in attndence along with Dr Schroeder were Dr Ward from Florida State, Dr Wayne Purcell, Virginia Poly-Tech and Chuck Lambert from the NCBA. Others in attendance represented all and every segment of the beef industry. It was a terrific two day exchange of ideas to bolster demand for beef.

What was the approximate date of this meeting, Agman?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away."

I am going to regress here and try to understand where your logic is coming from so.............

Explain the above statement Conman!

What do you mean any prices are set by the "monopsony" and WHICH PRICES? Cattle prices? Boxed beef prices? Retail beef prices? I assumed we were talking about retail beef prices so are we talking about "monopsonies" in the retail beef business?


Let me test your understanding of the retail beef business Conman. Tell me and the readers here who the major movers of beef are in the United States?
Here's your chance to prove your understanding of this industry.

Define "monopsony" and what it's relevance is to a discussion on supply and demand in the beef industry. I am not about to assume our definitions for any word are the same.

If we want to have a discussion on demand let's define which demand we are talking about instead of talking in generalizations as you are so prone to doing. In the case of Atkins, I would assume we are talking about consumer demand. There is also boxed beef demand which is driven by consumer demand and live cattle demand which is driven by boxed beef demand. If you want to take it to the next step, there is feeder calf and yearling demand driven by fat cattle demand. So when we are talking about demand and we jump into monopsonies, and oligopsonies and whatever other terms you choose to throw out, let's stay focused on which demand we are talking about can we?

True to form you have made some outrageous statements. Here they are WITHIN CONTEXT so you can't try backing out of what you stated by crying about being taken out of context.

Conman: "And you misuse the economic assumptions that allow price times quantity to be the measure for demand."

Explain that statement by providing examples.

What economic assumptions are YOU referring to?

Conman: "When there is absolute market power, the monopsonist sets demand."

Define "ABSOLUTE POWER".

How can you explain "ABSOLUTE POWER" when we have one major packer ONLY controlling about 30% of the packing industry, another packer controlling about 23% of the industry, and another packer controlling about 23% of the industry that are all in competition with eachother for the same cattle?

Where is this "ABSOLUTE POWER" you are talking about?

How does the "monopsonist" set demand?

Conman to Agman: "You would know that if you had any real economic education instead of being a hack just trying to get people into marketing agreements so the markets could be manipulated."

That is absolute total bullsh*t! How long is someone going to last in giving marketing advice that is counter productive to them???????

There is no way in hell you can back that stupid assed statement!

Lets get back on topic. Sorry readers but that had to be said.

Conman: "Of course packers do not control consumers as to how much beef they will buy at what price. They can control the price to a degree, which has consequences, and they can control the quantity to a degree, which has consequences. All of the consequences are based on the consumer's actions to those changes."

Wow, I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one.

How do the packers control the price that consumers are willing to pay TO A DEGREE?

How do the packers control the QUANTITY that consumers are willing to consume TO A DEGREE?


Robert Mac,

If you are still following this, tell me if you are still agreeing with Conman here.

Do you agree that prices are set by the "monopsony"?

Do you agree that packers control the price that consumers are willing to pay TO A DEGREE?

Do you agree that packers control the QUANTITY that consumers are willing to purchase TO A DEGREE?

If you are going to agree with Conman, I'd like to know what you are willing to agree with him on.

Conman: "The fact is that given market power, the packers sometimes use it."

How do they use it Conman?

Conman (to Jason): "The consequences of those actions are way beyond your understanding as this post shows. If you have questions, ask them."

Hope you don't mind if I have a few questions myself. I also hope you'll make an attempt to answer them. Generalizing statements without supporting explanations are pretty much worthless.

Conman: "The demand curve is a schedule of beef quantities consumers will purchase over a range of beef prices."

Is this range of beef prices constant or does it vary?

Conman: "What I said about demand was that price times quantity does not equal demand except in competitive markets."

Price times quantity equals RETAIL BEEF demand, period. There are no exceptions.

Conman: "With monopsonies, the price offered is what is in the monopsonist's best interest, and it does not necessarily reflect a real demand curve."

So now we are back to the demand for fat cattle. I thought we were talking about retail beef demand. This is one of your problems Conman, you can't stay on topic without regressing to your market manipulation conspiracy theories.

Once again, if we are to have a discussion on demand, we need to define what demand we are talking about. Fat cattle demand, boxed beef demand, or retail beef demand? They are all seperate entities.


One thing everyone needs to keep in mind in this discussion is that the packer is the middleman. In order to discuss this and create any degree of understanding, we have to keep that basic premise in mind.

The consumer buys numerous beef products at a certain price level. The retailer has to sell that product or smell that product. The packer has to sell boxed beef or smell boxed beef. The consumer has the power. The consumer determines the price that beef will be sold at. All money that enters or leaves this industry comes from the consumer of beef and beef by products.

If the retailer can't move product at a certain price level, he has to drop the price. If the packer can't move boxed beef at a certain price level, they have to drop the price. THEY SELL IT OR THEY SMELL IT! That is an absolute, undeniable fact with a perisable product.


Show us what you got Conman!

If you want respect, you are going to have to earn it by presenting more than empty statements and theories.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "If you want respect, you are going to have to earn it by presenting more than empty statements and theories. "

This coming from the man who KNOWS, but can't fill in the blanks.... :roll:
The very definition of hypocracy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "This coming from the man who KNOWS, but can't fill in the blanks.... The very definition of hypocracy."

Proving my point was never dependent on filling in your stupid blanks.

If you refuse to believe that 2 plants running at 35% capacity while paying their employees for a 32 hour work week is not losing more money than a plant of equal capacity to the other two with the expense of SRM removal whose profits dwindled to a confirmed loss during the period of time when the Canadian border was closed, is not proof to back my position. I DON'T CARE!

Like I said, I'll send a $500 check to anyone who can prove me wrong. I don't care if you dont' believe me. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

I'm done arguing this issue with you. There is no sense in repeating the same thing over and over.

Randy Kaiser is so lost that he questions what contributed to the reduction in cow slaughter at Boise and Pasco. Who can argue with someone who is that ignorant?

I want to hear Conman explain his bullsh*t economic theories so drop the "fill in the blanks" bullsh*t. You've made your point. You don't believe me, I know and I don't care.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't think I've made my point. You didn't halt one second in belittleing somebody over "empty statements and theories". You never will - and I'll never stop pointing it out to everybody.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "This coming from the man who KNOWS, but can't fill in the blanks.... The very definition of hypocracy."

Proving my point was never dependent on filling in your stupid blanks.

If you refuse to believe that 2 plants running at 35% capacity while paying their employees for a 32 hour work week is not losing more money than a plant of equal capacity to the other two with the expense of SRM removal whose profits dwindled to a confirmed loss during the period of time when the Canadian border was closed, is not proof to back my position. I DON'T CARE!

Like I said, I'll send a $500 check to anyone who can prove me wrong. I don't care if you dont' believe me. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

I'm done arguing this issue with you. There is no sense in repeating the same thing over and over.

Randy Kaiser is so lost that he questions what contributed to the reduction in cow slaughter at Boise and Pasco. Who can argue with someone who is that ignorant?

I want to hear Conman explain his bullsh*t economic theories so drop the "fill in the blanks" bullsh*t. You've made your point. You don't believe me, I know and I don't care.


~SH~

If they are just BS theories, SH, you must already have it all figured out. Why don't you take all the time you need and share it with the rest of us so we can all be as smart as you. Do you know the difference between an oligopsonist and a monopsonist? Tell us, SH.

 

[RobertMac]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

...I will point to key factors that determine demand in what I believe are consumer priorities. In order:

The price of beef
The price of beef relative to competing meats
Consumer disposable and discretionary income
Demographics are intertwined with the previous three and affect various beef cuts differently

Food safety issues
advertising

Cattleman, you caught me...I'm not an economist. :? I wasn't trying to give the economics' definition of demand, but you feel free to do so. I think most of us lay-people believe that the word demand means the consumer desires to buy and eat more beef. I was just trying to illustrate, with my limited knowledge, that demand doesn't necessarily mean an increase in consumers eating beef. In hind sight(where we are all a lot smarter), I wish I had taken more economic/business courses in college and would advise anyone getting into production ag to get a good back ground there...production practices are easier to manipulate if you are making money!

AGman, I want to take issue with your list(from my limited knowledge of dealing with the consumer). To me, price is irrelevant to the consumer that doesn't want to by our product. If we do what it takes to convince a portion of that consumer segment to buy beef, we would be expanding our consumer base. A drop in price would only be incentive for our present consumer base to buy more beef. Where is the greater opportunity to increase consumption? If we convince the none buyers to buy beef, wouldn't that also solidify our base? And the only place I see a decrease in retail price can come from is a reduction in the price of live cattle...a cut in the producers share!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

AS EXPECTED! NO EXPLANATIONS JUST MORE EMPTY STATEMENTS!

Explain your statements for once Conman. Prove that you can actually back your empty statements rather than your continual diverting and dancing around having to explain yourself.

How do you think you can ever rise above being seen as a complete phony with all your bullsh*t theories if you never explain them or back them with supporting facts?

Do you really think the readers here are that naive as to simply take you at your word?

BACK YOUR POSITION..............

Conman: "There is no demand curve when there is a monopsony. Any prices are set by the monopsony. In oligopsonies there are influences on the demand curve of market power that takes the assumptions attributed to perfect competition's demand curve away."

What do you mean any prices are set by the "monopsony" and WHICH PRICES? Cattle prices? Boxed beef prices? Retail beef prices? I assumed we were talking about retail beef prices so are we talking about "monopsonies" in the retail beef business?

Let me test your understanding of the retail beef business Conman. Tell me and the readers here who the major movers of beef are in the United States?

Define "monopsony" and what it's relevance is to a discussion on supply and demand in the beef industry. I am not about to assume our definitions for any word are the same.

If we want to have a discussion on demand let's define which demand we are talking about instead of talking in generalizations as you are so prone to doing. In the case of Atkins, I would assume we are talking about consumer demand. There is also boxed beef demand which is driven by consumer demand and live cattle demand which is driven by boxed beef demand. If you want to take it to the next step, there is feeder calf and yearling demand driven by fat cattle demand. So when we are talking about demand and we jump into monopsonies, and oligopsonies and whatever other terms you choose to throw out, let's stay focused on which demand we are talking about can we?

Conman: "And you misuse the economic assumptions that allow price times quantity to be the measure for demand."

Explain that statement by providing examples.

What economic assumptions are YOU referring to?

Conman: "When there is absolute market power, the monopsonist sets demand."

Define "ABSOLUTE POWER".

How can you explain "ABSOLUTE POWER" when we have one major packer ONLY controlling about 30% of the packing industry, another packer controlling about 23% of the industry, and another packer controlling about 23% of the industry that are all in competition with eachother for the same cattle?

Where is this "ABSOLUTE POWER" you are talking about?

How does the "monopsonist" set demand?

Conman: "Of course packers do not control consumers as to how much beef they will buy at what price. They can control the price to a degree, which has consequences, and they can control the quantity to a degree, which has consequences. All of the consequences are based on the consumer's actions to those changes."

How do the packers control the price that consumers are willing to pay TO A DEGREE?

How do the packers control the QUANTITY that consumers are willing to consume TO A DEGREE?

Conman: "The fact is that given market power, the packers sometimes use it."

How do they use it Conman?

Conman: "The demand curve is a schedule of beef quantities consumers will purchase over a range of beef prices."

Is this range of beef prices constant or does it vary?

Conman: "With monopsonies, the price offered is what is in the monopsonist's best interest, and it does not necessarily reflect a real demand curve."

Explain that statement.



Explain yourself for once Conman. Readers are catching on to your diversion techniques to avoid having to back your empty statements.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Explain yourself for once Conman. Readers are catching on to your diversion techniques to avoid having to back your empty statements."

Nothing stops you, does it? Being a hypocrit is something you just don't care about, do you? Just put on your blinders and get those lips flapping. Unbelievable. I hope all the readers are catching on to you - it should be very easy.

Econ, I believe the proper response to SH is, "I know I'm right and you'll never prove me wrong", or "I'll back my statements only if it is convenient to me" - that one was a classic.

You're a dandy, SH.

 

[Econ101]

I don't really agree with RobertMac's post/example of "change in demand"...he is simply showing movements along the demand curve, the price quantity relationship of demand, this all relates to elasticity of demand and whether or not the industry is better off depends on the cost of production. A "change" in demand is when there is a shift in the demand curve where the price quantity "relationship" changes such as consuming the same amount of beef when price increases....

I wonder if anyone here really understands what "demand" means, and how to verify a "change" in demand!

...I will point to key factors that determine demand in what I believe are consumer priorities. In order:

The price of beef
The price of beef relative to competing meats
Consumer disposable and discretionary income
Demographics are intertwined with the previous three and affect various beef cuts differently

Food safety issues
advertising

Cattleman, you caught me...I'm not an economist. :? I wasn't trying to give the economics' definition of demand, but you feel free to do so. I think most of us lay-people believe that the word demand means the consumer desires to buy and eat more beef. I was just trying to illustrate, with my limited knowledge, that demand doesn't necessarily mean an increase in consumers eating beef. In hind sight(where we are all a lot smarter), I wish I had taken more economic/business courses in college and would advise anyone getting into production ag to get a good back ground there...production practices are easier to manipulate if you are making money!

AGman, I want to take issue with your list(from my limited knowledge of dealing with the consumer). To me, price is irrelevant to the consumer that doesn't want to by our product. If we do what it takes to convince a portion of that consumer segment to buy beef, we would be expanding our consumer base. A drop in price would only be incentive for our present consumer base to buy more beef. Where is the greater opportunity to increase consumption? If we convince the none buyers to buy beef, wouldn't that also solidify our base? And the only place I see a decrease in retail price can come from is a reduction in the price of live cattle...a cut in the producers share!!!!

RobertMac, your example was good. Economists have their own terminology that is sometimes confused when used in the common language. I personally don't think the differences matter except in an academic sense unless someone like Agman wants to use it as an excuse for market discrimination and manipulation.

Agman wants to put everything on factor "x" (shifts in demand) and I don't want him to get away with that. It is an innocuous concept that has little way of being proven. The numbers that Schroeder came up with in his paper for substitution and other affects are all based on concepts of "everything else being held constant" which is never the case in a free market. The time period that is looked at is specific relevance to the results as a calculation that I asked Agman to preform indicates.

When you read Schroeder's paper, you will understand that all of these factors are best guestimates and that they use words like "model results indicate" and "demand models indicate". They are all just guesses as to why things happen the way they do based on known factors that influence the supply/demand equilibrium.

Agman does have specific information on what is happening in the beef industry as to prices but I would attribute that to his understanding of the data in the industry as well as the influences of captive supplies. He wants to let on like the use of captive supplies has no affect on the cash market.
He knows better than that. He also knows that captive supplies can push markets lower than their normal supply/demand equilibrium more when tight supplies are not a factor.

Tyson and the others can not control the poultry or the beef or the hog markets. They can only influence the equilibrium price of supply and demand with the use of market power. It is not an absolute. There are limitations. Even dictators have their limits.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Agman does have specific information on what is happening in the beef industry as to prices but I would attribute that to his understanding of the data in the industry as well as the influences of captive supplies. He wants to let on like the use of captive supplies has no affect on the cash market. He knows better than that. He also knows that captive supplies can push markets lower than their normal supply/demand equilibrium more when tight supplies are not a factor."

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is simply a function of supply and demand. This is especially true when you have other packers needing cattle that are not drawing from captive cattle at the same time. Until you can prove your captive supply conspiracy theory with hard evidence, all you have is empty rhetoric.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Agman does have specific information on what is happening in the beef industry as to prices but I would attribute that to his understanding of the data in the industry as well as the influences of captive supplies. He wants to let on like the use of captive supplies has no affect on the cash market. He knows better than that. He also knows that captive supplies can push markets lower than their normal supply/demand equilibrium more when tight supplies are not a factor."

Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is simply a function of supply and demand. This is especially true when you have other packers needing cattle that are not drawing from captive cattle at the same time. Until you can prove your captive supply conspiracy theory with hard evidence, all you have is empty rhetoric.



~SH~

You might have a case there, SH, if the same thing happened in calculating the formula base price, SH. Unfortunately, it was a price that was determined not by supply and demand, but by backwards pricing of the cash market.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "You might have a case there, SH, if the same thing happened in calculating the formula base price, SH. Unfortunately, it was a price that was determined not by supply and demand, but by backwards pricing of the cash market."

How do you explain those weeks where the price of the formula cattle slaughtered in a given week was higher than the cash price for cattle slaughtered in that same week?

How do you explain this fact in light of your conspiracy that formula pricing based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price is "backwards pricing of the cash market"?

You can't explain it and you won't explain it. You don't explain anything. You make empty statements with no supporting facts.

How do you explain the fact that producers WILLINGLY enter into these pricing arrangements knowing that they have the cash market and negotiated base price grid pricing options available to them?

You can't explain that either.

YOUR DOG WON'T HUNT!


~SH~

 

[Jason]

Sorry Econ but your empty assertions aren't proving anything. I still have seen no other market influence by the packers except their usual buy cattle there is demand they don't buy demand drops.

They are bound by regular business constraints. They have orders to fill, they know their costs. They don't kill 200% of their orders on speculation, as if trying to manipulate consumers.

Your example about me setting the price of my bulls is missing some key elements. How do I set a price? I don't just pull it out of my butt.

I examine the quality of my bulls, check what other breeders are getting for their bulls. I know my costs and have a set base price, but that has nothing to do with the buyers, and will not influence the buyers at all.

You are correct when you say if I price them too high I don't sell them. But what do I do with them then? They don't just disappear. And no sale doesn't pay the bills.

My base is figured on what the animals are worth for beef. A surcharge for semen testing and the garantee is added to the base for a bull. Those numbers are mine alone, not public information.

I was testing some bulls this spring when another fellow showed up and told me about the bulls he bought for 1/2 of what I was selling mine for. The price was more than those bulls would have fetched through the sale ring at a cull sale, but far less than what they would have recieved on the rail. The seller was obviously not aware of what his costs were and the value of his product. Did he manipulate the market? To an extent, but only for that buyer and himself.

Back to the packers, how do they exert market pressure other than regular buying to fill orders? They can't set the price stores will pay any more than they will set the price consumers pay. Except for the fact that a business will not keep producing long term at a loss. If the consumer base was to lower the price paid for beef to a point where there were no margins left, packers would close and people wanting beef would have to revert to buying direct.

 

[Econ101]

Sorry Econ but your empty assertions aren't proving anything. I still have seen no other market influence by the packers except their usual buy cattle there is demand they don't buy demand drops.

They are bound by regular business constraints. They have orders to fill, they know their costs. They don't kill 200% of their orders on speculation, as if trying to manipulate consumers.

Your example about me setting the price of my bulls is missing some key elements. How do I set a price? I don't just pull it out of my butt.

I examine the quality of my bulls, check what other breeders are getting for their bulls. I know my costs and have a set base price, but that has nothing to do with the buyers, and will not influence the buyers at all.

You are correct when you say if I price them too high I don't sell them. But what do I do with them then? They don't just disappear. And no sale doesn't pay the bills.

My base is figured on what the animals are worth for beef. A surcharge for semen testing and the garantee is added to the base for a bull. Those numbers are mine alone, not public information.

I was testing some bulls this spring when another fellow showed up and told me about the bulls he bought for 1/2 of what I was selling mine for. The price was more than those bulls would have fetched through the sale ring at a cull sale, but far less than what they would have recieved on the rail. The seller was obviously not aware of what his costs were and the value of his product. Did he manipulate the market? To an extent, but only for that buyer and himself.

Back to the packers, how do they exert market pressure other than regular buying to fill orders? They can't set the price stores will pay any more than they will set the price consumers pay. Except for the fact that a business will not keep producing long term at a loss. If the consumer base was to lower the price paid for beef to a point where there were no margins left, packers would close and people wanting beef would have to revert to buying direct.

Jason, you really need to do some of that studying I told you to do.

One of the things you realize is that you have competition. When market share is concentrated, the positive affects of competition on the market are not there.

The fact remains, that individually, you set the price of what you want for your bulls. In competititve markets, there is a demand curve that reflects yours and everyone else's actions. In oligopoly or oligopsonist markets, the competition factors you mention are not as great.

Go look up a monopsonist's demand and supply curves. These are known economic "theories". The equilibriums that market power can force on the market are not the highest value to society. They are the highest value to the monoposonists or oligopsonists. They still do have some market constraints, as you mentioned. Go read about consumer surplus and producer surplus if you want to argue these points. We can be civil about the discussions and I appreciate that when you are.

 

[Econ101]

SH:

How do you explain those weeks where the price of the formula cattle slaughtered in a given week was higher than the cash price for cattle slaughtered in that same week?

How do you explain this fact in light of your conspiracy that formula pricing based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price is "backwards pricing of the cash market"?

You can't explain it and you won't explain it. You don't explain anything. You make empty statements with no supporting facts.

The formula price was determined by last week's cash price, not supply and demand for that particular week that they were "bought".

Do you deny this?

Forgive me if I am wrong, SH, but on one hand you are arguing that the cash price is determined by supply and demand in the week that the cattle are bought and on the other hand you are saying that the forumula base price in the same week is set by last week's cash price which has different supply and demand characteristics. I would call that backwards pricing for formula cattle. Under that scenario, there could be no discrimination of the cash price allowed vs. the formula cattle. None. I do have the caveat here that there can be differences in the prices paid based on actual quality of the animals and that information on the offers was asked for by the plaintiffs. The defendants chose not to provide it. That was probably one of the determinants for the jury's decision.

The packers all set up nash equations that benefited them. It is a pretty simple trick. Elementary, if I do say so myself.

Do you see any inconsistencies here?

As far as your little Nash equation, let me give you an example. In memory of Rosa Parks and all that the african americans had to go through in their fight for justice, I will use an example from "Roots".

If you remember, Kunta Kinte (sp?) kept running away from his slave masters. The last time that Kunta Kinte tried to run away, his master gave him the choice of chopping down the family tree (cutting his "nuts" off) or cutting the end of his foot off. Kunta chose his foot. The slave master cut his foot off. I guess with your little squirrel brain reasoning you keep coming back to, Kunta decided his own punishment and so it was justified.

Just because the market participants were given the choice between a price that was based on a discriminated cash price that was not reflective of a weighted last week's purchases for the week and a cash price, does not mean that they "had a choice" and so there was no market power at play. It was a nash equation set up and supported by the buyers in the industry. It was evidence of collusion if they all supported that type of pricing.

 

[Anonymous]

ATTENTION READERS!

Did you happen to notice how Conman has completely avoided having to explain any of his previous statements?

He takes and answers those questions that he feels comfortable with and completely ignores answering those that would expose his phoniness.

Conman is just deceptive enough and slick enough to realize that as long as he can make statements without having to support them or explain them, he can continue to "bullsh*t" those that share his anti-corporate victim mentality and AVOID THE DEBATE.

What I wouln't give to expose your phoniness on the witness stand where you were forced to answer questions that revealed your ignorance.

Conman: "The formula price was determined by last week's cash price, not supply and demand for that particular week that they were "bought". Do you deny this?"

No, I do not deny that. So what's your point? Every producer knows how the base price is derived before agreeing to sell the cattle that way.

The "NON NEGOTIATED" formula price is determined by the weekly weighted average of the cash market the week prior to delivery.

The "NEGOTIATED" base price for grid marketing is determined as a bid the week prior to delivery. This option is no different than the cash price with the exception that it allows premiums and discounts for carcass merit.

Every feeder has both options available to them as well as the cash market FROM NUMEROUS PACKERS ABSOLUTELY NEGATING ANY CHANCE OF MARKET MANIPULATION.

You can't have market manipulation when markets are competitive which fat cattle markets are. If you don't like Tyson's bid, you get a bid from Excel. If you don't like Excel's bid, you get a bid from Swift. If you don't like Swift's bid you get a bid from Greater Omaha, etc. etc.

No feeder is forced to only sell to one packer or under only one marketing arrangement. That in itself makes the whole market manipulation conspiracy theory null and void.

The cash market is based on the supply and demand factors driven primarily by boxed beef prices and secondly to packer needs to fill slaughtering schedules.

A market cannot be manipulated with willing participants.

I don't care who you are or what you are buying. If you need a significant amount of any particular item, you are more willing to pay a higher price to begin to fill your needs than after your needs are almost filled. That is a simple supply and demand factor that is common with most business transactions. The day that dropping your price as your needs are met is considered "MARKET MANIPULATION" will be the day that like situations will also be considered "MARKET MANIPULATION".

Conman: "Forgive me if I am wrong, SH, but on one hand you are arguing that the cash price is determined by supply and demand in the week that the cattle are bought and on the other hand you are saying that the forumula base price in the same week is set by last week's cash price which has different supply and demand characteristics. I would call that backwards pricing for formula cattle."

Call it what you want, it is what it is. Every producer knows exactly what they are accepting when they sell their cattle. They sure as hell don't need some phony like you telling them how to market them.

Conman: "Under that scenario, there could be no discrimination of the cash price allowed vs. the formula cattle. None."

So what's your problem then?

Conman: "I do have the caveat here that there can be differences in the prices paid based on actual quality of the animals and that information on the offers was asked for by the plaintiffs. The defendants chose not to provide it. That was probably one of the determinants for the jury's decision."

The burden of proof does not fall on Tyson to prove their innocense. The burden of proof falls on the packer blamers to prove Tyson's guilt.

Conman: "The packers all set up nash equations that benefited them."

These marketing arrangements were agreed upon by both buyers and sellers. The packers never set anything up.

Conman: "Do you see any inconsistencies here?"

There is always inconsistencies in your stories. I have come to expect it.

Conman: "Just because the market participants were given the choice between a price that was based on a discriminated cash price that was not reflective of a weighted last week's purchases for the week and a cash price, does not mean that they "had a choice" and so there was no market power at play."

You just got done saying:

Conman: "Under that scenario, there could be no discrimination of the cash price allowed vs. the formula cattle. None."

SO HOW CAN THE CASH PRICE BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

There was no discrimination against the cash price.

What the hell do you mean by "not reflective of a weighted last week's purchases for the week". THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S REFLECTIVE OF BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE BASE PRICE IS YOU MORON!

The base price for the formula cattle delivered this week was based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price. WHERE'S THE DISCRIMINATION???

It's in your conspiring mind where it usually is.

Conman: "It was a nash equation set up and supported by the buyers in the industry."

IT WAS A MARKETING AGREEMENT AGREED UPON BY BOTH BUYER AND SELLER.

Conman : "It was evidence of collusion if they all supported that type of pricing."

Bullsh*t! With that stupid logic they would all be in collusion if they all supported the cash market OR THE "SOCIALIST" MARKETING AGENDA OF THE OCM/LMA in the captive supply reform act.


YOU GOT NOTHING!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, I don't answer all your stupid questions because they are a waste of time. If you need more attention, go get a girlfriend.

The base price for the formula cattle delivered this week was based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price. WHERE'S THE DISCRIMINATION???

If the discrimination EVER happens against the cash market, then the next week's formula price would be a discriminated basis for the formula cattle.

Sellers would then have to decide whether to go for the already discriminated formula price or go with a cash price that could be discriminated with more because of captive supply. How many times does one have to go over all this with you? Quite possibly, you should have stayed in shop class (I suspect that is the case any way). Arguing with you is a little pointless so I only do it when I want to or when I want to rile you up.

What grade did you finish in school?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, I don't answer all your stupid questions because they are a waste of time."

You don't answer my questions or explain your statements because you would expose your ignorance if you did. By diverting and making your meaningless little statements you can keep creating the illusion that you actually know what you are talking about. You only have a handful of packer blaming clones fooled and their opinion is irrelevant because they never had an original thought anyway.

Conman: "If the discrimination EVER happens against the cash market, then the next week's formula price would be a discriminated basis for the formula cattle."

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.

Your market manipulation conspiracy theory is absolutely baseless.

Conman: "Sellers would then have to decide whether to go for the already discriminated formula price or go with a cash price that could be discriminated with more because of captive supply."

Wrong again!

The cash market would not be discrimated against unless all of the packers had captive supply cattle available at the same time. That would not be the case. Regardless, it would not be market manipulation as proven in Pickett vs. ibp.

Conman: "What grade did you finish in school?

I graduated high school at the top of my class then went to vocational school for 2 years in production agriculture. Sorry, that dog won't hunt either. You just can't get anything on me can you? Sucks to be you huh?


~SH~