Econ 101: "How much do they pay you SH?"
Hahaha, how completely predictable!
That should cover the "conspiring" aspect of this debate. LOL!
I rest that case.
Funny how there is no such thing as "truth", "fact", "proof", and "evidence" with a packer blaming conspiracy theorist such as yourself. If you want to believe something bad enough, then "BY GOLLY HOW YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING IS HOW IT MUST REALLY BE".
Did you catch those phone tappers yet? LOL!
Did you check the distant hills for scope reflections before you left the house? Haha!
"BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND"
Econ. 101: "Is Tyson paying based on quantity or quality?"
That would depend on the marketing conditions at that time (current or uncurrent cattle) and it would depend on their needs at the time.
Econ 101: " If on a grid pricing that includes quality they got rookered."
You don't know anything about "QUALITY" as it relates to fat cattle prices.
As I told you repeatedly, "quality" is relative to the choice/select spread at the time, the oversized carcass discounts at the time, the Y4 discounts at the time, and the affect of additional carcass weights (tonnage) on the market.
You don't even understand what I just said do you? Not surprising considering that you have an opinion on the Pickett case without even reading the court proceedings.
Ask any "CREDIBLE" feeder and they will tell you that having more choice cattle in the cash market that are overripe with a narrow choice select spread is nothing to sing praises about.
More proof of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and you.
I'll bet you didn't even know that there was a time during the Pickett era that "select" cattle were actually a premium to "choice" did you?
Figures!
Econ 101: "I do not believe you have the capability of understanding the issues based on your comments on this board. Is that what everyone warned me about before?"
Same-O, Same-O!
That would be the "DISCREDIT" D in the "4-D MO" of the typical packer blamer.
Deny, Discredit, Deceive, Divert!
First of all, you are the one who never read the court proceedings and you are the one who presents all the opinions without any facts to support them. Nobody has ever been rightfully convicted based solely on an "OPINION".
Do you honestly think for one minute that I care about what Sandman has to say about me??? He's as factually void as you are and proves it every time he posts.
Stick to the issues because your feeble discrediting attempts only impress your fellow blamers, not anyone with any intelligence.
As far as what anyone warned you about, if it wasn't stated here, it doesn't exist.
Econ 101: "You are basing your arguments on nothing."
Talk is so cheap with a packer blamer.
To the contrary it is you that cannot provide one stitch of evidence to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories. Instead, when you can't dazzle anyone with brilliance, you baffle them with bullsh*t. That's your MO!
Like every other packer blamer, you think the burden of proof falls on Tyson to prove their innocense. THAT'S WRONG! The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
Where is your proof that Tyson manipulated markets?
I keep asking and asking and asking and you keep diverting and diverting and diverting by presenting another volley of meaningless little statements.
Econ 101: "If there was any price difference of the cash market and the "captive supplies" then all your arguments are empty. You make claims that there was a difference in the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies yet the evidence presented at trial was not there. The captive supply contracts did not have the merits you claim. Empty."
Listen to you Mr. I HAVE NEVER READ THE COURT PROCEEDINGS BUT THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE.
I didn't make any claims that there was a difference between the quality and the efficiency of captive supplies. The defense made that argument but I didn't because "quality" is relative to the market conditions at that time.
You made that up assuming that I presented the same arguments the defense did. What a joke you are!
It's always only a matter of time before the lack of integrity of a packer blamer is revealed. You revealed it three times in this post alone:
1. Assuming that I was being paid.
2. Assuming that I had used the same "quality" arguments the defense had used.
3. Discrediting me without providing one stitch of evidence to support your position.
That says everything about you.
A difference in price and quality between captive supply cattle and cash cattle does not prove market manipulation either way.
Econ 101: "If you have any arguments that are worthy, please bring them on. So far I have heard nothing that can be easily refuted. Empty."
You have failed to present anything to contradict what I have stated let alone present anything that backs your market manipulation conspiracy theory.
You couldn't be any more empty handed.
The burden of proof falls on you to prove market manipulation. The plaintiffs couldn't do it and that is why they lost.
Econ 101: "cattle ranchers were railroaded and they want justice."
The packer blaming segment of cattle ranchers did not have a case to support their market manipulation conspiracy theories so now they have to save face by coming up with any cheesy excuse they can to justify yet another loss in the court room.
OCM: "You will note that he did not address ANY of the items in the first post on this thread. I'm pretty sure that's because he can't. The first post in this thread remains unrefuted. Any reasonable person can understand why Taylor's "theories" were "untested" and why it made no difference on that point."
None of the items in the first post on this thread were relevant to proving that Tyson/ibp manipulated markets with captive supply cattle.
If you want me to show you just how ridiculous Taylor's theories are, I'd be happy to oblige:
There has been much made of the so-called "untested theories" of Bob Taylor. These theories were what Taylor called the "causation mechanisms" of price manipulation.
There were six of them. They were:
1. Asymmetric information
2. Preferential deals for the "chosen ones" increases total supply thereby decreasing cash price
3. Base Price in marketing agreements is typically tied to a cash market price or an in-plant price
4. Packer control over timing of cash purchases combined with packer imposed narrow trading window
5. Exclusive arrangements preempt other buyers from accessing those cattle
6. Simple Logic: Slaughter decision by the captive feeder is made before price is discovered
When asked if he had tested each of these items Taylor truthfully said "no." In point of fact, something the jury understood, none of these points has to be proven in order to show that Tyson manipulated the price. The proof for manipulation was in the economic numerical analysis.
When a packer or a feeder buys a portion of their cattle needs through a forward contract, naturally they would bid less agressively for the balance of their needs. That is a simple supply and demand equation as opposed to being a NEWLY DISCOVERED market manipulation conspiracy theory.
Formula and grid cattle, where a base price is based on the cash or futures market, is not captive supply. Any mention of formula and grid cattle has no relevance to the issue of captive supplies affecting cattle markets because those cattle are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. There is no opportunity to manipulate markets when cattle are sold one week and delivered the next.
Besides, the base price of a formula could be higher or lower than this week's cash price defeating that argument further.
Packer control over timing of cash purchases combined with packer imposed narrow trading window ??????????
Packer purchasing of any cattle is determined by slaughtering schedule needs and boxed beef prices and boxed beef demand (orders). Always has been, always will be. The narrow pricing window is based on when the retail beef price and retail beef demand is established. Always has been, always will be. They set up next weeks slaughtering schedule when they know what their needs will be. This isn't rocket science.
Exclusive arrangements preempt other buyers from accessing those cattle ??????
WHAT?????????????
THE CAR I WANTED IS ALREADY SOLD THEREFORE THAT ACTION PREVENTED ME FROM ACCESSING THAT CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Same ridiculous logic!
I was recently told by UBC that Behr paint products will be exclusively supplied by Home Depot. Does that mean that other companies should sue Home Depot because Home Depot chose to do business with Behr exclusively?
WAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Anyone should be able to do business with whoever they want without government intervention. That's what a "FREE" enterprise system is all about.
The alternative is "socialized cattle marketing" which is exactly what the ultimate goal is with this lawsuit.
It absolutely amazes me how the conspiring mind can transform a typical supply and demand situation into a market manipulation conspiracy theory.
Absolutely amazing!
Simple Logic: Slaughter decision by the captive feeder is made before price is discovered
I'm glad that Taylor at least recognizes his logic as being "simple".
"PLEASE SAVE THESE FEEDERS FROM THEIR OWN MARKETING ARRANGEMENTS"
"FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO"
Such arrogance!
If the price was not deemed as fair at the time of the arrangement, the feeder would not sell. It's that damn simple. Futures market contracts, which compose 75% of captive supply arrangements, are based on the futures market and a price is established. Formula and grid base prices, which are not captive supply arrangements, are based on this weeks weekly weighted average for next weeks delivery. In both cases, the price has been discovered before the agreement is made.
Taylor couldn't be more wrong on that.
Taylor's theories are irrelevant anyway. What the plaintiffs needed was "PROOF" of market manipulation, not theories.
Nobody has presented any proof to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory. Not here and not in court.
You guys could not be more empty handed.
~SH~
