OCM :
"The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)"
The hell if he didn't!
What part of the following do you not comprehend?
A packer does not violate the Packers and Stockyard Act when it's conduct is undertaken "in order to have a more reliable and efficient method of obtaining a supply of cattle." IBP, Inc. v. Glickman, 187 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1999).
There is no evidence that the defendant's competitors' use of these supply arrangements violated the Act, nor is there any evidence that the use of such arrangements is per se illegal.
Who has the reading comprehension problem OCM????
The Judge found no violation of the PSA which addresses interrogatory #2 regarding anticompetitiveness.
If you disagree with Judge Strom that's one thing but don't lie about the fact that this issue was not addressed in his ruling because it was. You have the proof in front of you.
I don't care how many times you state that #2 was not overturned, Judge Strom addressed it in his ruling and you just read it.
You can't create the illusion it doesn't exist.
ONCE AGAIN,
If evidence was presented in court that ibp manipulated the cash markets with captive supplies, what was that evidence?
Why can't you present it OCM?
As fully expected, Econ. 101 diverts the question for the 20th time and presents another volley of empty statements.
Same-O Econ. 101!
Econ. 101: "Marketing agreements and "captive supplies" was never the issue."
Oh, so now you are going to try to change the Plaintiff's original allegation???
The original allegation of this case was that ibp/Tyson used "captive supplies" to manipulate the cash market. Now you claim that "captive supplies" was never the issue???
WHICH WAY IS IT?????
"Captive supplies" was damn sure the issue.
Econ. 101: "If this had been a real market where traders could arbitrage the difference between the cash market and the "captive supplies" there would be no price difference betweem the two."
I thought you just got done saying that "captive supplies" was never the issue. If that is the case, why are you concerned with the difference between the cash market and "captive supply" market????
MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!
Regardless, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS ALSO. There would be a difference between the two. There is a difference between the two all the time
Why are you even engaged in this discussion when you obviously are too ignorant about cattle marketing to even know what we are talking about?
Many of the Formula and grid cattle base prices are based on the weekly weighted average cash price from the week prior to delivery.
That is a fact. You will not be able to refute that fact.
This weeks cash market may be higher and lower than last week's cash price.
That is also a fact which you cannot refute.
That cash price is based on the boxed beef price. A typical supply and demand situation.
That is also a fact you cannot refute.
SO HOW THE HELL COULD THOSE MARKETS ALWAYS BE THE SAME?????
Talk about a slam dunk!
You are undoubtably in way over your head.
Since the cash market is continually moving in relation to the boxed beef market, there is no way in hell that last week's weekly weighted average base price for formula and grid cattle will always be the same as this weeks cash price.
How can you even suggest something so absolutely ridiculous?
Formula and grid cattle are not even "captive supply" cattle by definition because they are not owned long enough to have any impact on the market. 75% of TRUE "captive supply" cattle are forward contract cattle which are forward contracted at least 14 days prior to slaughter. Their price is based on the futures market.
TO SAY THAT THEY ARE THE SAME IS TO SAY THAT THE FUTURES MARKET IS ALWAYS THE SAME AS THE CASH MARKET.
More proof that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
The balance of "captive supply cattle" are mostly packer owned cattle which are already owned by the packers.
Do you see how ignorant you are?????
Obviously not!
Econ: "If Tyson had been interested in maximizing profits the honest way, they would have bid up the price of the cash market to equal that of the "captive supply" market."
Absolutely ridiculous.
Why would Tyson/ibp or any other major packer pay the same dollars in the cash market this week as the base price of last week's formula cattle if the boxed beef price has fallen this week???
With that statement you have removed all doubt that you don't have a clue about this issue.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE TIMES WHEN THIS WEEK'S CASH MARKET IS HIGHER THAN LAST WEEK'S BASE PRICE IN THE "CAPTIVE SUPPLY" MARKET???
How do you explain that?
I have experienced that myself should I be able to sue for "market manipulation" because they paid other feeders more money in the cash market than I received on the formula last week???
That's how stupid this whole argument really is.
I guarantee to anyone reading this that you will not even begin to address these points because you would do nothing but make a complete fool out of yourself trying.
Econ. 101: " Elasticity is not just in rubber bands. It is an economic term. Do you know what that means?"
Yes, I know what the term means. If you search the archives for "elasticity" you will see that Brad S. and I have had this same discussion although Brad understands this issue much better than you do.
Econ. 101: " All of the market participants knew how much supply was out there to go into boxed beef. It was not a big secret."
Irrelevant point. They always have a good idea how many cattle are available in the cash market. That's why USDA puts out their "cattle on feed" reports.
Econ. 101: "The problem was that Tyson tied its "captive supplies" with the cash market and then instituted a buying scheme that would make the cash market lower. This took into account the rather inelastic supply properties of the feeder cattle market and time's effect on it."
The
fact that the cash market was higher than the "captive supply" base price at certain times absolutely blows a huge hole in this
theory.
How about a $100 bet that I can provide proof that the cash market was higher than the "captive supply" market at times during the Pickett era?
Feel lucky?
Econ. 101: "All of your arguments may sound good to someone who doesn't know what is going on, but they are empty. You seem to not understand that every time you lose an argument you lose credibility. Right now you couldn't get a loan on your credit unless it was backed by a paceker."
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Talk is so cheap with you packer blamers. You are the one who doesn't have a clue what is going on.
Bet me that the cash market wasn't higher than the "captive supply" market at times during the "alleged" period of market manipulation during the Pickett era and we'll see who has credibility and who doesn't.
This is a slam dunk!
I guarantee you won't take the because you'd get hammered.
Econ. 101: "The reason there is even a question about your being able to use "captive supplies" is your abuse of them to lower the cash market prices."
Your first line in this post was that "captive supplies" was never the issue. Now you say it is the issue and YOU QUESTION MY CREDIBILITY???
You sure do insist on making a complete fool out of yourself.
You have offered absolutely no proof that "captive supplies" are USED to manipulate the cash markets. The proof that I can provide that there is times when the cash market is higher than the "captive supply" market will absolutely shatter your theory.
TAKE MY BET and we'll show everyone just how much you don't know.
Econ. 101: "The problem is that Tyson could not come up with ANY of these agreements. There was no defense!!! These agreements could have easily shown, during the time periods in question, that there was a difference between the two markets and that these differences were not a product of yield/quality between the markets. You argued that point in your opening salvo of numbered points. Tyson did not provide this evidence. Part of your argument is that since there is no proof provided by Tyson, then they can not be guilty. I covered that fallacy in another posting."
This is ridiculous. The cash market changes continually based on the boxed beef price and it moves both ways. Why would something so elementary need to be proven?
Good grief!
There is times when the cash market is lower and there is times when the cash market is higher based on the direction of boxed beef which absolutely shatters your theory of "captive supply" cattle lowering the cash price.
That is a fact you will not, I REPEAT WILL NOT refute.
Econ. 101: "Your first talking points were refuted hands down. You lost credibility. That is what obviously happened in the jury room with the 12 jurors."
Keep repeating that over and over and over.
Perhaps some of your packer blaming clones will also believe that there is not times when the cash market is higher than the captive supply base prices. LOL!
Your ignorance of this issue is almost beyond belief. You have engaged in what you think is some deep intellectual conspiracy theory that you can't even grasp the most logical fact regarding the relation between boxed beef prices and the cash cattle market and how that market moves in both directions.
What a fool you are.
Econ. 101: "Your initial numbered posting were blown awy and you can not get over it."
The arrogance of Saddam. You have been completely taken apart in this post yet claim victory. Unbeleivable.
You have failed to provide one stitch of "PROOF" (EVIDENCE) to support your market manipulation conspiracy theory.
Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. You don't know sh*t, Jack!
Observe as Econ 101 diverts any of these points and any of my questions and presents another volley of statements instead .....................
Observe.................
~SH~