• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bob Taylor's "untested" theories of price manipula

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Very simple. Tyson used captive supply manipulations to lower the cash market and the plaintiffs proved it undoubtedly to the jury.

The Plaintiffs got paid less because of it.

Are you questioning Strom and the Appeals Court's decisions again? Or do you.................................................

Have "Gas" on the brain today?

I kept looking for a trick in the question but it wasn't there. :???:
 
~SH~ said:
What's not to comprehend?

Interrogatory (2)
"defendant's use of captive supply had an anticompetitive effect on the cash market for fed cattle"


The jury answered interrogatory (2) in the affirmative.


The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)


~SH~ said:
There was no proof of market manipulation from captive supplies from any of the major packers ANYWHERE, PERIOD.

The jury answered interragotory (2) in the affirmative.


The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)


~SH~ said:
There was no proof of market manipulation from captive supplies from any of the major packers ANYWHERE, PERIOD.

Yes there was proof.

The judge just said they needed to prove something ELSE as well---namely that there was no economic justification. He overturned THAT part, but not interrogatory (2)


The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
The judge did not overturn interrogatory (2)
 
Marketing agreements and "captive supplies" was never the issue. 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.

This might get over your head, SH, and I really did not want to use terms that you might not be familiar with, but in the short term the supply is rather inelastic. This is the economic condition that was a part of the scheme. 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.

Elasticity is not just in rubber bands. It is an economic term. Do you know what that means?

All of the market participants knew how much supply was out there to go into boxed beef. It was not a big secret. 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.

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.

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. Should society allow a convicted armed robber to have a hunting gun? That question has already been answered. Should Tyson be denied the right to have "captive supplies"? Would we let an armed robber have a gun? Question asked, question answered.

Yes, I do know the difference between grade and yield and the inverse relationship it has on the "ripe" cattle market. (Did you get all of that or do I need to go into it further?) That was the problem. I do understand that sometimes the market changes. 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.

When I was talking about quality and quantity and getting rookered I was talking about your postings, not the cattle markets. My point, since you are so dense, is that your arguments lack the quality necessary for intelligent discourse. Please try not to distort my points by abusing a quote.

Your first talking points were refuted hands down. You lost credibility. That is what obviously happened in the jury room with the 12 jurors.

You really play the part well, Hawker. If you want to discuss any one of the points, please post just that one point and we can go over it. Mixing arguments and points will obviously only confuse you and lead you astray.

I am not anti-packer. They play an important role in the beef market. I do, however, know the little games that can be played with market power, why and how they are played, and how to dissect the issues as to whether or not real supply and demand curves are meeting or whether they are being manipulated.

It isn't even that hard to understand. Compared to the games on the "Street", these could be catagorized as juvenile. To get to the truth you just have to ask the right questions.

Your initial numbered posting were blown awy and you can not get over it.

Have a nice day.
 
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~
 
~SH~ said:
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~

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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!

Excuse me, but I thought I asked you nicely not to misquote me. By taking that one sentence out of the context of the thought you have changed its meaning. That thought included the next paragraph. If there was no difference between the cash and the captive supply you might have a leg to stand on. If there was a statistical difference, then you have lost the argument. If the statistical difference was over a period of time with minor variations, you could still have a movement down and along the supply curve. A suppression of the cash price over time could lead to lower supplies and lead to higher prices. Higher prices in beef would lead to higher prices in the substitutes of beef, chicken and pork. Any extra money made in these products could be a motive for market manipulation even Tyson did not make excess money at the cattle game.

Stop misquoting and stop mixing arguments. You are like my cat, constantly trying to catch its tail but always moving away.

The ABUSE of captive supplies to supress the cash market was the question. The jury seemed to be swayed. If a person abused his privledge to own a gun by robbing a store then that does not mean all guns should be outlawed. Only his ability to use a gun should be.

Again, you are full of misquotes and misinformation.
 
~SH~

I have this theory that the Intelligence Quotient and the Arrogance Quotient (IQ vs AQ) are inversely proportional.

You continually bolster this theory.




For anyone else who cares to understand how it works. Subjective knowledge tends to displace objective knowledge.

Even a little solipsism can affect the brain.
 
Econ. 101: "Excuse me, but I thought I asked you nicely not to misquote me."

Excuse me but I didn't misquote you, I used your exact quote.

You said, "marketing agreements and captive supplies was never the issue".

Those are your exact words and I quoted your exact quote so how the hell could I misquote you? You are as deceptive as the average R-CULTer.

You're only digging yourself deeper and deeper trying to defend your ignorance. You don't know what you're even talking about so why not just bow out gracefully instead of insisting on making a bigger fool of yourself?



Econ. 101: "If there was no difference between the cash and the captive supply you might have a leg to stand on. If there was a statistical difference, then you have lost the argument."

You are out of your mind.

This weeks average cash price is derived from this weeks boxed beef price.

Last weeks average cash price, which created the base price for this weeks delivery of formula cattle, was derived from last weeks boxed beef price.

THIS WEEKS CASH PRICE COULD BE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN LAST WEEKS CASH PRICE SO THERE IS NO CORRELATION.

How the hell can you possibly claim a price difference between last weeks formula price and this weeks cash market as proof of market manipulation WHEN THERE IS NO CORRELATION?

One is last weeks price and the other is this weeks price.

You are in over your head.


Econ. 101: "A suppression of the cash price over time could lead to lower supplies and lead to higher prices. Higher prices in beef would lead to higher prices in the substitutes of beef, chicken and pork. Any extra money made in these products could be a motive for market manipulation even Tyson did not make excess money at the cattle game."

I'm growing really tired of your "might be, could be" theories.


I'm going to ask you again,

WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT THAT PROVED THAT IBP MANIPULATED MARKETS WITH CAPTIVE SUPPLY CATTLE???

You keep diverting that question over and over.

Your theories do not prove your case. Only evidence will earn a conviction.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS, NOT "THEORIES", THAT SUPPORT THE MARKET MANIPULATION ALLEGATION ????

See Econ dance, dance Econ dance!


~SH~
 
Is this how you expect to win arguments? If I cut and pasted like you do I could use exact quotes to say that you are an idiot. I like to use reasonable arguments to do this however.

Is this the basis you used to say someone else committed perjury? Your credibility is really low now. Please do not misquote me again.
 
Is this how you expect to win arguments? If I cut and pasted like you do I could use exact quotes to say that you are an idiot. I like to use reasonable arguments to do this, however.

Is this the basis you used to say someone else committed perjury? Your credibility is really low now. Please do not misquote me again.
 
Econ. 101 DIVERTS THE QUESTIONS AGAIN!

WHODA THOUGHT????? HAHAHA!


Some things never change!

If you can't answer the question, make a statement! Typical politician.


If you are too much of a coward to enter the debate by addressing the questions I have posed, go seek solace in your packer blaming support groups and quit wasting my time. If you disagree with me, they will agree with you whether your arguments make sense or not. All you have to do is cuss packers and your fellow packer blaming brethren will be bowing their turbins at your feet.



~SH~
 
I do not blame all packers for everything, although I know that is what you want to peg on me.

The jury heard the evidence of market manipulation and in order to overturn the verdict, the judge had to have real reasons. I saw none in his brief.

The appellate court showed how ignorant they were of the issues by their brief. You show it in your answers and name calling.

Please do not misquote me or ask me to dance with you as do not have an interest in either being done.

Hawker.
 
How are you enjoying the SH river dance Hawker.
If you don't agree with him you're a packer blamer.
If you say that he seems to have no purpose in life but to defend the packers, you're a packer blamer.
If you talk about big picture issues, you're a diversionary packer blamer.

I guess everything that goes on in the industry at the mutinational packer level is accidental. Accidental ownership at the right time, accidental support or rejection of USDA guidelines by their accidentally placed associates.

Packers are not the scurge of the earth, but they are certainly taking full advantage of rules that they helped put in place.

The Canadian situation is so typical of full and unethical advantage taken by Cargill and Tyson.............. But that would be a packer blamer statement.

Watch SH paste a point or two out of these comments and make me out to be an Rcalf supporter, a blamer, and a useless waste of space on this earth.
 
rkaiser said:
How are you enjoying the SH river dance Hawker.
If you don't agree with him you're a packer blamer.
If you say that he seems to have no purpose in life but to defend the packers, you're a packer blamer.
If you talk about big picture issues, you're a diversionary packer blamer.

I guess everything that goes on in the industry at the mutinational packer level is accidental. Accidental ownership at the right time, accidental support or rejection of USDA guidelines by their accidentally placed associates.

Packers are not the scurge of the earth, but they are certainly taking full advantage of rules that they helped put in place.

The Canadian situation is so typical of full and unethical advantage taken by Cargill and Tyson.............. But that would be a packer blamer statement.

Watch SH paste a point or two out of these comments and make me out to be an Rcalf supporter, a blamer, and a useless waste of space on this earth.

I agree with you 100%. You northern ranchers are under the same squeeze plays as the rest of the cattle ranchers. To them their suppliers are a lemon to be squeezed.

By the way, I am calling SH the name Hawker. Read the post I put in "Pickett: A Riddle Inside an Enigma by Paul Harvey" and you will understand why. I will start saying "You Hawker, you."
 
SH is simply a victim of himself. For some reason, he feels the need to take the contradictory opinion which he will defend to the end, facts be damned. If there are five people in a room that say "blue" he will say "red". If everybody says "East", he will say "West". He has dug himself into a deep hole with this creation of ~SH~, the patron saint of the large packers, USDA, and NCBA. He can't get away from it and now must continue the game, all the while getting mired deeper and deeper.
 
Econ. 101: " The jury heard the evidence of market manipulation and in order to overturn the verdict, the judge had to have real reasons. I saw none in his brief."

What was that evidence Econ????

If you know the jury heard the evidence then you should know what that evidence was.

WHAT WAS THAT EVIDENCE?????


Observe as Econ. 101 diverts the question YET AGAIN and makes another volley of empty statements instead .........

guarantee it...............


You have failed to bring anything to the table to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories but a bunch of empty statements, theories, conjecture, and opinions.

You have failed to correct anything I have stated with facts to the contrary.

You haven't even read the court proceedings and you're not even smart enough to realize that last weeks cash price and this weeks cash price are based on each weeks boxed beef prices.

You are not even remotely qualified to discuss this issue.


I'll tell you how brilliant the Plaintiff's key witness was. Taylor came back with damages of over $2 "BILLION. The Jury came back with damages of $1.28 "BILLION". BOTH ARE MORE THAN TYSON'S TOTAL BEEF PROFITS FOR THAT TIME PERIOD.

Neither had an explanation for how they derived the damages and they couldn't even identify the members of the class to receive those damages.

How much more proof is needed of the level of ignorance involved here?

How could anyone be so stupid as to assess damages higher than ibp's total profits for that time period?

How smart can the jury be when the judges instructions to the jury was that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies WHEN EVERYONE TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY???

Encourage the Plaintiffs to take this to the Supreme Court level Econ., they'll laugh them out of the building.


At least you have packer blaming Randy Kaiser and Sandman as your support group. Notice how neither of them had anything to bring to the table but another evaluation of me.


Sandman: " For some reason, he feels the need to take the contradictory opinion which he will defend to the end, facts be damned."

Hahaha!

What the hell would you know about facts?

You are such a joke.

What you call a "FACT" is someone's "OPINION" that supports your need to blame. You've been swept under the table so many time on so many issues that the only thing you can do is claim victory in obvious defeat.


Has anyone seen Sandman or Econ. 101 correct me on anything I have stated on this issue with facts to the contrary?

Neither have I.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT!

Packer blaming 101!



~SH~
 
The last time I checked ALL COMMODITIES were the property of the seller until SOLD! Now selling on the spot, forward contract, etc.....it is the decision of the Producer/Seller to do what he wants. Quit bitching about all this Packer Bull ****! Quite selling in a "forward contract environment"!!!
 
~SH~ said:
Has anyone seen Sandman or Econ. 101 correct me on anything I have stated on this issue with facts to the contrary?


YES
REPEATEDLY
REPEATEDLY
REPEATEDLY
REPEATEDLY
REPEATEDLY

You need to go back to the lessons of kindergarten.

Reading & Deportment
 
Ok ocm,

Show me where Econ. 101 or circle fly has brought anything to the table to contradict what I have stated on this issue.

Just because they say what you WANT TO BELIEVE does not make it fact. You guys have a real problem discerning the difference between "FACT" and "OPINION".

Like your packer blaming brethren, you want to create that "ILLUSION" of my being corrected but you can't back the smack with facts.



~SH~
 
You will always only believe what you believe SH.

And I believe that Cargill and Tyson could not find a better puppet to teach the ranchers of this continent their wonderful ways.

Fight the good fight Packer Hero. I hope you get something out of all this for yourself some day. Living a life in a super hero costume with SH on the chest is hardly enough, or is it?

Wake up SH, you're living in a dream world. :p
 

Latest posts

Top