• 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:

Randy,

Did you have anything of relevance you wanted to add or are you just hear to give a few cheers for your fellow packer blamers?

I'm sorry if the facts and truth of these issues does not support your overwhelming desire to blame packers.

I've never seen anyone who detested the truth more than you do.


~SH~
 
SH (Hawker),

SH--
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.

As I stated before, Tyson does not have to make all its money in beef. Corporations are very good at this "we aren't making any money" game.

It is sad that Tyson would rather cause innocent ranchers real money just so they could go to the bank in the pork and chicken business subsets. And all you have to say is "Tyson couldn't have robbed all those cattlemen, they don't have all that much money on them from beef."

I have told you repeatedly that you are looking in the wrong pocket for the stolen money yet you bring up the same excuse time and again.

All you do is scream and shout on this board. Everyone has heard you. Everyone has seen how "credible" your arguments. You try to win on intimidation and volume, not quality. Must be the same on the hill. Ari Fletcher (sp?) tried to bribe the Secretary of Agriculture and when he got caught Tyson started bribing congress. Even Hillary Clinton got in on the action with her commodity trades with Tyson's general council, Blair, on the other side of the commodity trades. Can you refute that?

Do you really work in the chicken business for them? Most bullies, I have found, are chickens.

You are right, the courts should, as a matter of law, give the plaintiffs a judgement of the amount of damages calculated. If you look at the Sherman Act, that amount would be tripled. Do you see how the Sherman Act fits in here?

You Hawker, you. You are just a SH-- Hawker.
 
To be a bully, you need to beat somebody up. SH has beaten up on no one. SH seems to think that calling people blamers is a blow, over and over again. It is simply a desperate attempt by a poor pathetic soul to gain attention he obviously must lack.

Ya SH I have something to give to this board. Truth. Something you have in your poor little mind as well. Your truth is your truth, and congradulations for that. If calling me a liar and a blamer support your truth and make you feel like the (S)uper (H)ero packer defender you always wanted to grow up to be; have at er.
 
Econ. 101: "It is sad that Tyson would rather cause innocent ranchers real money just so they could go to the bank in the pork and chicken business subsets. And all you have to say is "Tyson couldn't have robbed all those cattlemen, they don't have all that much money on them from beef.""

Another statement unsupported by facts.


Econ. 101: "I have told you repeatedly that you are looking in the wrong pocket for the stolen money yet you bring up the same excuse time and again."

Another statement unsupported by facts.

You are the epitomy of "factually void".


Econ. 101: "All you do is scream and shout on this board. Everyone has heard you. Everyone has seen how "credible" your arguments. You try to win on intimidation and volume, not quality."

Typical discrediting statement to avoid having to present the facts to back your position.

Those who you can't bring anything to the table always resort to talking about the shape of the table.

No facts to support your position just meaningless discrediting statements time after time after time.

If the volume of the capital letters gets too loud for you you can always turn them down.

My credibility is rock solid until such point where you can contradict what I have stated with facts to the contrary. Up to this point you have not contradicted anything I have stated so it's understandable why you would reach the typical desperate discrediting level you have.

Same-O, Same-O for the "factually void".


Econ. 101: "Do you really work in the chicken business for them? Most bullies, I have found, are chickens."

Another discrediting statement void of supporting facts!

I am a life time cattle producer who has no bias other than truth based on factual information. Unlike you and the R-CULTers, I am not driven by packer blame or conspiracy theories. I believe the free enterprise system is self governing unless PROVEN otherwise and I believe in the "presumption of innocense".


It's always the same. Whenever I point out some packer blamers inability to back their position this is where the discussion always ends up. I swear they must send all you packer blamers to the same debate school.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT!

It's always the same!


Econ. 101: "You are right, the courts should, as a matter of law, give the plaintiffs a judgement of the amount of damages calculated. If you look at the Sherman Act, that amount would be tripled. Do you see how the Sherman Act fits in here?"

Creating an illusion again?

Tyson's is a publicly owned company. The profit information in their beef division is readily available. These profits are reported to GIPSA. Their profits were part of the court proceedings.

According to court testimony, during the Pickett era of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, ibp's per head profits were $26 per head. Take that times their slaughter figures and tell me where Taylor's or the Jury's damages fit in. It's more proof of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and their case.

Since you can't begin to explain how the Plaintiff's came up with their damage figures, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF'S COULDN'T EITHER, you make up some stupid conspiracy theory about Tyson hiding profitability information. Yet another conspiracy to cover a conspiracy.


You have presented absolutely nothing to back your position here. Not even smart enough to understand that last week's cash price is not this week's cash price. Notice you diverted that too.

Unless you can bring something relevant to the table, quit wasting my time.


The plaintiff's case was a violation of the PSA. I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that supported this claims.

I'm quite sure I'll be waiting forever.



~SH~
 
Randy,

Quit sucking your thumb.

Nobody needs your evaluation of me or my posts.

If you have something to contradict what I have stated, bring it.

You're just pissed that everyone isn't the blamer that you are.



~SH~
 
Can't post one message without the word blamer can you (S)uper (H)ero?

Is that not evaluation?

I'm not p'd SH, I actually have fun on here. Watching someone as righteous as yourself get treed by quick thinning farm boys and experienced debaters makes my day.

Keep working on what you believe to be the truth SH, someday some of it may pay off for you.
 
~SH~ said:
Econ. 101: "It is sad that Tyson would rather cause innocent ranchers real money just so they could go to the bank in the pork and chicken business subsets. And all you have to say is "Tyson couldn't have robbed all those cattlemen, they don't have all that much money on them from beef.""

Another statement unsupported by facts.


Econ. 101: "I have told you repeatedly that you are looking in the wrong pocket for the stolen money yet you bring up the same excuse time and again."

Another statement unsupported by facts.

You are the epitomy of "factually void".


Econ. 101: "All you do is scream and shout on this board. Everyone has heard you. Everyone has seen how "credible" your arguments. You try to win on intimidation and volume, not quality."

Typical discrediting statement to avoid having to present the facts to back your position.

Those who you can't bring anything to the table always resort to talking about the shape of the table.

No facts to support your position just meaningless discrediting statements time after time after time.

If the volume of the capital letters gets too loud for you you can always turn them down.

My credibility is rock solid until such point where you can contradict what I have stated with facts to the contrary. Up to this point you have not contradicted anything I have stated so it's understandable why you would reach the typical desperate discrediting level you have.

Same-O, Same-O for the "factually void".


Econ. 101: "Do you really work in the chicken business for them? Most bullies, I have found, are chickens."

Another discrediting statement void of supporting facts!

I am a life time cattle producer who has no bias other than truth based on factual information. Unlike you and the R-CULTers, I am not driven by packer blame or conspiracy theories. I believe the free enterprise system is self governing unless PROVEN otherwise and I believe in the "presumption of innocense".


It's always the same. Whenever I point out some packer blamers inability to back their position this is where the discussion always ends up. I swear they must send all you packer blamers to the same debate school.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT!

It's always the same!


Econ. 101: "You are right, the courts should, as a matter of law, give the plaintiffs a judgement of the amount of damages calculated. If you look at the Sherman Act, that amount would be tripled. Do you see how the Sherman Act fits in here?"

Creating an illusion again?

Tyson's is a publicly owned company. The profit information in their beef division is readily available. These profits are reported to GIPSA. Their profits were part of the court proceedings.

According to court testimony, during the Pickett era of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, ibp's per head profits were $26 per head. Take that times their slaughter figures and tell me where Taylor's or the Jury's damages fit in. It's more proof of the ignorance of the plaintiffs and their case.

Since you can't begin to explain how the Plaintiff's came up with their damage figures, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF'S COULDN'T EITHER, you make up some stupid conspiracy theory about Tyson hiding profitability information. Yet another conspiracy to cover a conspiracy.


You have presented absolutely nothing to back your position here. Not even smart enough to understand that last week's cash price is not this week's cash price. Notice you diverted that too.

Unless you can bring something relevant to the table, quit wasting my time.


The plaintiff's case was a violation of the PSA. I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that supported this claims.

I'm quite sure I'll be waiting forever.



~SH~

A robber has two bank accounts and he puts the money he steals in one of them. Is it a defense to say "Look at the one small bank account. There is no money in it. He must not be the bank robber!"

Your packer friends either tricked Judge Strom and the appellate court with this logic or paid them off. Simple as that. You have weak arguments.

Quantity does not substitue for quality.

You SH-- Hawker.
 
Randy: "Keep working on what you believe to be the truth SH, someday some of it may pay off for you."

I'm not like you Randy. My views are not based on WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE like your's are, my views are based on facts. Facts which you cannot disprove. Your opinions are based on what you want to believe, not on what the facts will support.


Econ. 101: "A robber has two bank accounts and he puts the money he steals in one of them. Is it a defense to say "Look at the one small bank account. There is no money in it. He must not be the bank robber!"

More "OPINION" based on "THEORY" rather than fact.

Using that stupid logic, Tyson would be hiding money from their investors. I'll bet investors will just throw money at a company that cannot prove it's profits. How can anyone be so dense?


Econ. 101: "Your packer friends either tricked Judge Strom and the appellate court with this logic or paid them off. Simple as that."

Yet another "CONSPIRACY THEORY" unsupported by fact.

And the beat goes on......and the beat goes on........



~SH~
 
The beat goes on is right.

Your facts are good for you SH, so keep em. We have all taken you down on this board with our own FACTS, and you will never in a million lifetimes admit to it.

Facts facts facts. You are so full of them SH, you should be leading the free world by now. I bet GW thinks he has all the facts too.

Argue at will SH, to that I credit you for being the champion. But to say that evertything you say is a fact is amazing and grandiose.

Ownership of cattle by Cargill and Tyson does not affect price in any way? Give your packer loving head a shake boy.

Tyson and Cargill simply tried to help the Canadian situation by killing more cattle in their plants in Canada? Sorry to bring up the past again SH, but these two points and more show your complete lack of understanding due to your Packer Defender view.
 
Randy: "We have all taken you down on this board with our own FACTS, and you will never in a million lifetimes admit to it."

Talk is so cheap!

PROVE IT!


Randy: "Ownership of cattle by Cargill and Tyson does not affect price in any way?"

It can affect price both ways. If Tyson buys your feeder calves, they may pay more or less than the market bears. If they pay too much, they would have been better off buying them as fats later. If they don't pay enough, some other feeder will pay more.

Ownership of fat cattle by Tyson and Cargill (8% of the total in the U.S.) will have more positive impact on the fat cattle market than negative because they fill slaughtering schedule voids with these cattle making their plants more efficient. More efficient plants pay more for cattle than less efficient plants which is precisely why Tyson and Cargill replaced the less efficient plants before them. Their profit margins are much tighter.

I'd love to hear you make a case for a less efficient company paying more for cattle than a more efficient company if their boxed beef markets are equal.

You are already in over your head.

I'm still waiting for my first packer blamer to stand up in the sale barn and declare, "I DONT WANT ANY PACKAH BIDDING ON MY FEEDER CALVES".


You're so smart that you are ready to give R-CULT a pass for lying about the safety of your beef because they were simply looking after their market while you blame the packers for taking advantage of the situation that R-CULT prolonged of Canada having more cattle than slaughter capacity. Some wizard you are.


Randy: "Tyson and Cargill simply tried to help the Canadian situation by killing more cattle in their plants in Canada?"

This was not my statement, it was Agmans. You can't even keep that straight. Regardless, Agman's statement was taken out of context by you in your haste to "BWAME DA PACKAH".

Agman didn't say that Cargill and Tyson's primary motive to increase their kills was to help Canadian producers. He simply stated the fact that Tyson and Cargill increasing their kills DID HELP THE CANADIAN PRODUCER.

I doubt you understood so let me try it again. Tyson's and Cargill's motive for increasing slaughter in Canada does not change the fact that it helped the Canadian producer over normal slaughtering schedules nor doe it change the fact that Tyson and Cargill had a clear pricing advantage in Canada due to more cattle than slaughter capacity.

In other words, had Tyson and Cargill not increased their slaughter capacity, your fat cattle prices would have been lower for longer.

Does that mean you should be happy about the prices the packers paid you. Of course not. I'd be pissed too but there still is nothing you can do about it short of owning your own packing company when you don't have access to the U.S. markets thanks to R-CULT's desire to add a little to the cattle prices of many U.S. producers at a great cost to fewer Canadian producers.

Do you suppose your markets would have been better off with Cargill and Tyson running at normal capacity?


Now let me remind me of your twisted views.

You were the one who had presented the ridiculous notion that Tyson and Cargill wanted the border to remain closed AFTER THEY FILED A AMICUS BRIEF TO THE CONTRARY AND FILED SUIT TO ALLOW IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN SLAUGHTER COWS.

You are the one that can't figure out that Cargill and Tyson have plants in the NW U.S. that can no longer function due to a lack of Canadian cattle. It's not like the U.S. corn belt / cattle feeding states are going to ship slaughter cattle to Idaho and Washington with fuel prices like they are to fill their slaughter schedule voids created by a lack of Canadian cattle. Do you think that was profitable for Cargill and Tyson??

Do you think NW U.S. feeders were happy about shipping fat cattle to the U.S. corn belt due to R-CULT's narrow minded actions?

Tyson and Cargill did not want the Canadian border to stay closed and I have presented their position as well as their argument that proves you wrong. Now who can't admit it?


You can talk your cheap talk Randy but until you can present facts that disprove anything I have stated here, you can keep sucking on your packer blaming pacifier.


You are welcome to take anything I have stated here and present facts to the contrary but you won't. You'll make more statements instead just like you always do.



~SH~
 
Keep talking SH. Soon I will have to do no more posts. You will prove my case for me.
 
Kindergarten Economics: "Keep talking SH. Soon I will have to do no more posts. You will prove my case for me."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

As fully expected from the "factually void" you find your comfort zone in creating the illusion that I am wrong rather than challenging anything I have stated with facts to the contrary and proving me wrong.

Same-O Same-O!

When you think you can dispute anything I have stated with facts to the contrary, step up to the plate and BRING IT.

You won't because you can't which is precisely why you stick to your unsupported "opinions", unsupported "theories", and meaningless little statements.

Perhaps you'd like to explain again how the difference between this week's cash price and last week's weighted average cash price is proof of market manipulation. Hahaha! That's a classic.

How can anything be more elementary than the relation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices?



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten Economics: "Keep talking SH. Soon I will have to do no more posts. You will prove my case for me."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

As fully expected from the "factually void" you find your comfort zone in creating the illusion that I am wrong rather than challenging anything I have stated with facts to the contrary and proving me wrong.

Same-O Same-O!

When you think you can dispute anything I have stated with facts to the contrary, step up to the plate and BRING IT.

You won't because you can't which is precisely why you stick to your unsupported "opinions", unsupported "theories", and meaningless little statements.

Perhaps you'd like to explain again how the difference between this week's cash price and last week's weighted average cash price is proof of market manipulation. Hahaha! That's a classic.

How can anything be more elementary than the relation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices?



~SH~

And your reasons are unreasonable. Your examples non sequitors. You are the king of the diverticuli.
 

Latest posts

Top