Canfax numbers

[Tam]

Midol might help Tam. :wink:

Another great divertion Mike but that was not what we were dicussing.

Dang Tam. We can't fight ALL the time! We gotta take a break and throw in some humor from time to time. :lol: :lol:

Now go take a couple more. :wink:

My sence of humor took a hit yesterday after I read Econs nasty little analogy so sorry if I see your attempt at humor as a distraction from the discussion. Timing is everything when it comes to humor. :wink:

Just had to add this

But then again, consider the sources of questions

Maybe this is why I don't find you funny Mike

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

If you have proof that these three investigative bodies didn't have then take it to the Mounties and see to it that they look into it.

Thats the my point, the investigative bodies were not allowed sufficient access to develop any proof. For one who posts alot about deflections and distractions, it sure seems to me that this is a solid one. Even within the report itself they mention having to use SUMMARIES. This is NOT a proper audit.

From what I read there was no evidence to prove any of the claims like yours. I would hope that if two government and one independent investigative teams saw numerous snippets of solid proof their would not have filed their FINAL REPORTS CLAIMING NO EVIDENCE . But again if you have more snippets by all means turn them over.

Thats just it Tam, you didn't read anything other than a few press releases. Please, for your own sake, the sake of the children, and the sake of our industry, go to your provincial library and get a copy of the ACTUAL study. Then talk to a financial auditor, explain the report to him and how it was derived, and get his reactions.

Rod

 

[Tam]

If you have proof that these three investigative bodies didn't have then take it to the Mounties and see to it that they look into it.

Thats the my point, the investigative bodies were not allowed sufficient access to develop any proof. For one who posts alot about deflections and distractions, it sure seems to me that this is a solid one. Even within the report itself they mention having to use SUMMARIES. This is NOT a proper audit.

From what I read there was no evidence to prove any of the claims like yours. I would hope that if two government and one independent investigative teams saw numerous snippets of solid proof their would not have filed their FINAL REPORTS CLAIMING NO EVIDENCE . But again if you have more snippets by all means turn them over.

Thats just it Tam, you didn't read anything other than a few press releases. Please, for your own sake, the sake of the children, and the sake of our industry, go to your provincial library and get a copy of the ACTUAL study. Then talk to a financial auditor, explain the report to him and how it was derived, and get his reactions.

Rod

Rod you don't have to go to the library there is a 70 page final report posted in the HOUSE OF COMMONS web site. AND a final report posted on the Competition Bureau's web site. Plus a background report plus the summaries of two independent Texas based experts that are professors at Texas A&M And AGAIN IF YOU HAVE PROOF TURN IT OVER . Oh plus the Alberta Provincial Report.

 

[Econ101]

If you have proof that these three investigative bodies didn't have then take it to the Mounties and see to it that they look into it.

Thats the my point, the investigative bodies were not allowed sufficient access to develop any proof. For one who posts alot about deflections and distractions, it sure seems to me that this is a solid one. Even within the report itself they mention having to use SUMMARIES. This is NOT a proper audit.

From what I read there was no evidence to prove any of the claims like yours. I would hope that if two government and one independent investigative teams saw numerous snippets of solid proof their would not have filed their FINAL REPORTS CLAIMING NO EVIDENCE . But again if you have more snippets by all means turn them over.

Thats just it Tam, you didn't read anything other than a few press releases. Please, for your own sake, the sake of the children, and the sake of our industry, go to your provincial library and get a copy of the ACTUAL study. Then talk to a financial auditor, explain the report to him and how it was derived, and get his reactions.

Rod

Rod you don't have to go to the library there is a 70 page final report posted in the HOUSE OF COMMONS web site. AND a final report posted on the Competition Bureau's web site. Plus a background report plus the summaries of two independent Texas based experts that are professors at Texas A&M And AGAIN IF YOU HAVE PROOF TURN IT OVER . Oh plus the Alberta Provincial Report.

Tam, who are the professors at Texas A&M?

 

[Mike]

For the Competition Bureau

Dr. Alan Love and Dr. David Bessler, professors at Texas A&M University's Department of Agricultural Economics, to obtain independent empirical analyses of industry conduct and pricing.



Summary of An Investigation of the Effects of BSE on the Canadian Cattle and Beef Markets, by Dr. Alan Love

Dr. Love uses a structural econometric model to examine how the closure of the Canadian beef and live cattle export markets may have affected observed market prices and quantities. Structural econometric analyses are conducted to assess the potential exertion of market power, the ability to profitably influence prices, by either beef retailers or packers in their input purchasing and output sales. Market conduct parameters are estimated using New Empirical Industrial Organization (NEIO) methods.1 Using structurally derived marginal conditions for profit maximization, this approach estimates departures from competitive levels of market equilibrium quantity and price.2

To determine whether the exercise of market power shifted after May 2003, two sets of market power parameters are estimated: those before May 2003 and those for May 2003 and later. The model allows the effect of any demand shift due to the market closure or any potential change in market conduct that affected prices and quantities to be isolated. Hypothesis tests are conducted to determine whether there are statistically significant differences in market power exertion between the two time periods. If significant differences in market power exertion are detected, probable pricing patterns that would have been obtained as a result of international market closures alone can be determined through model simulations where post-event market power parameters are set to their pre-event levels.3

The empirical model is intrinsically nonlinear in both variables and parameters. Therefore, estimation of the unknown parameters must proceed by using a nonlinear simultaneous equations estimator. The estimation approach selected is iterated nonlinear three-stage least squares. The results are as follows:

* Aggregate consumer demand for beef is inelastic (-0.566, p-value 0.038) with pork as a significant substitute.4
* Fed cattle supply is inelastic in both the short-run and long-run, with a short run elasticity of 0.440 (p-value of 0.000) and a long-run elasticity of 0.710 (p-value of 0.000).
* The export market provides an important substitution opportunity for fed cattle (crossprice elasticity of -0.361, p-value 0.000). This means that the export market closure for fed cattle resulted in a domestic supply shift to the right (expanded output), and thus the net effect of the border closure was a sizable shift of domestic cattle supply.

Based on the econometric supply and demand model, Dr. Love examines the observed degree of market power exertion. In this model, a coefficient estimate of zero is consistent with industry conduct that is observationally equivalent to perfect competition. At the other extreme, a coefficient estimate of one is consistent with industry conduct that is observationally equivalent to either monopoly or collusive oligopoly. The results are presented in Table 1.



Table 1: Market Power Exertion Estimates5

Coefficient t-statistic p-value
Retailer/Wholesaler Monopoly Pre-event 0.096 1.78 0.076
Post-event 0.103 1.87 0.062
Packer Monopoly Pre-event 0.054 1.51 0.131
Post-event 0.122 2.1 0.036
Packer Monopsony (Fed Cattle) Pre-event -0.034 -2.39 0.017
Post-event -0.023 -0.98 0.329
Packer Monopsony (Cull Cattle) Pre-event 0.198 2.89 0.004
Post-event 0.585 2.84 0.005

Note: The negative packer monopsony (fed cattle) estimates may be the result of data inadequacies which are discussed in Dr. Love's report.

The conclusions from the analysis are as follows:

* While there is no appreciable monopsony market power exertion by beef packers in fed cattle markets, there is significant monopsony market power exertion in cull cattle markets.6
* All market power parameter estimates are well below levels that would be consistent with collusion.
* Most likely, the post-event observed price patterns are likely the result of both shifts in demand (i.e., absence of US demand for live cattle) and changes in market power exertion. Modest market power exertion at multiple stages in the supply chain likely resulted in double-marginalization which compounds the effect on price. These results are consistent with model simulations.

It is important to note that Dr. Love's analysis relied on publically available data and, as a result, there were several quite important data availability constraints. These data caveats are identified in section 8.2 of Dr. Love's report.



1 Specifically, he finds that over 50% of the forecast uncertainty in Canadian fed (live) and feeder cattle prices, as well as consumer-level beef prices, are explained by information arising in the Chicago futures market for either feeder and/or fed cattle. Canadian Industrial (wholesale) prices do not exhibit such a strong influence from the Chicago markets.

1 Numerous recent studies have estimated market power exertion using NEIO techniques pioneered by Appelbaum (1979, 1982), Bresnahan (1982) and Lau. In his review of empirical studies of market power, Bresnahan (1989) cites numerous empirical studies utilizing NEIO models in various forms.

2 It should be noted that Courts have criticized NEIO studies on the grounds that market power parameters may be mismeasured. In particular, Courts argue that estimated conduct parameters may understate the actual degree of market power if demand shocks are not permanent. However, Courts do not appear to take full advantage of parameter restrictions that would improve econometric identification and estimation of market power parameters. Recent studies have verified the usefulness of the NEIO method for determining market power exertion.

3 The model specification extends methods developed in K. Raper, A. Love and R. Shumway (2000), "Determining Market Power Exertion Between Buyers and Sellers," 15 Journal of Applied Econometrics 225 as well as in J. Schroeter, A. Azzam and M. Zhang (2000), "Measuring Market Power in Bilateral Oligopoly," 66 Southern Economic Journal 526. The model contains supply and demand relationships for three vertically related segments of the beef supply chain: retail, packer, and feeder/cull cattle production. These links are established within an overall framework supplemented by retail demand and fed cattle and cull cow/bull supply.

4 Interestingly, the BSE event appears to have had no effect on domestic demand (the coefficient estimate on the relevant dummy variable is not statistically significant).

5 This table reproduces Tables 6 and 7 of Dr. Love's report.

6 Dr. Love notes that, while the observed decline in cull cattle prices may be due to packer exertion of market power, the decline may also be explained in part by packer disinclination to use older cattle found in the cull market after the BSE event.


*************************************************************

Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into Canadian Cattle and Beef Pricing

OTTAWA, April 29, 2005 – Consumer demand for Canadian beef has kept prices stable even though cattle prices have dropped since the onset of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada, the Competition Bureau has concluded following a thorough examination.

The Bureau began its examination in February 2004 to determine if there were agreements among beef packers to lower prices paid to cattle producers or among grocers to raise or maintain retail prices for beef. The Bureau also examined whether pricing patterns were the result of one or more dominant firms engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts that restricted competition.

"We found no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance by beef packers or grocers," said Richard Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "The Bureau will continue to examine complaints of alleged anti-competitive activity in these industries, especially within the context of the U.S. border being closed to Canadian cattle."

The Bureau found that:

* beef prices are set on a North American basis because of the reopening of the U.S. border to boneless beef exports from cattle under 30 months of age;
* cattle prices dropped because farmers are limited to selling their cattle to Canadian slaughter houses, resulting in a massive oversupply of cattle that far exceeded Canadian slaughter capacity;
* cattle prices tend to be volatile since they are normally set in auction markets;
* lower cattle prices do not necessarily lead to lower consumer prices for beef; and
* the final consumer price of beef includes a number of fixed costs such as transportation and labour, in addition to the price of cattle.

As part of its review, the Bureau contacted and analysed information from farmers and their associations, beef packers, and other players in the beef and cattle industries. The Bureau also retained an industry expert to write a comprehensive report, and commissioned economic reports.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that promotes and maintains fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality service. It oversees the application of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.
[/u]

 

[Econ101]

The information in the above report did not answer the questions asked. There was never a question in my mind that market power was exerted in Canada due to the BSE crisis. Although I did not rule out the possibilty, it was never a main point.

The assertion was that packers that had the U.S. as a market for boxed beef benefited from the increased supply in Canada due to the border closing and hence lower prices for cattle bought while their selling side did not see a corresponding drop in prices that one could be expected if packers were truly "margin producers" under SH's definition. The study by Dr. Love did not even look into this question.

Dr. Love was previously at Berkley in California and I have talked to him about some of these issues as well as the panhandle study by schroeder (sp?) that he reviewed.

One thing that we can see from this report was that for Dr. Love, the packer's books were not opened.

Tam, by quoting Dr. Love, what exactly were you trying to say? It is apparent that both your points of packers opening their books and asking the real question were not accomplished and yet you referred to Dr. Love in support of your arguments for both.

Do we have to check EVERYTHING you post? I would like to think that you just made a mistake here, but that would require that you concede the two points. Otherwise, you seem to post anything that might support your position without knowing the facts and thinking no one will check.

If you have any other relevant information that proves your point, Tam, in regards to the study that Texas A&M professors have done to support your position, would you please post it? I know the above post was made by Mike and not you so I will give you a chance to respond before making a judgement on your ability to accurately portray supporting material.

 

[Tam]

The information in the above report did not answer the questions asked. There was never a question in my mind that market power was exerted in Canada due to the BSE crisis. Although I did not rule out the possibilty, it was never a main point.

The assertion was that packers that had the U.S. as a market for boxed beef benefited from the increased supply in Canada due to the border closing and hence lower prices for cattle bought while their selling side did not see a corresponding drop in prices that one could be expected if packers were truly "margin producers" under SH's definition. The study by Dr. Love did not even look into this question.

Dr. Love was previously at Berkley in California and I have talked to him about some of these issues as well as the panhandle study by schroeder (sp?) that he reviewed.

One thing that we can see from this report was that for Dr. Love, the packer's books were not opened.

Tam, by quoting Dr. Love, what exactly were you trying to say? It is apparent that both your points of packers opening their books and asking the real question were not accomplished and yet you referred to Dr. Love in support of your arguments for both.

Do we have to check EVERYTHING you post? I would like to think that you just made a mistake here, but that would require that you concede the two points. Otherwise, you seem to post anything that might support your position without knowing the facts and thinking no one will check.

If you have any other relevant information that proves your point, Tam, in regards to the study that Texas A&M professors have done to support your position, would you please post it? I know the above post was made by Mike and not you so I will give you a chance to respond before making a judgement on your ability to accurately portray supporting material.

Econ while I think about answering your questions maybe you could clear the table of a few left unanswered yourself.

What did I do to stop Randy's deal ?
all I did was ask a few question he couldn't answer.
Did BIG C ever get their IDEA to the PLAN stage?
did they ever get a vote?
or was my asking a few direct questions enough to stop the whole IDEA in its track?
Have you and Rod found any evidence to prove your Packer Blaming claims?

Did you bother to look in the Archives to see that I have not always thought the USDA walks on water?
I just don't happen to think at all of what they have done wrong is 100% their fault they wrote the rules BUT IT WAS THE INDUSTRY THAT WAS TO COMPLY TO THEM INCLUDING THE PRODUCERS.
And all my question about R-CALF lies and not one reply from you on them. I'll highlight them for you eCON
WHAT FIREWALLS WAS LEO TALKING ABOUT?
WHERE DID THE US TEST 150,000 MORE HEAD ANNUALLY THAN CANADA?
AND IF THE US DOESN"T PROCESS DOWNERS THEN WHAT IS THIS Quote:
U.S. beef inspectors have failed to fully comply with rules banning cattle that are unable to walk to reach consumers, according to a recent government audit report. The inspector general said that at two of 12 slaughter plants reviewed in an audit, 29 non-ambulatory cattle were slaughtered over a 10-month period, and that 20 had been identified as downers that had no records of acute injury.
WHAT MAKES US BEEF SAFE WHEN ALL BEEF COMING FROM A COUNTRY AFFECTED BY BSE IS TAINTED AND UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?
Did either the USDA or the NCBA try scare consumerS away from eating beef by grandstanding with the enemy?
What do you think our COMPETITION ACT is for, you were told the Competition Bureau is an independent agency that promotes and maintains fair competiton so that all Canadians can benefit from competitives prices, product choice and quality servive. It over sees the application of the COMPETITION ACT.
So where is your proof they aren't doing their job for ALL CANADIANS?
And again why should I jump all over people I AGREE WITH?
last but certainly not least don't I do enough should I run for office and make you KING of ECONOLAND where PACKERS NEED NOT SET UP SHOP AS ALL POOR(as god knows you wouldn't allow any wealthy to live in Econoland) BEEF EATERS WILL JUST GATHER ON THE RANGE AND TAKE DOWN A COW AND EAT HER RAW.
Oh while you are at it bring the proof that proves that TYSON OFFICIALS AND THE USDA PERSONAL THAT MET THE JAPANESE DELEGATES WERE KNIFE CARRYING CROOKS THAT SOMEHOW THREATENED THEM INTO SAYING SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

 

[Econ101]

The information in the above report did not answer the questions asked. There was never a question in my mind that market power was exerted in Canada due to the BSE crisis. Although I did not rule out the possibilty, it was never a main point.

The assertion was that packers that had the U.S. as a market for boxed beef benefited from the increased supply in Canada due to the border closing and hence lower prices for cattle bought while their selling side did not see a corresponding drop in prices that one could be expected if packers were truly "margin producers" under SH's definition. The study by Dr. Love did not even look into this question.

Dr. Love was previously at Berkley in California and I have talked to him about some of these issues as well as the panhandle study by schroeder (sp?) that he reviewed.

One thing that we can see from this report was that for Dr. Love, the packer's books were not opened.

Tam, by quoting Dr. Love, what exactly were you trying to say? It is apparent that both your points of packers opening their books and asking the real question were not accomplished and yet you referred to Dr. Love in support of your arguments for both.

Do we have to check EVERYTHING you post? I would like to think that you just made a mistake here, but that would require that you concede the two points. Otherwise, you seem to post anything that might support your position without knowing the facts and thinking no one will check.

If you have any other relevant information that proves your point, Tam, in regards to the study that Texas A&M professors have done to support your position, would you please post it? I know the above post was made by Mike and not you so I will give you a chance to respond before making a judgement on your ability to accurately portray supporting material.

Econ while I think about answering your questions maybe you could clear the table of a few left unanswered yourself.

What did I do to stop Randy's deal ?
all I did was ask a few question he couldn't answer.
Did BIG C ever get their IDEA to the PLAN stage?
did they ever get a vote?
or was my asking a few direct questions enough to stop the whole IDEA in its track?
Have you and Rod found any evidence to prove your Packer Blaming claims?

Did you bother to look in the Archives to see that I have not always thought the USDA walks on water?
I just don't happen to think at all of what they have done wrong is 100% their fault they wrote the rules BUT IT WAS THE INDUSTRY THAT WAS TO COMPLY TO THEM INCLUDING THE PRODUCERS.
And all my question about R-CALF lies and not one reply from you on them. I'll highlight them for you eCON
WHAT FIREWALLS WAS LEO TALKING ABOUT?
WHERE DID THE US TEST 150,000 MORE HEAD ANNUALLY THAN CANADA?
AND IF THE US DOESN"T PROCESS DOWNERS THEN WHAT IS THIS Quote:
U.S. beef inspectors have failed to fully comply with rules banning cattle that are unable to walk to reach consumers, according to a recent government audit report. The inspector general said that at two of 12 slaughter plants reviewed in an audit, 29 non-ambulatory cattle were slaughtered over a 10-month period, and that 20 had been identified as downers that had no records of acute injury.
WHAT MAKES US BEEF SAFE WHEN ALL BEEF COMING FROM A COUNTRY AFFECTED BY BSE IS TAINTED AND UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?
Did either the USDA or the NCBA try scare consumerS away from eating beef by grandstanding with the enemy?
What do you think our COMPETITION ACT is for, you were told the Competition Bureau is an independent agency that promotes and maintains fair competiton so that all Canadians can benefit from competitives prices, product choice and quality servive. It over sees the application of the COMPETITION ACT.
So where is your proof they aren't doing their job for ALL CANADIANS?
And again why should I jump all over people I AGREE WITH?
last but certainly not least don't I do enough should I run for office and make you KING of ECONOLAND where PACKERS NEED NOT SET UP SHOP AS ALL POOR(as god knows you wouldn't allow any wealthy to live in Econoland) BEEF EATERS WILL JUST GATHER ON THE RANGE AND TAKE DOWN A COW AND EAT HER RAW.
Oh while you are at it bring the proof that proves that TYSON OFFICIALS AND THE USDA PERSONAL THAT MET THE JAPANESE DELEGATES WERE KNIFE CARRYING CROOKS THAT SOMEHOW THREATENED THEM INTO SAYING SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

Tam, I will admit that I didn't read your whole post. That is about how exhasperated I have become with you. Don't worry, I will not call you names. I have had this experience with my wife many times. We always seem to get to the same place but our paths are totally different.

Oh, wait, I read the last little bit on your post. Now I am steaming (just kidding, I am really laughing).

You can not be proven wrong because you will twist everything up so you don't have to admit it. It is posts like this that make reading what you put on this board illogical and not worth the time.

For your information, I don't know very much about R-Calf. I don't know Leo, what he has said, past or present, and I can not answer any of the questions you bring on that subject other than mere speculation. I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers. It does not bode well for the rest of the producers, either here or in Canada. BSEconomics is just that. Quarentines for health purposes are important to stop diseases from spreading. BSE has been handled ineptly. I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned? Just a question. I do not have any info on that.

I don't dislike all packers. Only ones who use their influence and money to buy politicians and gain their support in thwarting regulatory agencies set up to protect the market. Only ones who will walk all over producers to gain market share and beat out competition in illegal and immoral and unethical ways. Only ones who bring the common denominator of all other packers down with the things they get away with. Tyson's fits that bill. You might have a lot of good little packers in Canada and there might be a lot in the U.S. They are not all the same. If they are not pulling the little market tricks, they are not someone I have a "beef" against.

I would like to keep the discussions on topic if you don't mind. If you have nothing to say in my response, please don't fill a post with a lot of nonsense. It just becomes too much to wade through and we can not come up with logical solutions for producers. Maybe you should wait to say something when you have something relevant to say.

 

[Tam]

Tam, I will admit that I didn't read your whole post.

Gee you say you want to discuss the points but you don't even bother to read a reply to you personal attack on me.

That is about how exhasperated I have become with you.

isn't it more like you don't want to answer my question as they will prove something about your knowledge?

Don't worry, I will not call you names. I have had this experience with my wife many times. We always seem to get to the same place but our paths are totally different.

Do you make up sick analogies about your wife when you don't see eye to eye?

You can not be proven wrong because you will twist everything up so you don't have to admit it.

Who is twisting out of the bringing proof of his statement about Tyson Officials and USDA personel being Knife carrying crooks that threatened the Japanese so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong? and where have you proved me wrong Econ I didn't quote the Texas Experts I quoted the Competition Bureau, The House of Common Standing Committee and the Alberta Goverment. and By the way I think one of you said an auditor didn't see the packer books well it just so happens the AUDITOR GENERAL OF ALBERTA SAW THEM.

For your information, I don't know very much about R-Calf. I don't know Leo, what he has said, past or present, and I can not answer any of the questions you bring on that subject other than mere speculation.

Having to mere speculate is how you answer all questions isn't it. You claimed I bash R-CALF but yet you don't even know what they have said about the Canadian Beef industry and why alot of us in Canada hate that group, Do us all a favor stop commenting on things you know nothing about and we will not have to wade through your crap so we can come up with logical solutions for Our industry.

I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers. It does not bode well for the rest of the producers, either here or in Canada.

Did you actually go and read the transcript after SH and Agman told you to, as one time I remember something about you saying you hadn't actually read it so were you just arguing on speculation?

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Are you actually saying Tyson planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share? this is another accusation for Tysons slander suit againt you. First they are Knife carrying crooks that threaten visiting Dignitaries and Now they planned the BSE crisis :shock: :roll: You better hope those officials that met with the Japanese don't come knocking on your door. Or is that why you won't tell us who you are as you are afraid we will tell them who you are. :wink:

I would like to keep the discussions on topic if you don't mind.

I quess there is a first time for everything Econ but I doubt you can stay on topic to long as sooner or later you will have to divert to get out of bringing any prove of your outragous accusations. And talk about bringing something relevant I think proof of your accusation that Tyson and the USDA officials are knife carrying crooks is relevant so why don't you bring that the next time you post Econ or are you going to twist out of it again.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, I will admit that I didn't read your whole post.

Gee you say you want to discuss the points but you don't even bother to read a reply to you personal attack on me.

That is about how exhasperated I have become with you.

isn't it more like you don't want to answer my question as they will prove something about your knowledge?

Don't worry, I will not call you names. I have had this experience with my wife many times. We always seem to get to the same place but our paths are totally different.

Do you make up sick analogies about your wife when you don't see eye to eye?

You can not be proven wrong because you will twist everything up so you don't have to admit it.

Who is twisting out of the bringing proof of his statement about Tyson Officials and USDA personel being Knife carrying crooks that threatened the Japanese so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong? and where have you proved me wrong Econ I didn't quote the Texas Experts I quoted the Competition Bureau, The House of Common Standing Committee and the Alberta Goverment. and By the way I think one of you said an auditor didn't see the packer books well it just so happens the AUDITOR GENERAL OF ALBERTA SAW THEM.

For your information, I don't know very much about R-Calf. I don't know Leo, what he has said, past or present, and I can not answer any of the questions you bring on that subject other than mere speculation.

Having to mere speculate is how you answer all questions isn't it. You claimed I bash R-CALF but yet you don't even know what they have said about the Canadian Beef industry and why alot of us in Canada hate that group, Do us all a favor stop commenting on things you know nothing about and we will not have to wade through your crap so we can come up with logical solutions for Our industry.

I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers. It does not bode well for the rest of the producers, either here or in Canada.

Did you actually go and read the transcript after SH and Agman told you to, as one time I remember something about you saying you hadn't actually read it so were you just arguing on speculation?

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Are you actually saying Tyson planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share? this is another accusation for Tysons slander suit againt you. First they are Knife carrying crooks that threaten visiting Dignitaries and Now they planned the BSE crisis :shock: :roll: You better hope those officials that met with the Japanese don't come knocking on your door. Or is that why you won't tell us who you are as you are afraid we will tell them who you are. :wink:

I would like to keep the discussions on topic if you don't mind.

I quess there is a first time for everything Econ but I doubt you can stay on topic to long as sooner or later you will have to divert to get out of bringing any prove of your outragous accusations. And talk about bringing something relevant I think proof of your accusation that Tyson and the USDA officials are knife carrying crooks is relevant so why don't you bring that the next time you post Econ or are you going to twist out of it again.

Sorry to use your phrase, Sandhusker.

Tam, you're a Dandy.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, I will admit that I didn't read your whole post.

Gee you say you want to discuss the points but you don't even bother to read a reply to you personal attack on me.

That is about how exhasperated I have become with you.

isn't it more like you don't want to answer my question as they will prove something about your knowledge?

Econ: What question, Tam?

Don't worry, I will not call you names. I have had this experience with my wife many times. We always seem to get to the same place but our paths are totally different.

Do you make up sick analogies about your wife when you don't see eye to eye?

Econ: What is sick about it, Tam?

You can not be proven wrong because you will twist everything up so you don't have to admit it.

Who is twisting out of the bringing proof of his statement about Tyson Officials and USDA personel being Knife carrying crooks that threatened the Japanese so he doesn't have to admit he was wrong? and where have you proved me wrong Econ I didn't quote the Texas Experts I quoted the Competition Bureau, The House of Common Standing Committee and the Alberta Goverment. and By the way I think one of you said an auditor didn't see the packer books well it just so happens the AUDITOR GENERAL OF ALBERTA SAW THEM.

Econ: If they were asking the questions that Love was asked to answer, the report is virtually useless to the allegations. Go back and read my comments on that I posted on the source you pointed out, Dr. Love.

For your information, I don't know very much about R-Calf. I don't know Leo, what he has said, past or present, and I can not answer any of the questions you bring on that subject other than mere speculation.

Having to mere speculate is how you answer all questions isn't it. You claimed I bash R-CALF but yet you don't even know what they have said about the Canadian Beef industry and why alot of us in Canada hate that group, Do us all a favor stop commenting on things you know nothing about and we will not have to wade through your crap so we can come up with logical solutions for Our industry.

Econ: Obviously people who do not agree with you know nothing about you in your mind's eye. I haven't commented on R-Calf except to say that it is ONE group that hasn't seemed to want to roll over when the packers tell them something. Again, I ask, who closed the border longer, the NCBA/USDA or R-CALF?

I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers. It does not bode well for the rest of the producers, either here or in Canada.

Did you actually go and read the transcript after SH and Agman told you to, as one time I remember something about you saying you hadn't actually read it so were you just arguing on speculation?

Econ: No, I read the appellate decsions. Have you even done that?

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Are you actually saying Tyson planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share? this is another accusation for Tysons slander suit againt you. First they are Knife carrying crooks that threaten visiting Dignitaries and Now they planned the BSE crisis :shock: :roll: You better hope those officials that met with the Japanese don't come knocking on your door. Or is that why you won't tell us who you are as you are afraid we will tell them who you are. :wink:

Econ: None of my statement was incorrect. Is it slander to ask a question? On the other hand, I have proven some of your statements to be incorrect.

I would like to keep the discussions on topic if you don't mind.

I quess there is a first time for everything Econ but I doubt you can stay on topic to long as sooner or later you will have to divert to get out of bringing any prove of your outragous accusations. And talk about bringing something relevant I think proof of your accusation that Tyson and the USDA officials are knife carrying crooks is relevant so why don't you bring that the next time you post Econ or are you going to twist out of it again.[/quote]

Econ: I see you have no knowledge of poetic license. Did I actually think that Tyson has a bunch of crooks for management?---Yes. Were they going around and like Freddie Krueger chasing the Japanese around? What do you think, Tam? Were they at a plant where knives are used to cut up cattle? Yes. Is this slander? About as much as Mike C. being convicted of perjury.

What is it Tam? Why do you have a problem being called on all your little
nonsensical statements? Maybe you shouldn't make them.

 

[Anonymous]

Folks, allow me to introduce you to Conman again.........

Conman: "I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers."

Previously when Conman was asked to present proof of market manipulation, Conman responds with.......

Conman: "I have not read the court proceedings".

WHICH WAY IS IT CONMAN?????

or have you read the court proceedings since your original statement?

If you have read the court proceedings, then what is the proof of market manipulation that Pickett presented????

I think you just got caught in another of your many lies.


This thread is amazing, when Conman, Rod and Old Timer cannot find a smoking gun to support their packer profitability conspiracy theories, they drum up some conspiracy about these large corporations "cooking their books" (my term) to justify a lack of evidence to support their belief that packers profited unjustifiably.

Here's the facts of Conman, Rod and Old Timers position:

1. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF HUGE PROFITS.
2. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION
3. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MANIPULATING BOOKS TO SHOW A LACK OF PROFIT

Yet, with all this willingness to believe there is HUGE PACKER PROFITS OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING, they refuse to invest in the packing industry.

These debates come down to two distinct factions. Those who believe what the facts will support and those who need someone to blame.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Folks, allow me to introduce you to Conman again.........

Conman: "I have looked at the Pickett case and Pickett got taken by the courts and by the packers."

Previously when Conman was asked to present proof of market manipulation, Conman responds with.......

Conman: "I have not read the court proceedings".

WHICH WAY IS IT CONMAN?????

or have you read the court proceedings since your original statement?

If you have read the court proceedings, then what is the proof of market manipulation that Pickett presented????

I think you just got caught in another of your many lies.


This thread is amazing, when Conman, Rod and Old Timer cannot find a smoking gun to support their packer profitability conspiracy theories, they drum up some conspiracy about these large corporations "cooking their books" (my term) to justify a lack of evidence to support their belief that packers profited unjustifiably.

Here's the facts of Conman, Rod and Old Timers position:

1. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF HUGE PROFITS.
2. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION
3. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MANIPULATING BOOKS TO SHOW A LACK OF PROFIT

Yet, with all this willingness to believe there is HUGE PACKER PROFITS OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING, they refuse to invest in the packing industry.

These debates come down to two distinct factions. Those who believe what the facts will support and those who need someone to blame.



~SH~

SH, I have read the appellate decisions and talked to some of the members and their legal team and I know Dr. Taylor's research. I don't believe the actual transcripts are out for public dessimination but it would be good for Agman to press for that so he could post the testimony he believes is relevant to his points instead of just alluding to them all the time. The fact is that the Pickett witnesses' testimony was evidence. No, I don't have it. You had to be there to get it (unless you are like agman). Same thing with the exact details of Taylor's work. If you get the court to release it instead of keeping it under wraps, we can go into the points you keep asking to be brought out that the court is suppressing. I wouldn't mind seeing it at all. Can you get the court to release all the court data and transcripts? Until you can, stop asking everyone to give you a private showing and calling them when they don't do it. It is a dumb position.

As for your other little numbered points:

Here's the facts of Conman, Rod and Old Timers position:

1. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF HUGE PROFITS.

Econ: Not necessary to prove the case. I am sorry you keep pounding this dead fish.

2. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION

Econ: Pickett proved it in the trial. Read the above paragraph

3. THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF MANIPULATING BOOKS TO SHOW A LACK OF PROFIT

Econ: Are you talking about the Canadian "salmon run" here? I don't really understand your point. Could you elaborate?

 

[Anonymous]

Like I said, NO PROOF of nothing!

Conman says "pickett proved it, pickett proved it" but he can't bring this SUPPOSED PROOF.

He just believes it was there. LOL!

What a phony!

Pickett didn't prove sh*t and neither did you. That's why Pickett lost and that's why you are an idiot for believing they proved their case.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Until you can, stop asking everyone to give you a private showing and calling them when they don't do it. It is a dumb position."

Hahaha!

Conman knows that Pickett proved it BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROOF WAS?????

Hahaha!

Conman says that my position of demanding proof is a stupid position. LOL! What more proof does anyone need for what a phony Conman is?

As long as he can create an "ILLUSION" of proof with the Pickett jury verdict, he's foolish for presenting any proof that would get dismantled.

That's the type of "ILLUSION" bullsh*t this entire case was based on. If you can't bring proof of market manipulation, CREATE AN ILLUSION THAT IT EXISTS.

No facts to prove market manipulation, no guilty verdict!

It's that simple!

That is why Pickett lost!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Until you can, stop asking everyone to give you a private showing and calling them when they don't do it. It is a dumb position."

Hahaha!

Conman knows that Pickett proved it BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROOF WAS?????

Hahaha!

Conman says that my position of demanding proof is a stupid position. LOL! What more proof does anyone need for what a phony Conman is?

As long as he can create an "ILLUSION" of proof with the Pickett jury verdict, he's foolish for presenting any proof that would get dismantled.

That's the type of "ILLUSION" bullsh*t this entire case was based on. If you can't bring proof of market manipulation, CREATE AN ILLUSION THAT IT EXISTS.

No facts to prove market manipulation, no guilty verdict!

It's that simple!

That is why Pickett lost!


~SH~

SH, I would like to see you bring some witnesses here on this forum. Can't do it? Then you are just creating an "illusion".

Proof belongs in a court room. It was there. 12 jurors saw it. You missed it and now you want to say it wasn't provided because you did not see it.

You are real funny. Go read my post for Agman if you care to see your arguments get dismantled.

 

[Anonymous]

Obviously the proof was not provided or the plaintiffs would have won their case. The jury got it wrong and that is why it was corrected by Judge Strom and the 11th Circuit court of appeals.

You packer blamers have nothing to back your market manipulation conspiracy theories, PERIOD!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Obviously the proof was not provided or the plaintiffs would have won their case. The jury got it wrong and that is why it was corrected by Judge Strom and the 11th Circuit court of appeals.

You packer blamers have nothing to back your market manipulation conspiracy theories, PERIOD!


~SH~

They did win the case. Tyson just won the judges. How did they do that? Behind closed doors. I see the second Supreme Court case has been handed down against Tyson. When the 11th circuit gets reviewed, Tyson loses.

Who corrects the 11th circuit? The Supreme Court.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Tyson just won the judges. How did they do that? Behind closed doors."

Where is your proof of these SO CALLED behind closed door meetings you damn liar?

Non existant, that's where!

Conman: "I see the second Supreme Court case has been handed down against Tyson."

Not on the basis of market manipulation in the cattle industry to back your claim.

Conman: "When the 11th circuit gets reviewed, Tyson loses.

Who corrects the 11th circuit? The Supreme Court."

The supreme court will not even hear this phony case.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Tyson just won the judges. How did they do that? Behind closed doors."

Where is your proof of these SO CALLED behind closed door meetings you damn liar?

Non existant, that's where!

Conman: "I see the second Supreme Court case has been handed down against Tyson."

Not on the basis of market manipulation in the cattle industry to back your claim.

Conman: "When the 11th circuit gets reviewed, Tyson loses.

Who corrects the 11th circuit? The Supreme Court."

The supreme court will not even hear this phony case.


~SH~

So now you are telling the Supreme Court what they can and can't do?