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

Cargill's latest announcement

Econ101

Well-known member
Sandhusker, Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. I wouldn't hold your breath on an adequate answer from agman.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Sandhusker, Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. I wouldn't hold your breath on an adequate answer from agman.

I really don't need an answer from Agman. If somebody tells you that Cargill is in Brazil to serve the local market, that's somebody who I don't want information from.

I suppose they're in Canada for the same thing. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Sandhusker said:
They're going into a country that will soon be the world's leading exporter so they can serve the local and regional markets? I suppose their soybean operations are there for the local markets, too? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Agman has gone off the deep end.

If I have gone off the deep end then show all of us how much product produced by Cargill abroad enters the U.S. versus that which is sold in the local and regional markets. Facts only need be presented. Your stream of phony and misleading comments won't get you by.

Is this another one of phony tactics that induced the topic "Which Pocket did they get the money from, agman?"

If Cargill does displace local products with that particular plant, does it matter if their other operations then send their product overseas? In that case you would be technically correct that their new plant did produce for local and regional markets, but on the overall picture of more being produced and more finding its way to the global markets would be correct also. Your statement, however, would be misleading to the reality.

Which pocket did they get the money from, agman?

Deep indeed.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "Tell me what you know actually about Cargill's bean business in Brazil. Much of the investment in Brazil is being made by many very large Brazilian producers. Some of the largest producers have over 500,000 acres under row crop cultivation"

I knew that, although that little tidbit has nothing to do with Cargill's marketing stratety.

Agman, "Current estimates have Brazilian bean production at 56.5 MMT versus 84 MMT in the U.S. Brazilian exports are estimated at 25.99 MMT or 45% of their production while U.S exports are estimated at 24.49 MMT or 29% of U.S production. It appears both countries retain more of their production then they export. BTW, China imports 51% of total world bean imports."

You're just prooving my point, Agman. Brazil exports nearly half of their production already and they are still ramping up. They are claiming they want to feed the world, that shows they plan on continueing to increase production. Anybody down there has got to be concentrating on exports. Heck, they're telling us exactly that!

Agman, "Perhaps you have done your own studies regarding why corporations relocate their manufacturing facilities and where that production gets distributed. I am certain the Fed economists would like to be enlightened by the results of your extensive survey and analysis conducted from Valentine NE. The next time I meet with them, which will likely be in December, I will be certain to discuss your observations and conclusions with them. In fact, I will make a request that it have a high priority on their agenda. See, I am looking out for you Sandhusker."

Fine, Agman, you just do that. Here we have you and the fed saying "Businesses relocate to serve the local markets" and we have Carlos Brazilia saying, "We're going to feed the world"(EXPORTS) and Cargill expanding in that environment. I believe Carlos.

You like to tout your connections with the government like you've got the inside track on information, but I seem to remember you bring unaware that Japan was asking for tested beef. That's kind of a big one. I'd say your contacts "aint' much" or they're BSing you just like the rest of us. The difference between you and me is that I don't believe everything the government tells me.

In your haste to claim I made your point as a banker what is it that you don't understand about 45% exports versus 55% internal use. Of that 45% which Brazil exports exactly how much is exported to the U.S. Is that not what you fear and claim? Please make your post for all to see. Why did you refuse to comment about the data I supplied on corn. Why does Cargill not exploit that? How much of Brazil's corn exports are shipped to the U.S. ? Dance time is over.

The latter questions will sink you in quick-sand and prove how phony your claim is. BTW, where is your data to refute the Fed's analysis? Pony up or sink deeper into the quick-sand of your own making. The fact is you don't have any data, just your opinion from one situation, beans, which borders on being totally worthless. We can all find an extreme situation for any event. However, that does not represent the norm and attempting to claim that it does only demonstrates and underscores your limited knowledge of the entire situation.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Econ101 said:
Sandhusker, Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. I wouldn't hold your breath on an adequate answer from agman.

I really don't need an answer from Agman. If somebody tells you that Cargill is in Brazil to serve the local market, that's somebody who I don't want information from.

I suppose they're in Canada for the same thing. :roll:

Thanks Econ for show all readers on this forum how truly ignorant you are concerning demand anlysis-as if you have not previously made a total fool of yourself. Your comment "Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. "

Regarding the first part of your comment you are stating something which I never stated-another lie from Econ, the master of fiction. It was your friend Dr Taylor who admitted under oath he failed to test his theories regarding price manipulation. That is a legal requirement which you constantly fail to admit too. I wonder why!!

Regarding the latter part of your comment. Schroeder did not excuse poultry as you claim-another fantasy of yours. For you to now admit that poultry was a substitute for beef only underscores my comment and that of many ag-economists including Schroeder that beef demand eroded from 1980 -1998. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the substitution effect of poultry and at the same time claim that beef demand was unchanged.

As I previously stated, if you actually did any demand analysis you would not constantly make such foolish and meaningless statements. Question: Have you finally learned the trend and level in per capita consumption of beef and the competing meats of does someone on this forum have to post the data for you again?!!!!
 

andybob

Well-known member
American companies producing in other countries don't need to import those products back into America to adversly affect local producers,just by displacing American producer's share of the export market will cause as much disruption to the markets presently met by local producers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Econ101 said:
Sandhusker, Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. I wouldn't hold your breath on an adequate answer from agman.

I really don't need an answer from Agman. If somebody tells you that Cargill is in Brazil to serve the local market, that's somebody who I don't want information from.

I suppose they're in Canada for the same thing. :roll:

1. Thanks Econ for show all readers on this forum how truly ignorant you are concerning demand anlysis-as if you have not previously made a total fool of yourself. Your comment "Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. "

2. Regarding the first part of your comment you are stating something which I never stated-another lie from Econ, the master of fiction. It was your friend Dr Taylor who admitted under oath he failed to test his theories regarding price manipulation. That is a legal requirement which you constantly fail to admit too. I wonder why!!

3. Regarding the latter part of your comment. Schroeder did not excuse poultry as you claim-another fantasy of yours. For you to now admit that poultry was a substitute for beef only underscores my comment and that of many ag-economists including Schroeder that beef demand eroded from 1980 -1998. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the substitution effect of poultry and at the same time claim that beef demand was unchanged.

4.As I previously stated, if you actually did any demand analysis you would not constantly make such foolish and meaningless statements. Question: Have you finally learned the trend and level in per capita consumption of beef and the competing meats of does someone on this forum have to post the data for you again?!!!!

1. Stop the self aggrandizement. You must truely believe what you tell yourself. Does the boy robin (sh) not need to tell you as a confidence builder?

2. There were no tests to do for causality. It was for the jury to decide whether or not the actions Tyson was taking lead to price depression and price manipulation. Taylor's calculations were only calculations to the degree of that depression, not the cause of it. The reason was in Tyson's mind, not explained by Tyson, and not proven as to causality by Tyson. The legal "requirement" you keep bringing up is a farce.

3. I am not making that claim. Beef "demand" was replaced by poultry as a substitute. You could stop the semantics and go into those reasons. I never said beef "demand" was a constant. I said that schroeder's paper blamed this substitution on working women instead of the substitution of poultry for beef and the possible reasons. "Demand" and its definition is a little different if substitutes change. "Demand" is a relative term. It should always be viewed in light of inflation and put in real terms as should the substitutes. When substitutes change, it is significant to go into those changes and address their substitute effects on the items they are being substituted for. The graph depicted by schroeder on his long paper did not adequately portray the cost poultry or the actual source from the USDA. If you want to compare chicken with beef, you can't continually compare chicken breasts with whole beef. The paper was lacking in a lot of details. The correlation of data depicted in the paper has as much to do with causality as a corresponding graph of the first derrivative of the growth of tree rings. You can pick data that fits your predetermined view especially when you do not cite it properly. Using the "USDA" as a source is just plain sloppy.

4. I even posted that information on this forum before, Agman, and cited the source and the web address for that source as a backup for your "research". Do I have to post it again for you? Go find it in the ERS excell tables of one of my former posts or just do a search for the info in the USDA website. We can argue data quality if you want at a later time.

I would stay off the "cool ones" before posting next time. You seem to forget who posted what.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
pointrider said:
According to the Arizona Republic newspaper that I purchased this morning, Cargill announced yesterday that they have made the decision to invest $100 million in a new poultry processing plant in Brazil.

If you read the entire article they indicated they expected significant demand growth for chicken in Brazil. Most expansion is to serve the local and regional market.

You've said that before. I didn't believe it then, either.

You don't believe because you don't know. Why don't you just admit to your lack of knowledge per this subject.

Facts to ponder: Brazil, population 170 million with rising incomes.

Current broiler production: 9080 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 11311 (000) MT, Gain = +25%

Current Exports: 2840 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 3357 (000) MT,
Gain = 18%

Current Domestic Consumption: 6240 (000) MT, estimated by 2015
7954 (000) MT, Gain 27%

Domestic consumption is estimated to grow by 1700 (000) MT while exports are projected to grow by only 520 (000) MT. Domestic consumption growth is estimated to out-pace export growth by 226%. Just in case you failed to observe properly (you have the propensity to do that) the domestic consumption base is much larger than the export base making the percentage gain in domestic consumption even more relevant to Cargill's investment program. Ouch, the truth hurts.

...and Cargill per your narrow and personal observation is only there to export? No wonder you are not employed by them. You fail to see the bigger picture which is domestic consumption growth. Are you not getting tired of constantly dumping sand in your hair?

Since you chose not to believe my statement per Fed analysis regarding manufacturing relocation are you suggesting to readers that you know more than the Fed economists per this subject- Yes or No?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Agman, "In your haste to claim I made your point as a banker what is it that you don't understand about 45% exports versus 55% internal use. Of that 45% which Brazil exports exactly how much is exported to the U.S. Is that not what you fear and claim? Please make your post for all to see. Why did you refuse to comment about the data I supplied on corn. Why does Cargill not exploit that? How much of Brazil's corn exports are shipped to the U.S. ? Dance time is over."

Exporting 45% of your product is a pretty good chunk, Agman. What does the % to the US have to do with anything? You're tangenting. I just said the notion Cargill is expanding down there is NOT to serve the local markets.

I didn't answer your corn deal because that is another tangent. Brazil is not a force in the global corn market. Iowa raises more corn than Brazil does. You think you've got something there? Since we're on the topic of not answering, you didn't have much to say about Cargill's presence in Canada.

Agman, "The latter questions will sink you in quick-sand and prove how phony your claim is. BTW, where is your data to refute the Fed's analysis? Pony up or sink deeper into the quick-sand of your own making. The fact is you don't have any data, just your opinion from one situation, beans, which borders on being totally worthless. We can all find an extreme situation for any event. However, that does not represent the norm and attempting to claim that it does only demonstrates and underscores your limited knowledge of the entire situation."

You've went from downplaying exporting 45% of Brazil's beans to calling it an extreme situation. So what is it, nothing or extreme? A year or so ago when I pointed out to you that Cargill sure as heck wasn't in Canada to just serve the local market, you called that example an exception. So now Canadian cattle are an exception and Brazilian beans are an extreme situation. We're running out of major commodities, Agman. Oh, yeah, we can talk corn....

You've got a fed report that says foreign expansion is GENERALLY to serve the local markets. I'm not argueing the merits of that report as you're trying to do. I'm saying it sure as heck isn't the case here. You've already allowed for "exceptions" and "extreme situations", so don't try to hold up that report as something Moses came down from the mountain with.

The fact that you're trying to use this report and your "lofty" status to BS us torks me off and erodes your credibility.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Agman, "You don't believe because you don't know. Why don't you just admit to your lack of knowledge per this subject.

Facts to ponder: Brazil, population 170 million with rising incomes.

Current broiler production: 9080 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 11311 (000) MT, Gain = +25%

Current Exports: 2840 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 3357 (000) MT,
Gain = 18%

Current Domestic Consumption: 6240 (000) MT, estimated by 2015
7954 (000) MT, Gain 27%

Domestic consumption is estimated to grow by 1700 (000) MT while exports are projected to grow by only 520 (000) MT. Domestic consumption growth is estimated to out-pace export growth by 226%. Just in case you failed to observe properly (you have the propensity to do that) the domestic consumption base is much larger than the export base making the percentage gain in domestic consumption even more relevant to Cargill's investment program. Ouch, the truth hurts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You and your sources tell us that broiler production is estimated to increase 25% by 2015. The article says, "In 1997, Brazil's chicken exports were less than a third those of the US. But production has taken off since 2000 - growth averaged 20 percent the past two years"

You're telling us is going to take nine years to do what was done in each of the last two? :shock: In case you have failed to observe, you're calling for a huge slowdown in Brazil's growth - from 20% a year to less than 3. Have your sources explained the virutual freeze in growth? Is the article wrong? I don't think Brazil will tell the world they want to feed all of us and then take nine years to grow 25%. I don't think your numbers are worth much.

If you think 25% growth in nine years is good, let me manage your investments, you'll think I'm a financial genius.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "In your haste to claim I made your point as a banker what is it that you don't understand about 45% exports versus 55% internal use. Of that 45% which Brazil exports exactly how much is exported to the U.S. Is that not what you fear and claim? Please make your post for all to see. Why did you refuse to comment about the data I supplied on corn. Why does Cargill not exploit that? How much of Brazil's corn exports are shipped to the U.S. ? Dance time is over."

Exporting 45% of your product is a pretty good chunk, Agman. What does the % to the US have to do with anything? You're tangenting. I just said the notion Cargill is expanding down there is NOT to serve the local markets.

I didn't answer your corn deal because that is another tangent. Brazil is not a force in the global corn market. Iowa raises more corn than Brazil does. You think you've got something there? Since we're on the topic of not answering, you didn't have much to say about Cargill's presence in Canada.

Agman, "The latter questions will sink you in quick-sand and prove how phony your claim is. BTW, where is your data to refute the Fed's analysis? Pony up or sink deeper into the quick-sand of your own making. The fact is you don't have any data, just your opinion from one situation, beans, which borders on being totally worthless. We can all find an extreme situation for any event. However, that does not represent the norm and attempting to claim that it does only demonstrates and underscores your limited knowledge of the entire situation."

You've went from downplaying exporting 45% of Brazil's beans to calling it an extreme situation. So what is it, nothing or extreme? A year or so ago when I pointed out to you that Cargill sure as heck wasn't in Canada to just serve the local market, you called that example an exception. So now Canadian cattle are an exception and Brazilian beans are an extreme situation. We're running out of major commodities, Agman. Oh, yeah, we can talk corn....

You've got a fed report that says foreign expansion is GENERALLY to serve the local markets. I'm not argueing the merits of that report as you're trying to do. I'm saying it sure as heck isn't the case here. You've already allowed for "exceptions" and "extreme situations", so don't try to hold up that report as something Moses came down from the mountain with.

The fact that you're trying to use this report and your "lofty" status to BS us torks me off and erodes your credibility.

Citing soybean exports in Brazil is extreme. It is not the norm as I pointed out. Neither is corn, that is at the other extreme. That is the very reason I posted that as an example. Neither example provides a true picture as to why relocation occurs. The principal reason as I have previously stated is to serve the local and regional market.

Thorough analysis of the entire situation will reveal that result. You have provided nothing but to imply you know more than the Fed economists who actually did very extensive analysis per this subject. If anyone has no credibility per this subject it is you. You have nothing to back your statement but one narrow example and a misleading example at that. Even then the majority of business was local in case you don't understand that 55% is greater than 45%. The difference is +10%. Since you still appear confused, how did I prove your point by demonstrating that in the extreme example you elected to use more product was used locally than exported? Again the difference was +10% in favor of the local market.

I noted with interest you failed to provide any evidence of your claim regarding Cargill's broiler investment in Brazil, per your version of events, that they are NOT there to serve the local and regional market. The data I provided clearly dismisses your claim as totally bogus again. What did you provide, nothing but an unsupported claim. That must be the BS you reference? As I stated there is a good reason you don't work for Cargill.

If you think my comments are BS then please avail yourself to whatever means available to you to prove my comments incorrect or misleading. Your bogus claim has been checked at every turn. In sum you have been checkmated yourself-thanks.
 

agman

Well-known member
andybob said:
American companies producing in other countries don't need to import those products back into America to adversly affect local producers,just by displacing American producer's share of the export market will cause as much disruption to the markets presently met by local producers.

Are you suggesting that only an American company would have such impact or would a locally based company have the same result? Which is it and why would one pose a bigger problem than the other?
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "You don't believe because you don't know. Why don't you just admit to your lack of knowledge per this subject.

Facts to ponder: Brazil, population 170 million with rising incomes.

Current broiler production: 9080 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 11311 (000) MT, Gain = +25%

Current Exports: 2840 (000) MT, estimated by 2015, 3357 (000) MT,
Gain = 18%

Current Domestic Consumption: 6240 (000) MT, estimated by 2015
7954 (000) MT, Gain 27%

Domestic consumption is estimated to grow by 1700 (000) MT while exports are projected to grow by only 520 (000) MT. Domestic consumption growth is estimated to out-pace export growth by 226%. Just in case you failed to observe properly (you have the propensity to do that) the domestic consumption base is much larger than the export base making the percentage gain in domestic consumption even more relevant to Cargill's investment program. Ouch, the truth hurts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You and your sources tell us that broiler production is estimated to increase 25% by 2015. The article says, "In 1997, Brazil's chicken exports were less than a third those of the US. But production has taken off since 2000 - growth averaged 20 percent the past two years"

You're telling us is going to take nine years to do what was done in each of the last two? :shock: In case you have failed to observe, you're calling for a huge slowdown in Brazil's growth - from 20% a year to less than 3. Have your sources explained the virutual freeze in growth? Is the article wrong? I don't think Brazil will tell the world they want to feed all of us and then take nine years to grow 25%. I don't think your numbers are worth much.

If you think 25% growth in nine years is good, let me manage your investments, you'll think I'm a financial genius.

It becomes increasing difficult to maintain large growth rates as base production grows-you should know that. However, domestic consumption growth, even though it is the larger base, is still projected to outstrip export growth by a wide margin. That was clearly pointed out with the data provided. I made special mention of the differing base size.

Again, if your think the numbers are so totally incorrect and you know more than a group of the most esteemed Ag-economists in the U.S. then you should avail all your vast knowledge to them. You already have implied that you know more than Fed economists regarding manufacturing or processing relocation although you have done no real research and/or analysis of that subject.

Regarding the 25% growth in nine years it is likely that may be exceeded. That would be my bias. However, that proves nothing regarding domestic use versus exports use does it? Did the broiler industry grow in the U.S to serve the export market or was growth spurred by domestic consumption? The underlying dynamics in Brazil and for that matter the rest of the world are little different from that in the U.S.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
I really don't need an answer from Agman. If somebody tells you that Cargill is in Brazil to serve the local market, that's somebody who I don't want information from.

I suppose they're in Canada for the same thing. :roll:

1. Thanks Econ for show all readers on this forum how truly ignorant you are concerning demand anlysis-as if you have not previously made a total fool of yourself. Your comment "Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. "

2. Regarding the first part of your comment you are stating something which I never stated-another lie from Econ, the master of fiction. It was your friend Dr Taylor who admitted under oath he failed to test his theories regarding price manipulation. That is a legal requirement which you constantly fail to admit too. I wonder why!!

3. Regarding the latter part of your comment. Schroeder did not excuse poultry as you claim-another fantasy of yours. For you to now admit that poultry was a substitute for beef only underscores my comment and that of many ag-economists including Schroeder that beef demand eroded from 1980 -1998. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the substitution effect of poultry and at the same time claim that beef demand was unchanged.

4.As I previously stated, if you actually did any demand analysis you would not constantly make such foolish and meaningless statements. Question: Have you finally learned the trend and level in per capita consumption of beef and the competing meats of does someone on this forum have to post the data for you again?!!!!

1. Stop the self aggrandizement. You must truely believe what you tell yourself. Does the boy robin (sh) not need to tell you as a confidence builder?

2. There were no tests to do for causality. It was for the jury to decide whether or not the actions Tyson was taking lead to price depression and price manipulation. Taylor's calculations were only calculations to the degree of that depression, not the cause of it. The reason was in Tyson's mind, not explained by Tyson, and not proven as to causality by Tyson. The legal "requirement" you keep bringing up is a farce.

3. I am not making that claim. Beef "demand" was replaced by poultry as a substitute. You could stop the semantics and go into those reasons. I never said beef "demand" was a constant. I said that schroeder's paper blamed this substitution on working women instead of the substitution of poultry for beef and the possible reasons. "Demand" and its definition is a little different if substitutes change. "Demand" is a relative term. It should always be viewed in light of inflation and put in real terms as should the substitutes. When substitutes change, it is significant to go into those changes and address their substitute effects on the items they are being substituted for. The graph depicted by schroeder on his long paper did not adequately portray the cost poultry or the actual source from the USDA. If you want to compare chicken with beef, you can't continually compare chicken breasts with whole beef. The paper was lacking in a lot of details. The correlation of data depicted in the paper has as much to do with causality as a corresponding graph of the first derrivative of the growth of tree rings. You can pick data that fits your predetermined view especially when you do not cite it properly. Using the "USDA" as a source is just plain sloppy.

4. I even posted that information on this forum before, Agman, and cited the source and the web address for that source as a backup for your "research". Do I have to post it again for you? Go find it in the ERS excell tables of one of my former posts or just do a search for the info in the USDA website. We can argue data quality if you want at a later time.

I would stay off the "cool ones" before posting next time. You seem to forget who posted what.

Your comment "There were no tests to do for causality. It was for the jury to decide whether or not the actions Tyson was taking lead to price depression and price manipulation. Taylor's calculations were only calculations to the degree of that depression, not the cause of it. "

Please run that one by me again!! Thanks for finally seeing the light. Dr Taylor's calculations per your startement only were "to show the degree of depression not, not the cause of it" I believe he stated otherwise under oath. Since you never read the testimony you would not know that would you? Then when questioned as to how that occured he provided no proof and futhermore stated under oath that the failed to test his six theories as to how the manipualtion occured. YOU KEEP DISMISISNG THAT FACT FOR READERS OF THIS FORUM REGARDING THE LEGAL OBLIGAION FOR HIM TO TEST THEORIES ADVANCED AT TRIAL FOR VALIDITY. Why do you repeatedly lie and/or attempt to mislead readers by failing to ackowledge the LEGAL requirement that DR Taylor failed to meet. I have posed that question on several occassions to you as a simple "yes" or "no" answer which you repeatedly fail to answer. I know it is a legal requirement and so does any real lawyer. An imitation lawyer such as yourself just skirts the issue thereby misleading readers. How credible is that?

Regarding Schroeder's comments concerning women in the workforce and the impact they had on beef demand was over your head. You have demonstrated nothing to prove otherwise.

Regarding the latter you are wasting your time sending me PM's. I have no intention on answering your question directed to me. You have so little knowledge of all the events that shape the market that any real dialog would be impossible.

You are continually left to resort to false accusations regarding your "concentration game" as you call it and your unending claims of judicial and political payoffs etcetera. As usual you fail to provide any proof of your slanderous claims. As I previously stated, such numerous comments are a product of your ignorance of the market and business in general.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Agman, " You already have implied that you know more than Fed economists regarding manufacturing or processing relocation although you have done no real research and/or analysis of that subject."

I have not implied as as such and you know it. That's dirty pool - you'ld be a great politician. My exact words, "You've got a fed report that says foreign expansion is GENERALLY to serve the local markets. I'm not argueing the merits of that report as you're trying to do. I'm saying it sure as heck isn't the case here." I believe your minion would call your statement "indending to mislead". That's telling, Agman.

Agman, "Regarding the 25% growth in nine years it is likely that may be exceeded. That would be my bias. However, that proves nothing regarding domestic use versus exports use does it? "

It doesn't prove anything except suggests that if one of the predictions you supplied is off, the others likely are too.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
1. Thanks Econ for show all readers on this forum how truly ignorant you are concerning demand anlysis-as if you have not previously made a total fool of yourself. Your comment "Agman doesn't believe in causality unless packers profess it in trial and admit to it under oath unless it is claimed by economists making up demand determinants that excuse the substitution of poultry for beef. "

2. Regarding the first part of your comment you are stating something which I never stated-another lie from Econ, the master of fiction. It was your friend Dr Taylor who admitted under oath he failed to test his theories regarding price manipulation. That is a legal requirement which you constantly fail to admit too. I wonder why!!

3. Regarding the latter part of your comment. Schroeder did not excuse poultry as you claim-another fantasy of yours. For you to now admit that poultry was a substitute for beef only underscores my comment and that of many ag-economists including Schroeder that beef demand eroded from 1980 -1998. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim the substitution effect of poultry and at the same time claim that beef demand was unchanged.

4.As I previously stated, if you actually did any demand analysis you would not constantly make such foolish and meaningless statements. Question: Have you finally learned the trend and level in per capita consumption of beef and the competing meats of does someone on this forum have to post the data for you again?!!!!

1. Stop the self aggrandizement. You must truely believe what you tell yourself. Does the boy robin (sh) not need to tell you as a confidence builder?

2. There were no tests to do for causality. It was for the jury to decide whether or not the actions Tyson was taking lead to price depression and price manipulation. Taylor's calculations were only calculations to the degree of that depression, not the cause of it. The reason was in Tyson's mind, not explained by Tyson, and not proven as to causality by Tyson. The legal "requirement" you keep bringing up is a farce.

3. I am not making that claim. Beef "demand" was replaced by poultry as a substitute. You could stop the semantics and go into those reasons. I never said beef "demand" was a constant. I said that schroeder's paper blamed this substitution on working women instead of the substitution of poultry for beef and the possible reasons. "Demand" and its definition is a little different if substitutes change. "Demand" is a relative term. It should always be viewed in light of inflation and put in real terms as should the substitutes. When substitutes change, it is significant to go into those changes and address their substitute effects on the items they are being substituted for. The graph depicted by schroeder on his long paper did not adequately portray the cost poultry or the actual source from the USDA. If you want to compare chicken with beef, you can't continually compare chicken breasts with whole beef. The paper was lacking in a lot of details. The correlation of data depicted in the paper has as much to do with causality as a corresponding graph of the first derrivative of the growth of tree rings. You can pick data that fits your predetermined view especially when you do not cite it properly. Using the "USDA" as a source is just plain sloppy.

4. I even posted that information on this forum before, Agman, and cited the source and the web address for that source as a backup for your "research". Do I have to post it again for you? Go find it in the ERS excell tables of one of my former posts or just do a search for the info in the USDA website. We can argue data quality if you want at a later time.

I would stay off the "cool ones" before posting next time. You seem to forget who posted what.

Your comment "There were no tests to do for causality. It was for the jury to decide whether or not the actions Tyson was taking lead to price depression and price manipulation. Taylor's calculations were only calculations to the degree of that depression, not the cause of it. "

Please run that one by me again!! Thanks for finally seeing the light. Dr Taylor's calculations per your startement only were "to show the degree of depression not, not the cause of it" I believe he stated otherwise under oath. Since you never read the testimony you would not know that would you? Then when questioned as to how that occured he provided no proof and futhermore stated under oath that the failed to test his six theories as to how the manipualtion occured. YOU KEEP DISMISISNG THAT FACT FOR READERS OF THIS FORUM REGARDING THE LEGAL OBLIGAION FOR HIM TO TEST THEORIES ADVANCED AT TRIAL FOR VALIDITY. Why do you repeatedly lie and/or attempt to mislead readers by failing to ackowledge the LEGAL requirement that DR Taylor failed to meet. I have posed that question on several occassions to you as a simple "yes" or "no" answer which you repeatedly fail to answer. I know it is a legal requirement and so does any real lawyer. An imitation lawyer such as yourself just skirts the issue thereby misleading readers. How credible is that?

Regarding Schroeder's comments concerning women in the workforce and the impact they had on beef demand was over your head. You have demonstrated nothing to prove otherwise.

Regarding the latter you are wasting your time sending me PM's. I have no intention on answering your question directed to me. You have so little knowledge of all the events that shape the market that any real dialog would be impossible.

You are continually left to resort to false accusations regarding your "concentration game" as you call it and your unending claims of judicial and political payoffs etcetera. As usual you fail to provide any proof of your slanderous claims. As I previously stated, such numerous comments are a product of your ignorance of the market and business in general.

Have you been able to get the litigants to release the trial transcripts to the public, yet, Agman, or do you intend to continue to be the "expert" on the trial testimony with your private copy of the transcripts?

Of course this is one of THE MAIN problems with the frauds Tyson is exerting in the meats industry: have a bunch of lawyers hide the information of the frauds so no one can take them to court (with this bunch of corrupt appellate judges it doesn't matter even if you make it to court) and prove that they are commiting the frauds.

Thanks for pointing that out continually, Agman. We all get the message.

In a murder case, people can presume the motives behind the murder, and occaisonally a murder suspect will even admit to those motives in trial. Whether or not the motive presented was correct or not, even when it is stated by the defendant in open court, ONLY GOD KNOWS. Short of that, the jury must make the decision based on the evidence.

In the Pickett case, the jury did. A hand picked judge overturned their decision and made himself god. Do you support this kind of judiciary?

Start up your bs that judges know more about the law than the jury, if you will. It is a diverticuli and everything trapped in it is a bunch of crap.

Put forth the "expert testimony" of Tyson's hired MIT witness, Hauseman, Agman, instead of hiding behind his expert opinion that is not public.

Hauseman sold himself to Tyson so they could win in trial. I've been told before that economists are just whores and this is one prime example. In this deal it wasn't just Hauseman who sold himself. This is one of the biggest disgraces I have seen coming from the political/legal system. Get the trial transcripts and all exhibits released to the public and stop playing this little game, Agman. The emporer has no clothes. This administration and its cronies are gaming this country and selling government for their own self interest. The food industry is but one example. The only thing worse than a liberal democrat is corrupt self serving republican that puts thier own interests over the constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Tell us once more how anyone can test the validity of the theory of the motives in one's mind. Does Hauseman have a special formula for that? Has he tested the validity of that theory?

You will not answer my questions because you can not. You are as much a fraud as Hauseman and as the Pickett trial. Stop setting yourself up as god, Agman, you fall way too short of that.

Tell me once again how to prove causality and show me how Shroeder and the others used it in their paper that was funded by the beef checkoff.

I am waiting, patiently waiting.
 

Latest posts

Top