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.