Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court

[Econ101]

Contracts are unpriced all the time. That is nothing new or unique to maketing agreements or current basis contracts whether calves, stockers or fed cattle.

The Pickett case is different from the case you reference. ALL the judges were not wrong in the Pickett case. ALL of them have much more legal expertise than you, I or anyone on this forum. I will trust their UNAMIOUS decision.

I was intrigued by your comments regarding what your described as a brilliantly orchestrated Amicus Brief. I cautioned you at that time the it was no better written than the previous briefs by the same people. I was particularly interested in the commonality of authors.

If I learned one thing from this case it was the comparison of case law as cited by your side as opposed to the defense. In all due respect, your side appeared truly elementary relative to the depth of analysis and interpretation of case law cited by the defense. The contrast was revealing and striking. Perhaps you can learn from that as I did.

Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing again. The "difference" in cases doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you said you will trust the judges. If you trust the judges because they are experts then you trust the judges because they are experts, not because the case is different.

If YOU determine the case is different, then you are judging the judges, just like I am. Only you're pretending not to.

The Tyson side CONSISTENTLY confused precedents on 202(a) with their arguments on 202(e). They tried to make the precedents on 202(a) apply to 202(e). That is where the 11th was different than any other circuit. NO OTHER CIRCUIT ever applied the weighting principle to 202(e), only 202(a).

It is only a simple matter of understanding plain English--something judges frequently disregard. My particular background (not law) gives me sufficient background for analysis of the meanings of sentences, paragraphs, contexts, etc. I had seven years training in such matters as well as years of experience. This case was not determined on the plain language of the law. To accuse me of not understanding it is to say that I can't read the legalese dialect of English. I can, as well as other dialects.

You obviously missed the subtley of Tyson's sleight of hand in confusing sections 202(a) and (e). They were good at confusing the two. When you understand the distinction between the two sections you can better understand the apparent conflicts between the plaintiffs and the defendents briefs.

TYSON NEVER SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESSED SECTION 202(E). Now, which section was this case brought to trial under?

Pardon me, but where did I say I did not trust the judges? I just said they are two different cases. Confusing the issue again are you? When you know as much about ALL the case law involved then I will pay attention to your venison. Until then it is your personal version versus the interpretation of ALL the judges who reviewed the case. I am to believe they are ALL ignorant of the law and you know it all. Give me a break.

Agman, the appellate decision was bounced off of the London case. I know it intimately. They also bounced off of a few other cases that the USDA OGC attorneys were talking over at the time. Do you know ANY of them? If you would like to cite specific examples, I would really be interested. If you read the cases, you will find out that the judges went out of their way to cite their own decisions instead of the law. It is kind of like the game of gossip. By the time it comes round again, the meaning is way different than when it started. Litteral interpretaion was totally lost as OCM said for the court's own made up gobbly goop.

I would like to see the "beer" you allude to. All I see right now is foam.

 

[agman]

Agman- I've seen thousands of calves and yearlings shipped that were on contract and bought by feeders...I've never seen one contract for these that was not priced.....

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in most cases.

I guess you get away with what you can, huh, Agman?

What am I getting supposedly getting away with? That is another phony accusation on your part which demonstrates your total lack of knowledge. The mere fact that you are absent any knowledge of actual trading practices within this industry is your problem.

Are you now accusing stocker operators and feedyards of manipulation? You just never seem to run out or you phony accusations and manipulation theories. Why don't you spend some actual time learning about the beef industry instead of wasting your time demonstrating your lack of knowledge making accusations that are without merit?

 

[Econ101]

Sorry, but many of these contracts are entered into and pricing occurs much later. Goes on everyday. They are priced prior to shipment in most cases.

I guess you get away with what you can, huh, Agman?

What am I getting supposedly getting away with? That is another phony accusation on your part which demonstrates your total lack of knowledge. The mere fact that you are absent any knowledge of actual trading practices within this industry is your problem.

Are you now accusing stocker operators and feedyards of manipulation? You just never seem to run out or you phony accusations and manipulation theories. Why don't you spend some actual time learning about the beef industry instead of wasting your time demonstrating your lack of knowledge making accusations that are without merit?

You still answered none of the questions Agman. How long are you going to rant about what I know and don't know so that you can continue to present foam as beer?

 

[Anonymous]

I have personally bought feeder calves that were priced at a later date than the calves were delivered. I wanted the calves on feed by Oct. 1 and the buyer wanted them priced when he normally sold. He picked the week in which he wanted the calves priced and we used an average of DTN feeder calf breakevens and local markets to set the price for that week. 2% pencil shrink and $.05 per pound slide. Not a problem. He still calls me wanting me to buy his calves because he knows he can beat the barn on shrink, trucking, and commission.

There's an example of a mutually acceptable forward contract on the feeder cattle side of the equation.

You won't stop forward contracts. Cattle feeders have multiple selling options available to them and do not need thumbsucking packer blamers on the producer end dictating to them how to market their fat cattle. Arrogant SOBs!

You guys always have to blame someone when you have nothing to support your case but empty rhetoric.

Poor, poor little packer blamers!

OCM: "You have never denied that the court failed to follow the PSA literally. That's what needs fixed. It's not a huge surprise that ag issues don't come very high on the courts radar screen. Have you seen the OIG report? Think things are not broken? You know better."

Suck it up OCM and just admit that you packer blamers couldn't support your baseless allegations YET AGAIN.

Now your whole packer blaming lives are being supported by an empty OIG report. LOL! Has anyone heard the details of the report??? NO!!! Yet you packer blamers sink your teeth into it like the next "great white hope" because it's what you WANT TO BELIEVE. It supports your blaming bias. WHERE'S THE DETAILS??? WHAT WERE THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE "ALLEGATIONS" THAT WERE NOT INVESTIGATED???

Hello? hello? I think the blamers hung up again......................

Previous GIPSA reports show a 98% fraud rate on reported allegations of price fixing and market manipulation. How many ghosts do they need to chase before they can recognize a ghost????

Hell, you packer blamers couldn't even put one case through the court systems and win.

If you had anything to support the OIG report, you'd bring it. You got nothing so you bring nothing. The OIG report is nothing more than a politically motivated GIPSA blame. Music to the packer blamers ears. Long on accusations and short on substance.

Did you honestly believe the Supreme Court would see something that the 11th circuit and Judge Strom never saw??? Get real!

You blamers lost again and you will lose in Aberdeen and you will continue to lose until you support your allegations with COLD HARD FACTS instead of packer blaming illusions.

Go suck your collective packer blaming thumbs. You make me sick.

Monopoly??? WHERE THE HELL IS THE MONOPOLY with the largest packer owning less than 30% of the market????

That's the problem with you packer blamers, you can't even reason.


Rod,

How big of an affect could Canadian imports have been having on U.S. markets if U.S. markets continued to climb after the border was opened to boxed beef and again after the border was opened to live cattle?

Sometimes the obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blamer.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod,

How big of an affect could Canadian imports have been having on U.S. markets if U.S. markets continued to climb after the border was opened to boxed beef and again after the border was opened to live cattle?

Sometimes the obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blamer.

Hmmmmmm, I looked back in this thread, and I don't see anyplace that I said Canadian imports affected US markets downwards to a large extent. Actually, I said the reverse in a different thread, that a fully open US/Canada border we woulld likely see more prime cuts staying here at home, more culls shipping into the US, and you guys would likely see at least high quality fed cattle prices come up a bit. And I doubt our cull market would cause much of a long term dent in your cull market.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "Do you honestly believe that the record prices would not have been even HIGHER without the captive supply, while economists the world over have proven that captive supplies = lower prices."

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

It's a bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

If you think you can prove otherwise, step up to the plate and bring the proof big shooter.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I have personally bought feeder calves that were priced at a later date than the calves were delivered. I wanted the calves on feed by Oct. 1 and the buyer wanted them priced when he normally sold. He picked the week in which he wanted the calves priced and we used an average of DTN feeder calf breakevens and local markets to set the price for that week. 2% pencil shrink and $.05 per pound slide. Not a problem. He still calls me wanting me to buy his calves because he knows he can beat the barn on shrink, trucking, and commission.

There's an example of a mutually acceptable forward contract on the feeder cattle side of the equation.

You won't stop forward contracts. Cattle feeders have multiple selling options available to them and do not need thumbsucking packer blamers on the producer end dictating to them how to market their fat cattle. Arrogant SOBs!

You guys always have to blame someone when you have nothing to support your case but empty rhetoric.

Poor, poor little packer blamers!

OCM: "You have never denied that the court failed to follow the PSA literally. That's what needs fixed. It's not a huge surprise that ag issues don't come very high on the courts radar screen. Have you seen the OIG report? Think things are not broken? You know better."

Suck it up OCM and just admit that you packer blamers couldn't support your baseless allegations YET AGAIN.

Now your whole packer blaming lives are being supported by an empty OIG report. LOL! Has anyone heard the details of the report??? NO!!! Yet you packer blamers sink your teeth into it like the next "great white hope" because it's what you WANT TO BELIEVE. It supports your blaming bias. WHERE'S THE DETAILS??? WHAT WERE THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE "ALLEGATIONS" THAT WERE NOT INVESTIGATED???

Hello? hello? I think the blamers hung up again......................

Previous GIPSA reports show a 98% fraud rate on reported allegations of price fixing and market manipulation. How many ghosts do they need to chase before they can recognize a ghost????

Hell, you packer blamers couldn't even put one case through the court systems and win.

If you had anything to support the OIG report, you'd bring it. You got nothing so you bring nothing. The OIG report is nothing more than a politically motivated GIPSA blame. Music to the packer blamers ears. Long on accusations and short on substance.

Did you honestly believe the Supreme Court would see something that the 11th circuit and Judge Strom never saw??? Get real!

You blamers lost again and you will lose in Aberdeen and you will continue to lose until you support your allegations with COLD HARD FACTS instead of packer blaming illusions.

Go suck your collective packer blaming thumbs. You make me sick.

Monopoly??? WHERE THE HELL IS THE MONOPOLY with the largest packer owning less than 30% of the market????

That's the problem with you packer blamers, you can't even reason.


Rod,

How big of an affect could Canadian imports have been having on U.S. markets if U.S. markets continued to climb after the border was opened to boxed beef and again after the border was opened to live cattle?

Sometimes the obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blamer.


~SH~

SH, nobody cares what you do individually. The problem is when those with market power use these contracts to their advantage and distort the normal market mechanisms.

It is funny how Tyson did this by buying lower quality cattle in the formula markets and then tell cattlemen they need to improve their cattle with better genetics etc. You get those better cattle by paying more for them, not some market manipulation game that brings less for better grade/yields.

SH: "t supports your blaming bias. WHERE'S THE DETAILS??? WHAT WERE THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE "ALLEGATIONS" THAT WERE NOT INVESTIGATED???"

Econ: The OIG reoport shows those FACTS regardless of your and NCBA's attempts to characterize them something different. The whole point is that the allegations were not being investigated and when they were, JoAnn Waterfield et al were blocking any action on them. GIPSA has been used to milk the producer with market power and agribusiness was paying off politicians who were in influential positions to let this happen. Congressional staffers are the little buffer for accountability for those politicians. It is worse than the Abramoff scandal. There are no real hearings on this because it would blow up the committees who were responsible for oversight. That is why JoAnn got let go so easily. It isn't hard to figure out, SH.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

There certainly haven't been any economists stating that captive supplies = HIGHER market prices. If there were any, they'd have to move back to Disney World. You keep pointing at higher commodity prices and attempting to find a causal effect from the captive markets, when its been increased demand and trade distortions caused by a variety of closed borders causing the higher prices. If we hadn't had captive supply, we'd certainly have even higher prices. And you have absolutely no proof to the contrary. I, on the other hand have a destroyed grain market to point to.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Rod: "Do you honestly believe that the record prices would not have been even HIGHER without the captive supply, while economists the world over have proven that captive supplies = lower prices."

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

It's a bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

If you think you can prove otherwise, step up to the plate and bring the proof big shooter.


~SH~

The fraud has been in how the mechanism works, SH. Captive supplies in themselves are not the problem. It is the strategic use of them to frustrate normal market price signals that is the problem.

The analysis that Azzam and Agman did fell into the trap that captive supplies had to be looked at during the whole time of captive supplies. The market manipulation was not occurring during the whole time period, as Taylor's analysis pointed out. It was only in selected periods of time. This had the effect of swinging the cattle markets when Tyson chose to swing them for strategic purposes. Their overall strategic purpose at this stage in the game is market concentration so they can control the markets more with their market power and extract higher profits. They did this, as I predicted, with their poultry sector. Later public reports by Tyson bore this fact out, as I have presented already.

Right now it is integration of the feeders. With them out of the way, they will have a better grip on the cow/calf guy. I think Rod's case was an example of how it can happen. It is the poultry model all over again and the USDA, by GIPSA's corruption and incompetence, supported by OGC at the USDA, is helping them. Meanwhile Congress gets bribe money to have no real oversight hearings and let them get away with it.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, nobody cares what you do individually. The problem is when those with market power use these contracts to their advantage and distort the normal market mechanisms.

It is funny how Tyson did this by buying lower quality cattle in the formula markets and then tell cattlemen they need to improve their cattle with better genetics etc. You get those better cattle by paying more for them, not some market manipulation game that brings less for better grade/yields."

The formula cattle were not lower quality cattle. Just because the cash market had more higher grading cattle due to the cattle being backed up AND OVERFAT, higher quality grades is only one faction of quality. Besides, quality grade itself becomes less important in a narrow choice select spread.

Quality grade is only one aspect of quality.

Once again, you display your complete ignorance to the world. No wonder you keep your identity a secret.

Formula cattle markets do reward grade and yield for higher quality cattle and cash markets don't. If you weren't such a lying idiot, you'd know that.

Conman: "Econ: The OIG reoport shows those FACTS regardless of your and NCBA's attempts to characterize them something different. The whole point is that the allegations were not being investigated and when they were, JoAnn Waterfield et al were blocking any action on them. GIPSA has been used to milk the producer with market power and agribusiness was paying off politicians who were in influential positions to let this happen. Congressional staffers are the little buffer for accountability for those politicians. It is worse than the Abramoff scandal. There are no real hearings on this because it would blow up the committees who were responsible for oversight. That is why JoAnn got let go so easily. It isn't hard to figure out, SH."

Once again, all foam and no beer. Nothing but a bunch of empty statements and unsupported allegations. True to your form Conman, AGAIN, YOU GOT NOTHING BUT CHEAP TALK!

You only heard one side of this story, the packer blaming side.

Rod: "If we hadn't had captive supply, we'd certainly have even higher prices."

Not true!

Conman: "Captive supplies in themselves are not the problem. It is the strategic use of them to frustrate normal market price signals that is the problem."

Which has never been proven. Empty packer blaming rhetoric. You lost! You lost on appeal! You lost at the Supreme Court level. Your packer blaming dog won't hunt.

Conman: "The market manipulation was not occurring during the whole time period, as Taylor's analysis pointed out. It was only in selected periods of time. This had the effect of swinging the cattle markets when Tyson chose to swing them for strategic purposes. Their overall strategic purpose at this stage in the game is market concentration so they can control the markets more with their market power and extract higher profits."

Hahaha! Strategically selected periods of market manipulation that had nothing to do with supply and demand? Better check and see if your phone line is tapped again Conman. Better check those distant hills for scope reflections.

Another empty baseless allegation that you can't support.


~SH~

 

[agman]

Rod: "Do you honestly believe that the record prices would not have been even HIGHER without the captive supply, while economists the world over have proven that captive supplies = lower prices."

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

It's a bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

If you think you can prove otherwise, step up to the plate and bring the proof big shooter.


~SH~

The fraud has been in how the mechanism works, SH. Captive supplies in themselves are not the problem. It is the strategic use of them to frustrate normal market price signals that is the problem.

The analysis that Azzam and Agman did fell into the trap that captive supplies had to be looked at during the whole time of captive supplies. The market manipulation was not occurring during the whole time period, as Taylor's analysis pointed out. It was only in selected periods of time. This had the effect of swinging the cattle markets when Tyson chose to swing them for strategic purposes. Their overall strategic purpose at this stage in the game is market concentration so they can control the markets more with their market power and extract higher profits. They did this, as I predicted, with their poultry sector. Later public reports by Tyson bore this fact out, as I have presented already.

Right now it is integration of the feeders. With them out of the way, they will have a better grip on the cow/calf guy. I think Rod's case was an example of how it can happen. It is the poultry model all over again and the USDA, by GIPSA's corruption and incompetence, supported by OGC at the USDA, is helping them. Meanwhile Congress gets bribe money to have no real oversight hearings and let them get away with it.

The only period when Taylor's analysis failed to show any claimed manipulation was during the years of rising beef demand. Surprise, surprise, that should have been his first real clue that his other claims of manipulation were actually measuring the demand erosion that persisted for a period of 19 year.

You need to quit trying to erroneously quote the Azzam study when he specifically states he only looked at any potential negative cash price impact and not the total impact of captive supply and its potential benefits to the industry that my have resulted in higher prices paid to producers. That is why AZZAM flatly refused to be a witness for the plaintiffs. They wanted to misuse his research just as you have chosen to do, the truth be damned.

 

[agman]

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

There certainly haven't been any economists stating that captive supplies = HIGHER market prices. If there were any, they'd have to move back to Disney World. You keep pointing at higher commodity prices and attempting to find a causal effect from the captive markets, when its been increased demand and trade distortions caused by a variety of closed borders causing the higher prices. If we hadn't had captive supply, we'd certainly have even higher prices. And you have absolutely no proof to the contrary. I, on the other hand have a destroyed grain market to point to.


Rod

They will all admit they have not analyzed the total impact. Studies that have been conducted to-date have been designed solely to detect any negative price impact while NOT measuring factors that would have a positive price impact.

 

[Econ101]

No economists in the cattle industry have proven that captive supplies = lower OVERALL MARKET prices.

It's a bullsh*t conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

If you think you can prove otherwise, step up to the plate and bring the proof big shooter.


~SH~

The fraud has been in how the mechanism works, SH. Captive supplies in themselves are not the problem. It is the strategic use of them to frustrate normal market price signals that is the problem.

The analysis that Azzam and Agman did fell into the trap that captive supplies had to be looked at during the whole time of captive supplies. The market manipulation was not occurring during the whole time period, as Taylor's analysis pointed out. It was only in selected periods of time. This had the effect of swinging the cattle markets when Tyson chose to swing them for strategic purposes. Their overall strategic purpose at this stage in the game is market concentration so they can control the markets more with their market power and extract higher profits. They did this, as I predicted, with their poultry sector. Later public reports by Tyson bore this fact out, as I have presented already.

Right now it is integration of the feeders. With them out of the way, they will have a better grip on the cow/calf guy. I think Rod's case was an example of how it can happen. It is the poultry model all over again and the USDA, by GIPSA's corruption and incompetence, supported by OGC at the USDA, is helping them. Meanwhile Congress gets bribe money to have no real oversight hearings and let them get away with it.

The only period when Taylor's analysis failed to show any claimed manipulation was during the years of rising beef demand. Surprise, surprise, that should have been his first real clue that his other claims of manipulation were actually measuring the demand erosion that persisted for a period of 19 year.

You need to quit trying to erroneously quote the Azzam study when he specifically states he only looked at any potential negative cash price impact and not the total impact of captive supply and its potential benefits to the industry that my have resulted in higher prices paid to producers. That is why AZZAM flatly refused to be a witness for the plaintiffs. They wanted to misuse his research just as you have chosen to do, the truth be damned.

Of course, Agman. The particular manipulation was designed and carried out to work during that time period. You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it.

If your characterization of what I have said is any indication of your proficiency of quoting, you need to stop quoting Azzam, and let him speak for himself.

Why don't you go ask Azzam if the "changes in demand" had any affect on the calculations that Taylor did in his analysis? The computations do not have any of those changes in demand as a factor because of the way the math was done, Agman. Your "changes in demand" theory as being the causative agent of Taylor's calculations of market manipulation are just a plain lie. If you understood the calculations, you would understand that to be the case, Agman.

Obviously there are two explanations to your mistake:

a) You just don't understand how the calculations were made (incompetence).

b) You know and you are willing to lie about them (corruption).


Which one is it, Agman, incompetence or corruption?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it."

Don't try to spin my meaning of the term "legitimate manipulation" just because you can't debate me at word value you pathetic liar.

By "legitimate manipulation" I meant "REAL MANIPULATION", "TRUE MANIPULATION", "ACTUAL MANIPULATION", "PROVEN MANIPULATION" not that market manipulation is somehow justified ("legitimate") as you and Sandbag are tying to deceptively spin it. Pathetic %!^*!@%!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it."

Don't try to spin my meaning of the term "legitimate manipulation" just because you can't debate me at word value you pathetic liar.

By "legitimate manipulation" I meant "REAL MANIPULATION", "TRUE MANIPULATION", "ACTUAL MANIPULATION", "PROVEN MANIPULATION" not that market manipulation is somehow justified ("legitimate") as you and Sandbag are tying to deceptively spin it. Pathetic %!^*!@%!


~SH~

SH, we already know the answer to the question for you is a).

The question was for Agman.

 

[agman]

The fraud has been in how the mechanism works, SH. Captive supplies in themselves are not the problem. It is the strategic use of them to frustrate normal market price signals that is the problem.

The analysis that Azzam and Agman did fell into the trap that captive supplies had to be looked at during the whole time of captive supplies. The market manipulation was not occurring during the whole time period, as Taylor's analysis pointed out. It was only in selected periods of time. This had the effect of swinging the cattle markets when Tyson chose to swing them for strategic purposes. Their overall strategic purpose at this stage in the game is market concentration so they can control the markets more with their market power and extract higher profits. They did this, as I predicted, with their poultry sector. Later public reports by Tyson bore this fact out, as I have presented already.

Right now it is integration of the feeders. With them out of the way, they will have a better grip on the cow/calf guy. I think Rod's case was an example of how it can happen. It is the poultry model all over again and the USDA, by GIPSA's corruption and incompetence, supported by OGC at the USDA, is helping them. Meanwhile Congress gets bribe money to have no real oversight hearings and let them get away with it.

The only period when Taylor's analysis failed to show any claimed manipulation was during the years of rising beef demand. Surprise, surprise, that should have been his first real clue that his other claims of manipulation were actually measuring the demand erosion that persisted for a period of 19 year.

You need to quit trying to erroneously quote the Azzam study when he specifically states he only looked at any potential negative cash price impact and not the total impact of captive supply and its potential benefits to the industry that my have resulted in higher prices paid to producers. That is why AZZAM flatly refused to be a witness for the plaintiffs. They wanted to misuse his research just as you have chosen to do, the truth be damned.

Of course, Agman. The particular manipulation was designed and carried out to work during that time period. You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it.

If your characterization of what I have said is any indication of your proficiency of quoting, you need to stop quoting Azzam, and let him speak for himself.

Why don't you go ask Azzam if the "changes in demand" had any affect on the calculations that Taylor did in his analysis? The computations do not have any of those changes in demand as a factor because of the way the math was done, Agman. Your "changes in demand" theory as being the causative agent of Taylor's calculations of market manipulation are just a plain lie. If you understood the calculations, you would understand that to be the case, Agman.

Obviously there are two explanations to your mistake:

a) You just don't understand how the calculations were made (incompetence).

b) You know and you are willing to lie about them (corruption).


Which one is it, Agman, incompetence or corruption?

It is neither, just your trying to spin again. Wrong again, the third explanation is that Taylor was simply wrong which is what was demonstrated in court. I never have said the only problem with Taylor's work did or did not incorporate demand analysis. That is just another diversion of your part as usual. Either you don't understand or you are plain willing to spread misinformation.

What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation. That begs the question that his claimed periods of price manipulation may actually have been detecting eroding demand and not any price manipulation as perceived. That would be impossible for you to believe since you halucinated and conceived this phony selective manipulation theory. For you to imply that his weekly model filtered all demand changes is simply a joke. You can ponder why.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation."

Judge Strom, "Evidence was presented that supported the jury's decision"

 

[Econ101]

The only period when Taylor's analysis failed to show any claimed manipulation was during the years of rising beef demand. Surprise, surprise, that should have been his first real clue that his other claims of manipulation were actually measuring the demand erosion that persisted for a period of 19 year.

You need to quit trying to erroneously quote the Azzam study when he specifically states he only looked at any potential negative cash price impact and not the total impact of captive supply and its potential benefits to the industry that my have resulted in higher prices paid to producers. That is why AZZAM flatly refused to be a witness for the plaintiffs. They wanted to misuse his research just as you have chosen to do, the truth be damned.

Of course, Agman. The particular manipulation was designed and carried out to work during that time period. You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it.

If your characterization of what I have said is any indication of your proficiency of quoting, you need to stop quoting Azzam, and let him speak for himself.

Why don't you go ask Azzam if the "changes in demand" had any affect on the calculations that Taylor did in his analysis? The computations do not have any of those changes in demand as a factor because of the way the math was done, Agman. Your "changes in demand" theory as being the causative agent of Taylor's calculations of market manipulation are just a plain lie. If you understood the calculations, you would understand that to be the case, Agman.

Obviously there are two explanations to your mistake:

a) You just don't understand how the calculations were made (incompetence).

b) You know and you are willing to lie about them (corruption).


Which one is it, Agman, incompetence or corruption?

It is neither, just your trying to spin again. Wrong again, the third explanation is that Taylor was simply wrong which is what was demonstrated in court. I never have said the only problem with Taylor's work did or did not incorporate demand analysis. That is just another diversion of your part as usual. Either you don't understand or you are plain willing to spread misinformation.

What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation. That begs the question that his claimed periods of price manipulation may actually have been detecting eroding demand and not any price manipulation as perceived. That would be impossible for you to believe since you halucinated and conceived this phony selective manipulation theory. For you to imply that his weekly model filtered all demand changes is simply a joke. You can ponder why.

Agman, that was not a question for the poltically appointed federal judiciary to answer. It was for a group of jurors to listen to the evidence and answer. They did. Was Judge Strom intimidated into changing the decision by the appellate court for fear of a reversal as you have claimed? Did the appellate court weigh in on the decision by Strom?

Get the judge to release the court testimony so we can all see it. I would like to see the calculations that were made. The pile of dirt under the rug at the USDA is so big JoAnn Waterfield tripped and broke her neck on it and had to take medical indefinite medical leave.

This case was rigged and there are larger cover ups going on by allowing JoAnn to get a free walk.

What demand changes were not filtered out in the math? Please post the math also, since you have been bragging you have looked at it.

 

[agman]

Of course, Agman. The particular manipulation was designed and carried out to work during that time period. You like to mix things together to more easily fool people into believing you have a "legitimate manipulation" as SH puts it.

If your characterization of what I have said is any indication of your proficiency of quoting, you need to stop quoting Azzam, and let him speak for himself.

Why don't you go ask Azzam if the "changes in demand" had any affect on the calculations that Taylor did in his analysis? The computations do not have any of those changes in demand as a factor because of the way the math was done, Agman. Your "changes in demand" theory as being the causative agent of Taylor's calculations of market manipulation are just a plain lie. If you understood the calculations, you would understand that to be the case, Agman.

Obviously there are two explanations to your mistake:

a) You just don't understand how the calculations were made (incompetence).

b) You know and you are willing to lie about them (corruption).


Which one is it, Agman, incompetence or corruption?

It is neither, just your trying to spin again. Wrong again, the third explanation is that Taylor was simply wrong which is what was demonstrated in court. I never have said the only problem with Taylor's work did or did not incorporate demand analysis. That is just another diversion of your part as usual. Either you don't understand or you are plain willing to spread misinformation.

What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation. That begs the question that his claimed periods of price manipulation may actually have been detecting eroding demand and not any price manipulation as perceived. That would be impossible for you to believe since you halucinated and conceived this phony selective manipulation theory. For you to imply that his weekly model filtered all demand changes is simply a joke. You can ponder why.

Agman, that was not a question for the poltically appointed federal judiciary to answer. It was for a group of jurors to listen to the evidence and answer. They did. Was Judge Strom intimidated into changing the decision by the appellate court for fear of a reversal as you have claimed? Did the appellate court weigh in on the decision by Strom?

Get the judge to release the court testimony so we can all see it. I would like to see the calculations that were made. The pile of dirt under the rug at the USDA is so big JoAnn Waterfield tripped and broke her neck on it and had to take medical indefinite medical leave.

This case was rigged and there are larger cover ups going on by allowing JoAnn to get a free walk.

What demand changes were not filtered out in the math? Please post the math also, since you have been bragging you have looked at it.

Show your proof of a rigged market. Just for once provide some real proof and begin to establish an antom of credibility. If you cannot do this then you leave readers with no other conclusion than to conclude you are once again initiating and perpetuating a lie. Be a real hero and show some proof.

A word of caution to all readers; don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. From Econ you can only expect a diversion and meaningless rhetoric will soon follow. He is great at volume but always absent fact.

Why would I waste time on Taylor's math. He totally failed to show a causal relationship between marketing agreements and perceived lower prices. While the jury clearly did not understand that the Judge clearly did and that is all that matters. What you think he showed is irrelevant, you did not even read the testimony. How many people do you think you can fool with your constant gibberish?

 

[Econ101]

It is neither, just your trying to spin again. Wrong again, the third explanation is that Taylor was simply wrong which is what was demonstrated in court. I never have said the only problem with Taylor's work did or did not incorporate demand analysis. That is just another diversion of your part as usual. Either you don't understand or you are plain willing to spread misinformation.

What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation. That begs the question that his claimed periods of price manipulation may actually have been detecting eroding demand and not any price manipulation as perceived. That would be impossible for you to believe since you halucinated and conceived this phony selective manipulation theory. For you to imply that his weekly model filtered all demand changes is simply a joke. You can ponder why.

Agman, that was not a question for the poltically appointed federal judiciary to answer. It was for a group of jurors to listen to the evidence and answer. They did. Was Judge Strom intimidated into changing the decision by the appellate court for fear of a reversal as you have claimed? Did the appellate court weigh in on the decision by Strom?

Get the judge to release the court testimony so we can all see it. I would like to see the calculations that were made. The pile of dirt under the rug at the USDA is so big JoAnn Waterfield tripped and broke her neck on it and had to take medical indefinite medical leave.

This case was rigged and there are larger cover ups going on by allowing JoAnn to get a free walk.

What demand changes were not filtered out in the math? Please post the math also, since you have been bragging you have looked at it.

Show your proof of a rigged market. Just for once provide some real proof and begin to establish an antom of credibility. If you cannot do this then you leave readers with no other conclusion than to conclude you are once again initiating and perpetuating a lie. Be a real hero and show some proof.

A word of caution to all readers; don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. From Econ you can only expect a diversion and meaningless rhetoric will soon follow. He is great at volume but always absent fact.

Why would I waste time on Taylor's math. He totally failed to show a causal relationship between marketing agreements and perceived lower prices. While the jury clearly did not understand that the Judge clearly did and that is all that matters. What you think he showed is irrelevant, you did not even read the testimony. How many people do you think you can fool with your constant gibberish?

You really don't understand the allegation, Agman. Marketing agreements in themselves were never the problem. It was the strategic use of them that was the problem. If you can't get through your head that guns are not causal to crime, the intention and actions of the criminals are, then you just don't get it.

What demand changes were not filtered out in the math? Please post the math also, since you have been bragging you have looked at it.

Put up or shut up, Agman. We are all tired of hearing how you looked over the evidence and everyone should trust your judgement on the matter.