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

Reply to thread

Message

I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case. Your case is so shallow that all you can resort to is further accusations.

Your further accusations directed at me again demonstrate how little you know and how terribly confused you are. I did not help obtain marketing agreements but I fully recognized the average pricing system was broke and only served to benefit the producers of below average product at the expense of premium product producers. Premium product producers tired of subsidizing producers of below average product as they should have. Did I encourage producers to change the system, yes I did. Will I encourage them today if their cattle types benefit from a marketing agreement. The answer is emphatically, "YES".

The industry paid a dear price in lost beef demand and lost market share under the average pricing sytem which served to lower the overall quality of beef offered to consumers. If you think the movement to marketing agreements did not move this industry toward better product which helped to stem a 19 year decline in beef demand from which ALL producers benefited then you are again highly misinformed. Perhaps even you know so little and remain so gullible as to believe Bullard's erroneous comments.

Your disdain for marketing agreements and how YOU think they are used and abused is the result of several sources of misinformation and misrepresentation. First, as the court clearly and correctly pointed out the term "captive supply" is very misleading. Producers can elect to sell their cattle in any form to anyone up to the time they are committed which is a very brief period. Second, for every animal committed to an agreement the residual supply is reduced by a corresponding number. Total supply is not increased. There is no downward shift in the demand curve. In fact in periods of oversupply a strong argument can be made that marketing agreements help to limit total beef production, thus limiting the negative price impact from increasing supplies. If you think hard and long enough you will understand why the latter is true. Have a good one.

<blockquote data-quote="agman" data-source="post: 95436" data-attributes="member: 54">I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide.&nbsp; It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your case is so shallow that all you can resort to is further accusations.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your further accusations directed at me again demonstrate how little you know and how terribly confused you are.&nbsp; I did not help obtain marketing agreements but I fully recognized the average pricing system was broke and only served to benefit the producers of below average product at the expense of premium product producers.&nbsp; Premium product producers tired of subsidizing producers of below average product as they should have.&nbsp; Did I encourage producers to change the system, yes I did.&nbsp; Will I encourage them today if their cattle types benefit from a marketing agreement.&nbsp; The answer is emphatically, &quot;YES&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The industry paid a dear price in lost beef demand and lost market share under the average pricing sytem which served to lower the overall quality of beef offered to consumers.&nbsp; If you think the movement to marketing agreements did not move this industry toward better product which helped to stem a 19 year decline in beef demand from which ALL producers benefited then you are again highly misinformed.&nbsp; Perhaps even you know so little and remain so gullible as to believe Bullard&#039;s erroneous comments.&nbsp; Your disdain for marketing agreements and how YOU think they are used and abused is the result of several sources of misinformation and misrepresentation.&nbsp; First, as the court clearly and correctly pointed out the term &quot;captive supply&quot; is very misleading.&nbsp; Producers can elect to sell their cattle in any form to anyone up to the time they are committed which is a very brief period.&nbsp; Second, for every animal committed to an agreement the residual supply is reduced by a corresponding number.&nbsp; Total supply is not increased.&nbsp; There is no downward shift in the demand curve.&nbsp; In fact in periods of oversupply a strong argument can be made that marketing agreements help to limit total beef production, thus limiting the negative price impact from increasing supplies.&nbsp; If you think hard and long enough you will understand why the latter is true.&nbsp; Have a good one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="agman, post: 95436, member: 54"] I will trust the judgment of legal experts as opposed to the home-grown analysis that you provide. It was not just one judge, it was ALL the judges who reviewed this case. Your case is so shallow that all you can resort to is further accusations. Your further accusations directed at me again demonstrate how little you know and how terribly confused you are. I did not help obtain marketing agreements but I fully recognized the average pricing system was broke and only served to benefit the producers of below average product at the expense of premium product producers. Premium product producers tired of subsidizing producers of below average product as they should have. Did I encourage producers to change the system, yes I did. Will I encourage them today if their cattle types benefit from a marketing agreement. The answer is emphatically, "YES". The industry paid a dear price in lost beef demand and lost market share under the average pricing sytem which served to lower the overall quality of beef offered to consumers. If you think the movement to marketing agreements did not move this industry toward better product which helped to stem a 19 year decline in beef demand from which ALL producers benefited then you are again highly misinformed. Perhaps even you know so little and remain so gullible as to believe Bullard's erroneous comments. Your disdain for marketing agreements and how YOU think they are used and abused is the result of several sources of misinformation and misrepresentation. First, as the court clearly and correctly pointed out the term "captive supply" is very misleading. Producers can elect to sell their cattle in any form to anyone up to the time they are committed which is a very brief period. Second, for every animal committed to an agreement the residual supply is reduced by a corresponding number. Total supply is not increased. There is no downward shift in the demand curve. In fact in periods of oversupply a strong argument can be made that marketing agreements help to limit total beef production, thus limiting the negative price impact from increasing supplies. If you think hard and long enough you will understand why the latter is true. Have a good one. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What animal is usually the product of a ranch?