Cattlemen in Louisiana Target NCBA

[Tex]

Tex: "I have no problem with grid pricing but you can not, if you are a meat packer, discriminate against the price setting cash market for the same quality animal and it was proven that they did to save on their cattle trades in the commodity market and to drive down the cash market".

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect purchases made through grid pricing is not price discrimination. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases through grid pricing is simply good old SUPPLY AND DEMAND. As one increases their supply, the demand is reduced accordingly. This is exactly why you lost the case. You can call it price discrimination but it's a common practice throughout the industry that you would never apply to the other segments of the industry which makes you a hypocrite.

THE SAME QUALITY ANIMAL?? How the heck do you determine whether an animal is of the same quality UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF?

Explain that Tex????

Watch the diversion folks. Tex won't answer it because he can't.

Tex: "This, on its face, was illegal according to any reasonable interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act and the rules it set up against the abuse of market power."

According to you because you can't see the consequences of a socialized cattle market where all cattle receive the same price. Market power cannot exist if there is other marketing options which there was. You got nothing.

Tex: "Let us face it. You gave excuses only. I don't buy them."

EXCUSES??? You are right, let's face it. I presented facts and you could not refute a single one of them.

Tex: "It doesn't matter who asks meat packers to not follow the law of the land. If they break them, they should be held responsible."

That's right, if they break the law they should be held accountable. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect previous purchases does not constitute breaking the law which is why you lost the case.

Tex: "Would you please drive your tricycle 60 miles an hour on the wrong side of the road and get back to me?"

That speaks to your level of intellect.


~SH~

FACT #4. It was the feeders that requested grid pricing, not the packers.

Tex: "Would you please drive your tricycle 60 miles an hour on the wrong side of the road and get back to me?"

sh:
That speaks to your level of intellect.

Right about 3rd grade, wouldn't you say? It is very hard for me to speak down to you at your level, sh. I will admit that I am not very good at it, nor want to be. Feeders or the top people in a Ponzi scheme may ask for lots of things, but that asking does not allow the meat packers to break the prohibitions outlined in the law for them. It would be about like me asking you to ride your tricycle 60 miles an hour on the wrong side of the road.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "I have no problem with grid pricing but you can not, if you are a meat packer, discriminate against the price setting cash market for the same quality animal and it was proven that they did to save on their cattle trades in the commodity market and to drive down the cash market".

Tex,

Why do you keep diverting questions? If you want to engage as you said you would, answer this simple question.

How do packers, who are buying cattle in the cash market, know the quality of a carcass until they slaughter that animal?

Explain it.

Obviously they are not taking a risk on the carcass with grid / formula pricing because the price reflects the carcass merits so how does that apply to the cash market?

How does a packer know how an animal will dress or how it will grade and yield without slaughtering that animal?

It's such a simple question, why won't you answer it??

I know why you won't answer it, because you don't understand cattle marketing anymore than the Pickett jury did, that's why.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "I have no problem with grid pricing but you can not, if you are a meat packer, discriminate against the price setting cash market for the same quality animal and it was proven that they did to save on their cattle trades in the commodity market and to drive down the cash market".

Tex,

Why do you keep diverting questions? If you want to engage as you said you would, answer this simple question.

How do packers, who are buying cattle in the cash market, know the quality of a carcass until they slaughter that animal?

Explain it.

Obviously they are not taking a risk on the carcass with grid / formula pricing because the price reflects the carcass merits so how does that apply to the cash market?

How does a packer know how an animal will dress or how it will grade and yield without slaughtering that animal?

It's such a simple question, why won't you answer it??

I know why you won't answer it, because you don't understand cattle marketing anymore than the Pickett jury did, that's why.


~SH~

Are you telling me that fat cattle buyers can not do this or are you just trying to substantiate some lame claim that they can't?

I have no problem with grid buying or selling or even going further and doing shear tests or for tenderness or anything else they come up with that consumers want and pay for.

I do have a problem with the way the grid and cash market worked in the Pickett incident (which was over years) and the relationship between the cash as the price setting mechanism and futures cattle coming due.

Again, this is probably not on your fourth grade reading level to go into the math behind it.

It is why I don't waste my time with your questions. I bet your grade school teacher made you draw a circle on the chalkboard and put your nose in it.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

~SH~ (previous): "How does a packer know how an animal will dress or how it will grade and yield without slaughtering that animal?"

Tex (in response): "Are you telling me that fat cattle buyers can not do this or are you just trying to substantiate some lame claim that they can't?"

I'll ask you again Tex (and you, without a doubt, will divert the question again), HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW A CARCASS WILL DRESS OR HOW AN ANIMAL WILL GRADE AND YIELD WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THAT ANIMAL????

Can you explain this X-ray vision that allows you to see how an animal will dress, grade and yield before the hide comes off?

Now if you don't believe grade, yield, and dressing percentage determines "QUALITY", then perhaps you can explain what does?

Tex: "It is why I don't waste my time with your questions."

No Tex, you don't waste time answering my SIMPLE question because you don't know the answer, which you just proved. You repeat what you hear ("for the same quality cattle") like a parrot rather than knowing what the heck you are talking about.

Tex: "I do have a problem with the way the grid and cash market worked in the Pickett incident (which was over years) and the relationship between the cash as the price setting mechanism and futures cattle coming due."

Doesn't matter what you have a problem with. You obviously don't have a clue about fat cattle marketing or you would answer my simple question. Since you obviously have never marketed fat cattle yourself, why would you think all the feeders, that initiated grid and formua pricing, need you, and other so called fat cattle marketing gurus like you, to save the feeding industry from itself?


~SH~

 

[Tex]

~SH~ (previous): "How does a packer know how an animal will dress or how it will grade and yield without slaughtering that animal?"

Tex (in response): "Are you telling me that fat cattle buyers can not do this or are you just trying to substantiate some lame claim that they can't?"

I'll ask you again Tex (and you, without a doubt, will divert the question again), HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW A CARCASS WILL DRESS OR HOW AN ANIMAL WILL GRADE AND YIELD WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THAT ANIMAL????

Can you explain this X-ray vision that allows you to see how an animal will dress, grade and yield before the hide comes off?

Now if you don't believe grade, yield, and dressing percentage determines "QUALITY", then perhaps you can explain what does?

Tex: "It is why I don't waste my time with your questions."

No Tex, you don't waste time answering my SIMPLE question because you don't know the answer, which you just proved. You repeat what you hear ("for the same quality cattle") like a parrot rather than knowing what the heck you are talking about.

Tex: "I do have a problem with the way the grid and cash market worked in the Pickett incident (which was over years) and the relationship between the cash as the price setting mechanism and futures cattle coming due."

Doesn't matter what you have a problem with. You obviously don't have a clue about fat cattle marketing or you would answer my simple question. Since you obviously have never marketed fat cattle yourself, why would you think all the feeders, that initiated grid and formua pricing, need you, and other so called fat cattle marketing gurus like you, to save the feeding industry from itself?


~SH~

You are missing the larger point here, sh. It wasn't grid pricing that was bad, but the way it was used.

No wonder you didn't do very well in school.

Tex

 

[mrj]

Stating as many times previously, marketing it NOT my priority interest or knowledge base, since general or overall information re. cattle/beef business, plus an interest in meat from the consumers point of view (being the 'mom/grandma' chief cook and errand person) take more time than I can justify, and others in the family are the leaders on marketing issues.

It seems to me any hope of understanding this issue requires knowledge of the time frame Tex is using in the Pickett Case, the knowledge level re. cattle/beef business of every jury member, level of improvement in cattle carcass quality during that time frame, specifically what Tex means by "the way the grid and cash market worked in the Pickett incident (which was over ? years), since different people may understand it differently, and if and how the different participants in this discussion have used the cash and futures markets over since those years and to date. No numbers, but if and how used, and how you now feel about the experience.

It might help others understand the arguments better, and surely would be interesting.

Have at it guys. Educate us!!!

mrj

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "You are missing the larger point here, sh. It wasn't grid pricing that was bad, but the way it was used."

I am not missing the point Tex. You are still diverting the question, just as I said you would.


Here is your quote ONCE AGAIN:

Tex: "I have no problem with grid pricing but you can not, if you are a meat packer, discriminate against the price setting cash market for the same quality animal and it was proven that they did to save on their cattle trades in the commodity market and to drive down the cash market".

There it is Tex. You said "the packers discriminated against the price setting cash market FOR THE SAME QUALITY ANIMAL...."

I'll ask you again, and you will undoubtedly divert the question again because you painted yourself into a corner with your own ignorance on the manner in which fat cattle are marketed.

HOW DOES A PACKER KNOW HOW AN ANIMAL WILL DRESS OR HOW IT WILL GRADE AND YIELD WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THAT ANIMAL????

Ah, never mind. I know you will just continue to divert the question since you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'll answer the question for you. A packer does not know the quality of an animal without slaughtering that animal. The only way you can have any idea how an animal will grade and yield is if you did ultra-sound on that animal before it was slaughtered. Not many feedlots are using ultrasound. You certainly cannot predict carcass merits of a live animal any other way. If a packer bought a particular pen of cattle before and they did very well, they would be more willing to pay a premium for those cattle but the feeding conditions would have to be the same (weather, ration, and days on feed).

So Tex, there is no way to know if the animal in the cash market is the same quality as the formula cattle without slaughtering it to determine dressing percentage, grade, and yield. With that in mind, your argument is totally worthless. You can't claim discrimination for the same quality of animal because the quality cannot be determined at the time that fat cattle are sold in the cash market.

I am sure you will throw out another misdirecting statement that has nothing to do with the topic, as you always do.

MRJ: "Have at it guys. Educate us!!!"

MRJ,

There is numerous formula and grid pricing arrangements being used to market fat cattle. It's been a while since I have sold fat cattle on the grid so I don't know how much has changed in recent years but I'll explain how it was a few years back.

Grid or formula pricing is basically selling a fat animal based on it's carcass merits rather than a guess of those carcass merits. You get premiums for higher marbling and higher yielding cattle in most formula or grid pricing arrangements. Depending on the grid and how your cattle grade and yield, the premiums can be attractive.

In order to sell on a grid or formula pricing arrangement, you have to have some sort of base price. Contrary to popular belief, there is negotiated and non-negotiated base price formulas or at least there was.

So let's say that we are selling on a grid with a non-negotiated price. When I sold fat cattle, the non-negotiated base price was based on the weekly weighted average of the week prior to delivery. You knew that when you sold the cattle. Keep in mind this may be higher or lower than this week's cash market depending on cattle supplies and beef demand so depending on the movements in the market, the base price can work for or against you.

Let's use $1.90 as a base price per pound of carcass for a choice Y3 carcass.

The first carcass merit that can work for or against you depending on your cattle is dressing percent (yield - not to be confused with "yield grade")

So if we have a 1200 lb. animal and it dresses 62.5%, we now have a 750 lb. carcass.

750 X $1.90 = $1425

Now if you want to convert that to a cash price it would be the same as $119 per pound on the hoof.

Here's the math:

$1425 / 1200 = $1.19 live price equivalent

Now watch how this will change if the animal dresses 64%

1200 x 64% = 768 carcass

768 lb. carcass x $1.90 = $1459

$1459 / 1200 = $1.22 live price equivalent


So, if our cattle yield 64% rather than a more average dressing percentage of 62.5%, we would gain $34 per head simply based on a better than average dressing percentage at today's prices.

Now let's figure that 15% of our carcasses qualify for CAB. CAB qualifications is the upper 2/3 of "choice" grade for marbling. I don't know what CAB premiums are currently, but if I remember right, they were $7 / cwt dressed price.

Let's say we have a pen of 200 fats. 15% of of 200 is 30 animals. The dressed price for the carcasses that qualify for CAB is $197 per cwt.

The math...

$1.90 base price + CAB premium of $7 / cwt = $1.97

Let's continue on with our 768 pound carcasses from a 64% dressing percentage.

768 x $1.97 = $1513

$1513 / 1200 = $1.26 live price for 30 head.

By having 15% CAB carcasses, we picked up an additional $71 per head on 30 head. That amounts to another $2130 for the pen or an average of $10.65 per head for 200 head.

Now let's say that 10% of our carcasses are Yield grade 2 choice carcasses rather than the standard Yield grade 3 choice carcass. Let's also say the grid pays an additional $3 / cwt for Y2 carcasses. A Y2 carcass will have less fat than a Y3 carcass so it's worth more.

$190 base price plus $3/cwt = $1.93

768 lb. carcass x $1.93 = $1482

$1482 - $1459 = $23 more for 15 head = $345 or an additional $1.73 per head for the entire pen.

$1482 / 1200 = $1.23 live price equivalent.

Now we would have to figure out our discounted carcasses. Most grids discount you for Y4 carcasses, which are too fat, and "select" carcasses without enough marbling.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume all our cattle graded choice and we didn't have a single Y4 because the feedlot sold before they got too fat.

Here's how we did when compared to the average cash market....

We picked up $34 per head on our dressing percentage.

Then we picked up $10.65 per head for our CAB premiums.

Then we picked up $1.73 for our higher yielding carcasses.

$34 + $10.65 + $1.73 = $46.38


$46.38 per head in additional premiums x 200 head = $9276 more for the entire pen of cattle.


So now you can see why progressive producers who are getting paid for better than average cattle by selling them on the grid do not want the GIPSA rules to interfere with their markets. If packers have to justify paying premiums for better quality cattle, then it's easier to pay an average price rather than face potential lawsuits from packer blamers.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "You are missing the larger point here, sh. It wasn't grid pricing that was bad, but the way it was used."

I am not missing the point Tex. You are still diverting the question, just as I said you would.


Here is your quote ONCE AGAIN:

Tex: "I have no problem with grid pricing but you can not, if you are a meat packer, discriminate against the price setting cash market for the same quality animal and it was proven that they did to save on their cattle trades in the commodity market and to drive down the cash market".

There it is Tex. You said "the packers discriminated against the price setting cash market FOR THE SAME QUALITY ANIMAL...."

I'll ask you again, and you will undoubtedly divert the question again because you painted yourself into a corner with your own ignorance on the manner in which fat cattle are marketed.

HOW DOES A PACKER KNOW HOW AN ANIMAL WILL DRESS OR HOW IT WILL GRADE AND YIELD WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING THAT ANIMAL????

Ah, never mind. I know you will just continue to divert the question since you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'll answer the question for you. A packer does not know the quality of an animal without slaughtering that animal. The only way you can have any idea how an animal will grade and yield is if you did ultra-sound on that animal before it was slaughtered. Not many feedlots are using ultrasound. You certainly cannot predict carcass merits of a live animal any other way. If a packer bought a particular pen of cattle before and they did very well, they would be more willing to pay a premium for those cattle but the feeding conditions would have to be the same (weather, ration, and days on feed).

So Tex, there is no way to know if the animal in the cash market is the same quality as the formula cattle without slaughtering it to determine dressing percentage, grade, and yield. With that in mind, your argument is totally worthless. You can't claim discrimination for the same quality of animal because the quality cannot be determined at the time that fat cattle are sold in the cash market.

I am sure you will throw out another misdirecting statement that has nothing to do with the topic, as you always do.

MRJ: "Have at it guys. Educate us!!!"

MRJ,

There is numerous formula and grid pricing arrangements being used to market fat cattle. It's been a while since I have sold fat cattle on the grid so I don't know how much has changed in recent years but I'll explain how it was a few years back.

Grid or formula pricing is basically selling a fat animal based on it's carcass merits rather than a guess of those carcass merits. You get premiums for higher marbling and higher yielding cattle in most formula or grid pricing arrangements. Depending on the grid and how your cattle grade and yield, the premiums can be attractive.

In order to sell on a grid or formula pricing arrangement, you have to have some sort of base price. Contrary to popular belief, there is negotiated and non-negotiated base price formulas or at least there was.

So let's say that we are selling on a grid with a non-negotiated price. When I sold fat cattle, the non-negotiated base price was based on the weekly weighted average of the week prior to delivery. You knew that when you sold the cattle. Keep in mind this may be higher or lower than this week's cash market depending on cattle supplies and beef demand so depending on the movements in the market, the base price can work for or against you.

Let's use $1.90 as a base price per pound of carcass for a choice Y3 carcass.

The first carcass merit that can work for or against you depending on your cattle is dressing percent (yield - not to be confused with "yield grade")

So if we have a 1200 lb. animal and it dresses 62.5%, we now have a 750 lb. carcass.

750 X $1.90 = $1425

Now if you want to convert that to a cash price it would be the same as $119 per pound on the hoof.

Here's the math:

$1425 / 1200 = $1.19 live price equivalent

Now watch how this will change if the animal dresses 64%

1200 x 64% = 768 carcass

768 lb. carcass x $1.90 = $1459

$1459 / 1200 = $1.22 live price equivalent


So, if our cattle yield 64% rather than a more average dressing percentage of 62.5%, we would gain $34 per head simply based on a better than average dressing percentage at today's prices.

Now let's figure that 15% of our carcasses qualify for CAB. CAB qualifications is the upper 2/3 of "choice" grade for marbling. I don't know what CAB premiums are currently, but if I remember right, they were $7 / cwt dressed price.

Let's say we have a pen of 200 fats. 15% of of 200 is 30 animals. The dressed price for the carcasses that qualify for CAB is $197 per cwt.

The math...

$1.90 base price + CAB premium of $7 / cwt = $1.97

Let's continue on with our 768 pound carcasses from a 64% dressing percentage.

768 x $1.97 = $1513

$1513 / 1200 = $1.26 live price for 30 head.

By having 15% CAB carcasses, we picked up an additional $71 per head on 30 head. That amounts to another $2130 for the pen or an average of $10.65 per head for 200 head.

Now let's say that 10% of our carcasses are Yield grade 2 choice carcasses rather than the standard Yield grade 3 choice carcass. Let's also say the grid pays an additional $3 / cwt for Y2 carcasses. A Y2 carcass will have less fat than a Y3 carcass so it's worth more.

$190 base price plus $3/cwt = $1.93

768 lb. carcass x $1.93 = $1482

$1482 - $1459 = $23 more for 15 head = $345 or an additional $1.73 per head for the entire pen.

$1482 / 1200 = $1.23 live price equivalent.

Now we would have to figure out our discounted carcasses. Most grids discount you for Y4 carcasses, which are too fat, and "select" carcasses without enough marbling.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume all our cattle graded choice and we didn't have a single Y4 because the feedlot sold before they got too fat.

Here's how we did when compared to the average cash market....

We picked up $34 per head on our dressing percentage.

Then we picked up $10.65 per head for our CAB premiums.

Then we picked up $1.73 for our higher yielding carcasses.

$34 + $10.65 + $1.73 = $46.38


$46.38 per head in additional premiums x 200 head = $9276 more for the entire pen of cattle.


So now you can see why progressive producers who are getting paid for better than average cattle by selling them on the grid do not want the GIPSA rules to interfere with their markets. If packers have to justify paying premiums for better quality cattle, then it's easier to pay an average price rather than face potential lawsuits from packer blamers.


~SH~

SH, why did the meat packers lawyers make sure the case was sealed?

Was it so you could continue to spin it continually despite the facts that were brought out in trial?

And while we are at this, are they continually price discriminating in their other meats categories like pork and chicken for the same quality animal?

I think the answers to these questions will give you clues to what they do in beef, despite what you might make up as an excuse.

Quick, quick, MRJ wants to know.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex,

Your continual diversion to my question proves your ignorance. I knew you wouldn't answer the question because the answer defeats your position.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex,

Your continual diversion to my question proves your ignorance. I knew you wouldn't answer the question because the answer defeats your position.


~SH~

SH, people are not guilty of things until it is proven to a jury. The specifics are important in proving the case. You are trying to make huge stereotypes that are so broad that they don't fit the evidence and tend to make the evidence meaningless.

I simply asked that you make these details of the case available so everyone can see.

Meat packers want the case to be hidden because they were caught red handed at manipulating the markets against the prohibitions in the Packers and Stockyards Act. They have a pr firm spinning it as fast as they can (these pr firms may be violating the latter parts of Section 202).

The details of every case are important and you seem to forget that fact.

You want to act like a kindergartner and make judgements without the facts, just the spin handed out.

Answer my question, do the meat packers pay different prices for the same quality animal every day in their other substitute meats business? In fact, do they have contracts that say they do this that they are operating out of right now as we speak and for the last 10 years or more?

This was what was needed for proof and I believe the jury saw the price discrimination and made a determination on it.

You are just allowing meat packers to hide the facts because they are so damning to the spin they are spinning.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "SH, people are not guilty of things until it is proven to a jury. The specifics are important in proving the case."

The jury is not the final say in any case Tex, the judge has a say as to the case's application to the law, then the appeals court judges have a say if it goes to that level, then the supreme court judges have a say if it goes to that level. Your case was lost at every level above the jury.

Just because an ALABAMA jury, far from a cattle feeding state, believed that ONE PACKER dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their puchases through formula or grid pricing was market manipulation does not make it so.

You are right about one thing, the specifics are important in proving a case. The specifics of whether or not ONE PACKER dropping THEIR price in the cash market to reflect their other purchases constitutes market manipulation if you can sort all the other market factors out that affect cattle prices.

The fact that producers initiated grid pricing is important to the case.

The fact that feeders have numerous marketing options through numerous packers and numerous pricing mechanisms is important to the case.

The fact that the feeders accepted the price in the cash market is relevant to the case.

All of these factors are important in determining whether market manipulation occurred. If you don't think so, you once again prove your ignorance.

Tex: "I simply asked that you make these details of the case available so everyone can see."

I just did.

Tex: "Meat packers want the case to be hidden because they were caught red handed at manipulating the markets against the prohibitions in the Packers and Stockyards Act".

You are wrong Tex. Meatpackers were not caught red handed at manipulating the markets against the PSA or the judge would not have overturned the jury's misguided belief. The appeals court judge upheld that decision. The supreme court upheld that decision. You are flat wrong again, as always.

Tex: "The details of every case are important and you seem to forget that fact".

Haha! Listen to you. As if you were the one to present the details that are important. Your arrogance is incredible.

Tex: "Answer my question, do the meat packers pay different prices for the same quality animal every day in their other substitute meats business? In fact, do they have contracts that say they do this that they are operating out of right now as we speak and for the last 10 years or more?"

I asked you the same question numerous times and you refused to answer it and now you think you are going to lead me around?

Here's your answer ......................

Tex: "You are just allowing meat packers to hide the facts because they are so damning to the spin they are spinning".

The facts were not hidden. The facts were presented. You lost. End of story.



~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "SH, people are not guilty of things until it is proven to a jury. The specifics are important in proving the case."

The jury is not the final say in any case Tex, the judge has a say as to the case's application to the law, then the appeals court judges have a say if it goes to that level, then the supreme court judges have a say if it goes to that level. Your case was lost at every level above the jury.

Just because an ALABAMA jury, far from a cattle feeding state, believed that ONE PACKER dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their puchases through formula or grid pricing was market manipulation does not make it so.

You are right about one thing, the specifics are important in proving a case. The specifics of whether or not ONE PACKER dropping THEIR price in the cash market to reflect their other purchases constitutes market manipulation if you can sort all the other market factors out that affect cattle prices.

The fact that producers initiated grid pricing is important to the case.

The fact that feeders have numerous marketing options through numerous packers and numerous pricing mechanisms is important to the case.

The fact that the feeders accepted the price in the cash market is relevant to the case.

All of these factors are important in determining whether market manipulation occurred. If you don't think so, you once again prove your ignorance.

Tex: "I simply asked that you make these details of the case available so everyone can see."

I just did.

Tex: "Meat packers want the case to be hidden because they were caught red handed at manipulating the markets against the prohibitions in the Packers and Stockyards Act".

You are wrong Tex. Meatpackers were not caught red handed at manipulating the markets against the PSA or the judge would not have overturned the jury's misguided belief. The appeals court judge upheld that decision. The supreme court upheld that decision. You are flat wrong again, as always.

Tex: "The details of every case are important and you seem to forget that fact".

Haha! Listen to you. As if you were the one to present the details that are important. Your arrogance is incredible.

Tex: "Answer my question, do the meat packers pay different prices for the same quality animal every day in their other substitute meats business? In fact, do they have contracts that say they do this that they are operating out of right now as we speak and for the last 10 years or more?"

I asked you the same question numerous times and you refused to answer it and now you think you are going to lead me around?

Here's your answer ......................

Tex: "You are just allowing meat packers to hide the facts because they are so damning to the spin they are spinning".

The facts were not hidden. The facts were presented. You lost. End of story.



~SH~

sh, our federal judges are point blank throwing cases.

You are way too afraid to get the meat packers to make public all the records which have no significant commercial value at this time other than hide the facts behind federal judges throwing cases for the money and the politicians who are taking the money.

Our country worships these principals over the principles of law. Our judiciary is infected with this disease just as our politicians were with chunking the banking regulations that came out of our last big economic lesson on these issues that brought on the Great Depression.

We will always have politicians and judges who will follow the wrong principals and give up the principles. It is human nature. To excuse it means we have to pay the economic price for these opportunistic men and women.

Can't get the records released, could you?

Tex: "Answer my question, do the meat packers pay different prices for the same quality animal every day in their other substitute meats business? In fact, do they have contracts that say they do this that they are operating out of right now as we speak and for the last 10 years or more?"

SH: I asked you the same question numerous times and you refused to answer it and now you think you are going to lead me around?

Here's your answer ...................... [/quote]


Yes, I know they are doing it every day.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "sh, our federal judges are point blank throwing cases."

That's what everyone says when they lose a case. Funny how countless GIPSA investigations into alleged market manipulation, price fixing, and collusion led to the exact same conclusion.

Tex: "You are way too afraid to get the meat packers to make public all the records which have no significant commercial value at this time other than hide the facts behind federal judges throwing cases for the money and the politicians who are taking the money."

Ibp brought their financial records into court during Pickett for the period of "alleged" market manipulation. Did that prove your case? NO!!

You lost, remember?

Tex: "Can't get the records released, could you?"

Can't answer the question can you?

How do packers know the value of a carcass before they slaughter that animal?

DIVERT, DIVERT, DIVERT!!!

All you can offer is statements and empty innuendos. No supporting facts. Nothing to contradict what I have presented. Nothing to prove what you want to believe. ABSOLULTELY NOTHING but a conspiring mind.

Must really suck to go through life thinking that everyone is dishonest and corrupt and you are the only righteous man left.

Poor factually defenseless Tex!


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "sh, our federal judges are point blank throwing cases."

That's what everyone says when they lose a case. Funny how countless GIPSA investigations into alleged market manipulation, price fixing, and collusion led to the exact same conclusion.

Tex: "You are way too afraid to get the meat packers to make public all the records which have no significant commercial value at this time other than hide the facts behind federal judges throwing cases for the money and the politicians who are taking the money."

Ibp brought their financial records into court during Pickett for the period of "alleged" market manipulation. Did that prove your case? NO!!

You lost, remember?

Tex: "Can't get the records released, could you?"

Can't answer the question can you?

How do packers know the value of a carcass before they slaughter that animal?

DIVERT, DIVERT, DIVERT!!!

All you can offer is statements and empty innuendos. No supporting facts. Nothing to contradict what I have presented. Nothing to prove what you want to believe. ABSOLULTELY NOTHING but a conspiring mind.

Must really suck to go through life thinking that everyone is dishonest and corrupt and you are the only righteous man left.

Poor factually defenseless Tex!


~SH~

Yes, but SH, in this case they did throw the case.

Can't get the court to release the trial records after all this time?

It is because they threw the case, SH. The proof brought before the jury has not been released. Is there something to hide?

Of course there is and that is why it is being kept quiet by the meat packers.

Meat packers will use economic power to capture the markets and become "too big" to fail. It will be the ruination of us all and the economy captured into the hands of the few. It has already happened.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "Yes, but SH, in this case they did throw the case."

Keep telling yourself that Tex. The facts of the case be damned.

Tex: "Can't get the court to release the trial records after all this time?"

Can't answer the question huh? How do you know the value of a fat animal before it's slaughtered? Does your X-ray vision know the yield, quality grade, and yield grade through the hide?

DIVERT, DIVERT, DIVERT!

Tex: "It is because they threw the case, SH. The proof brought before the jury has not been released. Is there something to hide?"

WELL BY GOLLY IT HAS TO BE A CONSPIRACY. THAT'S WHAT YOU BELIEVE THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE RIGHT? After all, how could you survive if you didn't have someone or something to blame? That's what blamers do, right? Make it up as they go?

Tex: "Of course there is and that is why it is being kept quiet by the meat packers."

Great job Tex! Talked yourself right into that one. Presumption of guilt for all the world to see.

Tex: "Meat packers will use economic power to capture the markets and become "too big" to fail. It will be the ruination of us all and the economy captured into the hands of the few. It has already happened."

Yup, current cattle prices are just a figment of our imagination. Cattle prices cannot possibly be as high as they are with the same level of packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports as the "ALLEGED" period of market manipulation.

Ignore the obvious Tex because current prices certainly couldn't be from packers that have suddenly found a conscience and are spreading good cheer throughout the industry.

WHOP, WHOP, WHOP......here come them black helicopters again. Hey look, it's a reflection coming from the distant hills. Must be a packer sniper. Oh my gosh, that click on the phone line must be packers tapping my line. Who was that fat cattle buyer talking to when he was buying my cattle? Are they going to send someone to break my thumbs for asking for more money than I ended up getting?


~SH~

 

[Tex]

So SH, did you get the meat packers to release the court proceedings in their entirety yet?

Still waiting.

Must be a lot to hide.

Tex