Cattlemen in Louisiana Target NCBA

[Tex]

Tex: "I don't think the NCBA trying to get rid of MCOOL, the new GIPSA rules, or misrepresenting the new rules is in any way a good thing."

I fully supported NCBA's position on "M"COOL. NCBA understood the beef industry enough to know what a joke "M"COOL would be and we now have the "CAN-MEX-USA" labels as proof to their initial concerns. Anyone that knew what percent of our beef at the retail level was foreign beef knew what a joke this was EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN ENFORCEABLE, which it's not.

With that said, I don't support checkoff dollars being spent in any manner to promote any political agenda even if I happen to agree with it. Those funds are for beef research, promotion, and education based on the understanding that the beef industry drives the cattle industry not to support or oppose legislation to isolate a sliver of foreign beef at the retail counter as a novelty item.

In fairness I believe the "firewalls" between NCBA politics and the beef checkoff need to be very clear and defined the same way I would have concerns if R-CALF was using checkoff dollars to support their baseless packer blaming agenda.

I also fully support NCBA's position on the new GIPSA rules which are based on arrogantly trying to save the feeding industry from their own marketing alternatives. The GIPSA rules stand in the way of the free enterprise system and are based on an unfounded and unproven belief that packers are using grid pricing to manipulate the markets as if there wasn't numerous packers and numerous marketing options with most of these packers to choose from.

As if I need you Tex, and those who believe like you, to tell me how to market my fat cattle. The GIPSA rules are based on arrogance and ignorance of fat cattle marketing beyond the imagination of those who truly understand fat cattle marketing.

Again, this issue should have nothing to do with the beef checkoff dollars and the lines between the two need to be clear and defined. Checkoff dollars should not be used to support or oppose socialistic cattle marketing laws in an attempt to save cattle feeders from themselves.

Tex: "I believe the meat packers have leveraged the NCBA for meatpacker interests, not cattleman's interests and there are a lot of people who just don't realize it."

It doesn't matter what you WANT TO BELIEVE. All that matters is what you can prove which is very little.

NCBA works with the packing industry on the promotion of beef and new beef products because they realize that beef prices affect cattle prices. That's where the lines between the CBB and NCBA can become fuzzy in contrast to the political beliefs of blame driven organizations like R-CALF or OCM that operate on emotion rather than fact in their pursuit of someone or something to blame for that which they fail to understand. Blame driven organizations would rather see those dollars spent on baseless lawsuits against the packing industry.

Yes, political agendas and the beef checkoff need to be kept at arms length from eachother. If I knew checkoff dollars were being spent to promote the flawed "M"COOL law or GIPSA rules to socialize cattle marketing and create disincentives for providing higher quality cattle, I'd be up in arms too.

~SH~

You would, and so do meat packers. The cattlemen in the original article from Louisiana were just too smart for the kind of things you go for.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "what GIPSA rules would in any way prohibit giving legitimate premiums?"

The question that needs to be asked is, where is the proof of price discrimination? Where is the justification for SOCIALIZING THE CATTLE MARKETS???

Volume customers should get price breaks, THEY DO IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF BUSINESS. If you don't like the price, SELL TO ANOTHER PACKER, DUH!!!!

The bottom line is that there is no justification for the GIPSA rules. Just a bunch of empty packer blaming rheotoric that cannot be supported by facts to save feeders from themselves.

Who the heck are you or any other packer blamer to tell me how I can market fat cattle? What would possibly make you think that you and other packer blamers need to save feeders from themselves? Most producers have sold their cattle to the feeders, what business is it of yours how a feeder markets those cattle? THEY OWN THEM, NOT YOU! That is the problem Tex, it's the arrogance of you and packer blamers like you.

Tex: "If meat packers have a branded product based on, say, your good beef, and can package it and sell it at a higher price, then they can do it. The qualities that allow that to happen must be available to everyone."

Wrong! If the next guy's cattle do not grade, yield, or dress as well, they should not receive the same socialized price as someone else's cattle. That's a disincentive for improvement. You are advocating socialism pure and simple.

Tex: "Economies and markets should work for everyone, not just those who are connected, and not those who are helping undercut the market mechanisms of pricing so meat packers can get lower prices from other cattle providers."

If I have my most of my needs met by willing sellers, then I have every right to drop the price I pay for the balance of my needs. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT PRICE, SELL TO ANOTHER PACKER. It's that simple and most feeders know that which is why the majority of feeders are not supporting your socialized cattle marketing agenda AND THEY ARE THE ONES AFFECTED BY IT.

It's guys like you, with your wild baseless conspiracy theories that are clogging the free market system with government intervention. If I buy fat cattle, I should be able to buy them at any price I see fit. If you think I'm manipulating the markets, either sell to another packer or buy a packing house BUT DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM WITH MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Tex: "It makes for someone who wants the same treatment as anyone else and wants the rule of law to be adhered to, not the rule of gold."

If your cattle don't meet the quality specs, you don't deserve the same price as everyone else. The market moves up and down daily. If the market falls, do you think you deserve the same price as someone who sold before the market fell???

I wish this socialized fat cattle marketing scheme would apply to every facet of the cattle industry. Then you would have to live by your own shortsighted rules.

That's the entire problem with this Tex, supporters of the GIPSA rules want to dictate to the rest of the industry, in this case the feeders, how they will market fat cattle but they would never live by these rules themselves.

Arrogance and ignorance plain and simple.


~SH~

 

[mrj]

Did I say GIPSA rules would "prohibit" legitimate premiums? I think not. I said the hassle of writing up rules, documenting to the point of absolute clarity in the eyes of government regulators, and activist attorneys the reasons for every related action by the packers paying premiums would most likely make them decide it wasn't worth the hassle.

ESPECIALLY because if they paid everyone on the same scale, they would pocket even MORE money because of not having to pay extra for the better quality, timely deliveries, and any other reason they might pay a premium.

Fact is, I believe it is wrong for any business to HAVE to do business with anyone who continually tells the world that 'businessman X' is a rotten SOB who lies, cheats, and steals from his supplier, employees, and customers, as do many people supporting this ridiculous change in GIPSA rules!

I want truly honest legal, and fair treatment, and 'equal' is not ALWAYS part of that equation!

mrj

 

[Tex]

Did I say GIPSA rules would "prohibit" legitimate premiums? I think not. I said the hassle of writing up rules, documenting to the point of absolute clarity in the eyes of government regulators, and activist attorneys the reasons for every related action by the packers paying premiums would most likely make them decide it wasn't worth the hassle.

ESPECIALLY because if they paid everyone on the same scale, they would pocket even MORE money because of not having to pay extra for the better quality, timely deliveries, and any other reason they might pay a premium.

Fact is, I believe it is wrong for any business to HAVE to do business with anyone who continually tells the world that 'businessman X' is a rotten SOB who lies, cheats, and steals from his supplier, employees, and customers, as do many people supporting this ridiculous change in GIPSA rules!

I want truly honest legal, and fair treatment, and 'equal' is not ALWAYS part of that equation!

mrj

mrj, the packers are buying supplies, not personalities. There are rules about those supplies they have to follow to prevent them from stealing the economic value of the supplier's part of the deal.

Your interpretation allows meat packers to avoid the law and discriminate against anyone who will not "be nice" to them or in many cases, continue to give extra economic value to them. It is a set up for meat packers to take all the economic value from suppliers and use it to compete with each other in the market or take home profits. This comes at the expense of requiring someone else to give their economic value to them or not be able to sell their product to the bottleneck-- the processor.

These games were played on producers so much that the legislature finally came up with the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This may be the reason why you are so afraid of being known by your colleagues.

They see how you are.

Remember, it is only because the meat processors have so little competition that they have to follow these rules. In some cases they have no competition.

Personally, I think you are right. If they abuse these market laws, the meat packers should be broken up so real competition can dictate prices, not some monopsonist or oligopolists. Courts have been reluctant to give a big fat zero to someone who is cheating on these economic rules or breaking the laws. My wife is a school teacher who will give out a zero on a major test if someone cheats and it doesn't matter if it is the principal's son or the richest guy in town. These federal judges need to grow some nuts or be cut out of the herd if they can't do their job.

mrj, you kind of remind me of the people who were benefiting from Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme and were banking their profits because they knew something was up. You can still hang on to the notion that you "didn't know", but that notion is getting harder and harder to believe.

Were you getting premiums not available to others?

Tex

 

[Clarencen]

I am going to jump in here just once and that is it. I am not taking anybodies side.

It is a matter of ethics, I won't point a finger at anyone, because I really don't know. Busineses today, and individuals too, do so many unethical things that we no longer seem to recognize what is unethical. I could name a dozen things just off the top of my head that looks unethical. We can say everybody does it so it is ok, just the way business is run. so it is all fair and honest. If someone gets hurt, it is just collateral damage, he should have had his eyes open, or insurance will cover it anyway. No one wants to take responsibility. Sometimes it is easy to shift the blame to someone else or at least try to.

 

[Houston Cutter]

It seems a few years back some of us tried to get a vote on whether to keep the checkoff...We went around getting all the signatures needed. Then NCBA and the Packers took it into court to get it overruled...HMMMMM I wonder why they were so scared of us voting on the checkoff?

 

[Tex]

Tex: "what GIPSA rules would in any way prohibit giving legitimate premiums?"

The question that needs to be asked is, where is the proof of price discrimination? Where is the justification for SOCIALIZING THE CATTLE MARKETS???

Volume customers should get price breaks, THEY DO IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF BUSINESS. If you don't like the price, SELL TO ANOTHER PACKER, DUH!!!!

The bottom line is that there is no justification for the GIPSA rules. Just a bunch of empty packer blaming rheotoric that cannot be supported by facts to save feeders from themselves.

Who the heck are you or any other packer blamer to tell me how I can market fat cattle? What would possibly make you think that you and other packer blamers need to save feeders from themselves? Most producers have sold their cattle to the feeders, what business is it of yours how a feeder markets those cattle? THEY OWN THEM, NOT YOU! That is the problem Tex, it's the arrogance of you and packer blamers like you.

Tex: "If meat packers have a branded product based on, say, your good beef, and can package it and sell it at a higher price, then they can do it. The qualities that allow that to happen must be available to everyone."

Wrong! If the next guy's cattle do not grade, yield, or dress as well, they should not receive the same socialized price as someone else's cattle. That's a disincentive for improvement. You are advocating socialism pure and simple.

Tex: "Economies and markets should work for everyone, not just those who are connected, and not those who are helping undercut the market mechanisms of pricing so meat packers can get lower prices from other cattle providers."

If I have my most of my needs met by willing sellers, then I have every right to drop the price I pay for the balance of my needs. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT PRICE, SELL TO ANOTHER PACKER. It's that simple and most feeders know that which is why the majority of feeders are not supporting your socialized cattle marketing agenda AND THEY ARE THE ONES AFFECTED BY IT.

It's guys like you, with your wild baseless conspiracy theories that are clogging the free market system with government intervention. If I buy fat cattle, I should be able to buy them at any price I see fit. If you think I'm manipulating the markets, either sell to another packer or buy a packing house BUT DON'T INTERFERE WITH THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM WITH MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Tex: "It makes for someone who wants the same treatment as anyone else and wants the rule of law to be adhered to, not the rule of gold."

If your cattle don't meet the quality specs, you don't deserve the same price as everyone else. The market moves up and down daily. If the market falls, do you think you deserve the same price as someone who sold before the market fell???

I wish this socialized fat cattle marketing scheme would apply to every facet of the cattle industry. Then you would have to live by your own shortsighted rules.

That's the entire problem with this Tex, supporters of the GIPSA rules want to dictate to the rest of the industry, in this case the feeders, how they will market fat cattle but they would never live by these rules themselves.

Arrogance and ignorance plain and simple.


~SH~

No, sh, you are wrong about this. The Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits packers from doing things, not feeders, unless they are packers. The reason is because of the market power they can abuse in their position of being the "bottleneck" as some have put it.

While meat packers may not like being regulated, their abuses in the past and market position makes it necessary or they will abuse their market position to take away value from their suppliers by discriminating against them for the same quality animal.

Now I could see a small packing plant having a lot more lenience with regards to the economic aspects of the Packers and Stockyards Act because they don't really have the market power to play economic market games unless they are colluding with others who do have market power. There are exceptions for smaller firms under the act for this very reason.

It really doesn't matter what you think about the subject, sh. The legislatures passed the laws and the courts should not bend over backwards because they know as much about economics as those who threw out the Glass Steagal Act and helped precipitate our current financial crisis. Personally, I don't think we held enough people accountable for that one yet. We don't need to re learn these economic rules every one hundred years or so because we have federal judges who are corrupt or incompetent. They should have to pay for the damages if that is the case and I think a few of them need to be thrown off the bench.

Right now we have corporations in the drivers seat because we have had a government so bought off that it can not preform its responsibilities to its citizens. We need to change some of those who have gone down this path and caused so much damage to our industry especially since they had specific legal instructions on how to prevent it from happening but decided they knew better than a jury. Our founding fathers knew this was a problem with professional judges and so gave us the jury system.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex,

You have no proof of market manipulation. NONE! The "untested theories" that were presented in Pickett were a joke which is why Judge Strom's decision was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.

You are socializing the cattle market which is why more cattlemen spoke against the GIPSA rules than for it.

The GIPSA rules will accomplish nothing other than creating a socialized market where all cattle are treated the same because it's easier than having to justify paying premiums and discounts in an ever moving market.

If you and those who think like you got your way, you'd destroy this industry.


~SH~

 

[mrj]

'Houston Cutter' not sure what you are 'cutting', but it apparently has nothing to do with facts.

FACT: the reason for the failure of that particular CALL for a vote on the Beef Checkoff was that those promoting demise of the checkoff engaged in some illegal practices in gaining signatures on their petitions. Such as: giving 'door prizes', then using signatures on their petitions, when the signer had no intention of signing up for anything but the door prizes, among other little tricks.

Would you please document and verify in some credible way your statement that "NCBA and the Packers" were involved in any court case to stop a LEGITIMATE recall vote on the Beef Checkoff?

Clarence, you do remain gentlemanly in your comments for which I thank you. However, you leave the implication that there is unethical conduct from people being discussed, or doing the discussing. I'm sorry you did that because it isn't like your usual comments. Allowing assumptions that unethical practices took place in a given situation such as discussed here, to continue on WITHOUT PROOF, is in itself unethical, isn't it?

mrj

 

[mrj]

Tex, your wild eyed conspiracy theories are exposed with your use of several current 'buzz words' such as 'oligopolists", "monopsonist", and constant accusation of "so little competition" of the big packers against one another and insistence that "the meat packers should be broken up so real competition can dictate prices".

Logic tell us most of the biggest packers compete very strongly with one another, whether for most competent administrators, all levels of staff, all necessary inputs from cattle to mechanical equipment......or they will not be able to maintain their businesses.

It is illogical that one should need to explain to you that packers, for instance, being forced to do business with an individual or an organization trying to put said packer out of business by accusations and statements of unsubstantiated illegal or unfair practices made against that packer is NOT the same thing as a verified, real illegal practice. This is what I referenced when stating no one should have to do business with those speaking against them. Sorry I failed to simplify it enough for you by adding that things would be different if there were PROOF of claims.

BTW, the ONLY reason, and I stated it quite clearly, I 'fear' being 'outed' is that it could draw dangers or threats to my family, and according to warnings from friends that is not far fetched. I had NOT tried to hide my identity, having no fear, till being warned.

For the record: selling only feeder cattle at this point in time, the only "premiums" we have had were due to our practices and the quality of our cattle, and we have not been overpaid! Unlike many cattle producers, and some on these sites, we do not hate the feeder and wish him economic harm when he can't pay us what we think we should get...and on up the chain to the grocery store. All segments have their problems, and difficulties in being profitable enough to remain viable businesses. Infighting between these segments between farm gate and consumer plate damages us all.

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, read Ben's book.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker,

LOOK AT THE MARKETS !!!!!

Packers are still concentrated. Packers still have captive supplies. Grid Pricing is still allowed. Canadian imports are still coming down.

and you are still clueless......

Ben's book won't trump the Pickett case. It only tells packer blamers like you what you want to believe. Ben's book talks about the packing industry that used to exist, not about the packing industry that exists today. I'm sure you don't know the difference.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

And you know that packers have changed their ways how?

 

[Tex]

Tex,

You have no proof of market manipulation. NONE! The "untested theories" that were presented in Pickett were a joke which is why Judge Strom's decision was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.

You are socializing the cattle market which is why more cattlemen spoke against the GIPSA rules than for it.

The GIPSA rules will accomplish nothing other than creating a socialized market where all cattle are treated the same because it's easier than having to justify paying premiums and discounts in an ever moving market.

If you and those who think like you got your way, you'd destroy this industry.


~SH~

Dude, the Supreme Court was wrong about slavery, as were our founding fathers, for almost 90 years, then another hundred for the Supreme Court and the politicians on Civil Rights.

We have a bunch of people who should not be in our political system, and some in our judicial system, who should be in jail rather than passing out favors to their friends. They are eroding the integrity of the nation by so doing.

Our founding fathers DID know of the potential evils of allowing a judicial system to run the whole show. It is why we have jury trials.

The Supreme Court may be the last say of law of the land, but they are not always right and not always to be trusted.

I think we have a few in the Supreme Court today who are not serving the principles of the nation but are serving the principals in the nation.

Tex

 

[Tex]

Tex, your wild eyed conspiracy theories are exposed with your use of several current 'buzz words' such as 'oligopolists", "monopsonist", and constant accusation of "so little competition" of the big packers against one another and insistence that "the meat packers should be broken up so real competition can dictate prices".

Logic tell us most of the biggest packers compete very strongly with one another, whether for most competent administrators, all levels of staff, all necessary inputs from cattle to mechanical equipment......or they will not be able to maintain their businesses.

It is illogical that one should need to explain to you that packers, for instance, being forced to do business with an individual or an organization trying to put said packer out of business by accusations and statements of unsubstantiated illegal or unfair practices made against that packer is NOT the same thing as a verified, real illegal practice. This is what I referenced when stating no one should have to do business with those speaking against them. Sorry I failed to simplify it enough for you by adding that things would be different if there were PROOF of claims.

BTW, the ONLY reason, and I stated it quite clearly, I 'fear' being 'outed' is that it could draw dangers or threats to my family, and according to warnings from friends that is not far fetched. I had NOT tried to hide my identity, having no fear, till being warned.

For the record: selling only feeder cattle at this point in time, the only "premiums" we have had were due to our practices and the quality of our cattle, and we have not been overpaid! Unlike many cattle producers, and some on these sites, we do not hate the feeder and wish him economic harm when he can't pay us what we think we should get...and on up the chain to the grocery store. All segments have their problems, and difficulties in being profitable enough to remain viable businesses. Infighting between these segments between farm gate and consumer plate damages us all.

mrj

First of all mrj, I hope NOTHING ever gets so bad that you or your family are physically threatened. I hope you can always say what you think and not be threatened in this way. No matter what I thought about how crazy or illogical your thoughts were, I would stop any move towards physical harm that you or yours might engender. I don't care if you are outed or not, if that makes any difference to you. You could be my next door neighbor for all I care. I would still protect you from any harm of the likes that you speak of (we have really good neighbors and I know that you would probably be a good neighbor too).

It is illogical that one should need to explain to you that packers, for instance, being forced to do business with an individual or an organization trying to put said packer out of business by accusations and statements of unsubstantiated illegal or unfair practices made against that packer is NOT the same thing as a verified, real illegal practice.

I have made those kind of allegations towards meat packers and they were substantiated. I did face retaliation by them and my family has born the brunt of it.

The illegal practices I made are well documented. At the time, I had the former head of GIPSA on the phone and he was telling me the rules his administration (Jim Baker) had implemented. These were the very rules that were being broken on a daily basis with no consequence except retaliation.

I do know what happened in the Pickett trial. The meat packers thinned the price setting cash market with the formula pricing and then discriminated against the price setting cash market in their purchasing actions. There was no question about that in the trial.

The meat packers tried to make it about causality. They hired a MIT expert witness to try to say that causality wasn't there. Under the law, causality was not even required to be shown until those on the bench required it (and a whole lot more). The jury didn't buy the argument. That was a point of fact that the judge reversed on his own and later appellate courts affirmed (facts are to be determined by juries, not judges). I know these facts because they used one of my lawyer's cases to bounce off the decision this way with a new legal defense theory of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

It was a true life scam by the courts AND those overseeing them. Of course it probably helped that Tyson was friends with Bill Clinton and that Bill Clinton appointed the federal judges. It probably helped that Hillary Clinton made her controversial fast commodity money by having the advice of Tyson's outside counsel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

You can read more about the corporate scandals surrounding Refco (who Hillary had her account with) here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7qTGiF8FCgC&pg=PA578&lpg=PA578&dq=Refco+commodity+trading+clinton&source=bl&ots=lD6aslr1Ch&sig=wzum9avU1M_mbW70s9urZpvyTns&hl=en&ei=wmmiTaaPFoWT0QHnupWUBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Refco%20commodity%20trading%20clinton&f=false

Mrj, you can say until you are blue in the face that this is just a "conspiracy theory".

That does not in any way dismiss what has happened to me and others in this industry, it just means you don't want to believe it.

You should not so easily dismiss what you know very little about. Maybe that is why some of your neighbors and others have a grudge against you.

By the way, monopsonists and oligopolists are becoming way too frequents terms not just in the agriculture industry, where there was a specific law made to protect the market from their known frauds, but in others as well. Our nation has a huge concentration of wealth in the hands of crooks using these economic frauds that put our country now and under the last time that gave us the Great Depression. I wish no one had to worry about such big terms. The fact that you don't means you don't really have a good understanding of this industry but you sure like to act like you do.

I guess it is a "just a conspiracy" until it happens to you. I hope it never does.


Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "And you know that packers have changed their ways how?"

The packing industry is still the same supply and demand driven industry it's always been. The competition between the individual packing companies is still as evident as it always was in the rising and falling markets. The current markets reflect that but you are simply too much of a conspiracy theorist to see the obvious.

Tex: "I do know what happened in the Pickett trial. The meat packers thinned the price setting cash market with the formula pricing and then discriminated against the price setting cash market in their purchasing actions. There was no question about that in the trial."

WRONG! 1 packer dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases through grid pricing. This is not proof of market manipulation because.....

FACT #1. Ibp was not the only packer buying cattle at the time. Nobody was forced to sell to ibp nor were they forced to sell in the cash market. ALL HAD OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS therefore there is no case for market manipulation.

FACT #2. All the factors that affect cattle markets were not isolated to determine if a drop in the cash market was caused by a corresponding drop in beef demand resulting in lower boxed beef prices which would reflect in lower cattle prices ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

FACT #3. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect purchases by other venues is not market manipulation anymore than a feeder cattle buyer who drops the price for the balance of their needs because they felt they paid too much for the initial cattle they bought.

NOBODY IS FORCED TO PAY A CERTAIN PRICE and God help us if you socialized marketing advocates ever get your way.

You lost this case for a very good reason. You didn't have a case for the very reasons I listed.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Sandhusker: "And you know that packers have changed their ways how?"

The packing industry is still the same supply and demand driven industry it's always been. The competition between the individual packing companies is still as evident as it always was in the rising and falling markets. The current markets reflect that but you are simply too much of a conspiracy theorist to see the obvious.

Tex: "I do know what happened in the Pickett trial. The meat packers thinned the price setting cash market with the formula pricing and then discriminated against the price setting cash market in their purchasing actions. There was no question about that in the trial."

WRONG! 1 packer dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases through grid pricing. This is not proof of market manipulation because.....

FACT #1. Ibp was not the only packer buying cattle at the time. Nobody was forced to sell to ibp nor were they forced to sell in the cash market. ALL HAD OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS therefore there is no case for market manipulation.

FACT #2. All the factors that affect cattle markets were not isolated to determine if a drop in the cash market was caused by a corresponding drop in beef demand resulting in lower boxed beef prices which would reflect in lower cattle prices ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

FACT #3. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect purchases by other venues is not market manipulation anymore than a feeder cattle buyer who drops the price for the balance of their needs because they felt they paid too much for the initial cattle they bought.

NOBODY IS FORCED TO PAY A CERTAIN PRICE and God help us if you socialized marketing advocates ever get your way.

You lost this case for a very good reason. You didn't have a case for the very reasons I listed.


~SH~

Yep, this fraud was set up in the way they were able to still get supplies but not affect the price setting cash market --- and in fact, be able to discriminate against it.

Some people are not smart enough to see how market frauds work.

This question should have been left to the jury---not judges.

These judges need to be impeached.

If you want to make law, go over and run for the legislature. It is there where the public can hold you more directly accountable.

By the way, sh, it wasn't my case but I did look at the math and the parameters of how it happened.

There are lots more people catching on to what is going on with these meat packers and the people who are complicit in their frauds.

Our founding fathers believed in juries just for the circumstances that these judges did in this case. When they have too much power, they see it from their insulated perspective only, and they need a check with reality by a jury of peers, not some elite hand down judgment.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "Yep, this fraud was set up in the way they were able to still get supplies but not affect the price setting cash market --- and in fact, be able to discriminate against it."

FACT #4. It was the feeders that requested grid pricing, not the packers. The feeders wanted to get paid for the merits of the carcass that cannot be determined before the animal is slaughtered. The base price was established based on the weekly weighted average of the cash market the week prior which can work for or against you depending on the direction of the market. YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SELL. IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE ARRANGEMENT YOU COULD SELL IN THE CASH MARKET OR TO ANY OTHER PACKER. TYSON / IBP IS NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN AND NEVER WAS. If the caps are too loud, turn down the volume on your computer.

As I figured, when you couldn't address the facts I listed, you diverted to making empty statements again. SAME-O, SAME-O!

You will not refute a single fact that I presented because you can't.

Our laws are guided by judges who understand the legal ramifications. I admit that there is a small part of me that wishes that the entire industry would have to live by the socialized marketing standards you want to set for the packers. Then, and only then would you be introduced to your ignorance.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "Yep, this fraud was set up in the way they were able to still get supplies but not affect the price setting cash market --- and in fact, be able to discriminate against it."

FACT #4. It was the feeders that requested grid pricing, not the packers. The feeders wanted to get paid for the merits of the carcass that cannot be determined before the animal is slaughtered. The base price was established based on the weekly weighted average of the cash market the week prior which can work for or against you depending on the direction of the market. YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SELL. IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE ARRANGEMENT YOU COULD SELL IN THE CASH MARKET OR TO ANY OTHER PACKER. TYSON / IBP IS NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN AND NEVER WAS. If the caps are too loud, turn down the volume on your computer.

As I figured, when you couldn't address the facts I listed, you diverted to making empty statements again. SAME-O, SAME-O!

You will not refute a single fact that I presented because you can't.

Our laws are guided by judges who understand the legal ramifications. I admit that there is a small part of me that wishes that the entire industry would have to live by the socialized marketing standards you want to set for the packers. Then, and only then would you be introduced to your ignorance.


~SH~

Sh, these judges understand the legal ramifications. They just don't have the balls to enforce them.

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.

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.

This is just another depression era lesson that the current political elite have failed to follow. It has lead to a concentration of the industry into the hands of a few who would use their market power to run others out of the business. The financial meltdown resulting from the rules regarding banking and the Glass Steagal Act was one of the other ones they failed to follow which has lead to this huge recession---greatest since the Great Depression-- and another huge concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

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

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.

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

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".

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~