agman
Well-known member
CattleCo said:
He may have made that cut in his small local plant but it was not standard industry practice to do so. The checkoff gets credit for standardizing that one.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chicken Replacing Beef
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
He may have made that cut in his small local plant but it was not standard industry practice to do so. The checkoff gets credit for standardizing that one.
agman
Well-known member
the chief said:Since this article was dated July 2002, SH, I doubt if current fuel prices had little to do with beef consumption :shock: :???: :???: :???:
Agman, read your LONG reply. Are you this condescending with the people you work with, too? Usually it is difficult to read someone's emotions in the written word, but it is obvious while reading your replies how full of yourself you are and how little you think of someone whose opinion differs from yours. WOW.
No wonder I don't visit here like I used to. I like my serenity better.
Condescending, I guess you have failed to read Econo101's posts. As I have prevuiously stated, I will respond in kind. Now, do you have anything pertintent to contribute to the forum subject?
agman said:the chief said:Since this article was dated July 2002, SH, I doubt if current fuel prices had little to do with beef consumption :shock: :???: :???: :???:
Agman, read your LONG reply. Are you this condescending with the people you work with, too? Usually it is difficult to read someone's emotions in the written word, but it is obvious while reading your replies how full of yourself you are and how little you think of someone whose opinion differs from yours. WOW.
No wonder I don't visit here like I used to. I like my serenity better.
Condescending, I guess you have failed to read Econo101's posts. As I have prevuiously stated, I will respond in kind. Now, do you have anything pertintent to contribute to the forum subject?
I would have loved to keep this discussion on a different level than the one you and SH have brought it to, Agman. Read my first posting and you will see that is the case. I don't think we need to be condescending in our discussion of these issues but I do know how to hit back.
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:agman said:the chief said:Since this article was dated July 2002, SH, I doubt if current fuel prices had little to do with beef consumption :shock: :???: :???: :???:
Agman, read your LONG reply. Are you this condescending with the people you work with, too? Usually it is difficult to read someone's emotions in the written word, but it is obvious while reading your replies how full of yourself you are and how little you think of someone whose opinion differs from yours. WOW.
No wonder I don't visit here like I used to. I like my serenity better.
Condescending, I guess you have failed to read Econo101's posts. As I have prevuiously stated, I will respond in kind. Now, do you have anything pertintent to contribute to the forum subject?
I would have loved to keep this discussion on a different level than the one you and SH have brought it to, Agman. Read my first posting and you will see that is the case. I don't think we need to be condescending in our discussion of these issues but I do know how to hit back.
I know you can introduce us all to another of your claims, of course, no substantiating facts will be provided. That has been your MO since you showed up on this forum. Behind every position you have a conspiracy. If you call that hitting back well good luck. Someone might even believe you. You are too easy.
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said:Condescending, I guess you have failed to read Econo101's posts. As I have prevuiously stated, I will respond in kind. Now, do you have anything pertintent to contribute to the forum subject?
I would have loved to keep this discussion on a different level than the one you and SH have brought it to, Agman. Read my first posting and you will see that is the case. I don't think we need to be condescending in our discussion of these issues but I do know how to hit back.
I know you can introduce us all to another of your claims, of course, no substantiating facts will be provided. That has been your MO since you showed up on this forum. Behind every position you have a conspiracy. If you call that hitting back well good luck. Someone might even believe you. You are too easy.
It is so easy to refute your claims, Agman. Even in the Panhandle studies, the academics did not have the extra discovery data that was used in the Pickett case. If you can not provide that discovery material then you need to stop calling on me to provide it. It is easy to refute your arguments based on the theory of the case and real logic. If there is a problem with the jury's verdict based on the evidence at the trial then produce that evidence. The appellate judges could not. There was plenty of evidence at the trial and the judges avoided any mention of it to substantiate their ruling. They even got the Robinson-Patman example wrong which shows their lack of competency!!! You are in the same boat as them and like New Orleans, it is sinking.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soapweed and Agman,
Good points on more breakfast emphasis.
Robert Mac,
Excellent point on the "evils of beef".
I agree with most of your post. I don't think the USDA recommended daily allowance limits the amount of beef consumed. I think it simply says, you should eat at least that much beef to have a balanced diet.
Chief,
Agman and I share one thing in common. We both have a real low tolerance level for liars and deceivers. Contrary to popular belief, all opinions are not equal. Some are factually supported and some, like Sandman's and Econs are nothing more than opinions. Econ. has done nothing but present opinions and theories ever since he showed up here. He can't back any of his opinions with supporting facts.
What good does it do any producers to bathe themselves in self pity? Who ever blamed their way to prosperity?
Econ. has all kinds of opinions on the Pickett verdict but hasn't even read the court proceedings. He can't present a stitch of evidence to support his market manipulation conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact, he's not even smart enough to understand that live cattle prices trend with boxed beef prices. He actually believes that lower fat cattle prices in relation to formula prices is proof of market manipulation.
As long as Econ. tells other blamers what they want to hear, they will continue to believe his garbage. What a sad state of affairs.
~SH~
Good points on more breakfast emphasis.
Robert Mac,
Excellent point on the "evils of beef".
I agree with most of your post. I don't think the USDA recommended daily allowance limits the amount of beef consumed. I think it simply says, you should eat at least that much beef to have a balanced diet.
Chief,
Agman and I share one thing in common. We both have a real low tolerance level for liars and deceivers. Contrary to popular belief, all opinions are not equal. Some are factually supported and some, like Sandman's and Econs are nothing more than opinions. Econ. has done nothing but present opinions and theories ever since he showed up here. He can't back any of his opinions with supporting facts.
What good does it do any producers to bathe themselves in self pity? Who ever blamed their way to prosperity?
Econ. has all kinds of opinions on the Pickett verdict but hasn't even read the court proceedings. He can't present a stitch of evidence to support his market manipulation conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact, he's not even smart enough to understand that live cattle prices trend with boxed beef prices. He actually believes that lower fat cattle prices in relation to formula prices is proof of market manipulation.
As long as Econ. tells other blamers what they want to hear, they will continue to believe his garbage. What a sad state of affairs.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Soapweed and Agman,
Good points on more breakfast emphasis.
Robert Mac,
Excellent point on the "evils of beef".
I agree with most of your post. I don't think the USDA recommended daily allowance limits the amount of beef consumed. I think it simply says, you should eat at least that much beef to have a balanced diet.
Chief,
Agman and I share one thing in common. We both have a real low tolerance level for liars and deceivers. Contrary to popular belief, all opinions are not equal. Some are factually supported and some, like Sandman's and Econs are nothing more than opinions. Econ. has done nothing but present opinions and theories ever since he showed up here. He can't back any of his opinions with supporting facts.
What good does it do any producers to bathe themselves in self pity? Who ever blamed their way to prosperity?
Econ. has all kinds of opinions on the Pickett verdict but hasn't even read the court proceedings. He can't present a stitch of evidence to support his market manipulation conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact, he's not even smart enough to understand that live cattle prices trend with boxed beef prices. He actually believes that lower fat cattle prices in relation to formula prices is proof of market manipulation.
As long as Econ. tells other blamers what they want to hear, they will continue to believe his garbage. What a sad state of affairs.
~SH~
SH- Please do not misquote me or put words in my mouth. I never said "lower fat cattle prices in relation to formula prices is proof of market manipulation". Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation but not necessarily so. The answer to that question is partially in the empty answer that Tyson delivered when asked about its captive supply pricing. Variations in price over a very short period of time could be changes in the market. Consistent variations not explained away by the question asked of Tyson about the captive supply pricing are a problem, however. Consistent variations I speak of do not have to be consistent throughout the whole time period the trial data looked at. On this whole question of variations in the cash vs. captive supply the jury and even the appellate courts agreed, were proven.
"... there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." pg. 12 and 13 of the Eleventh Circuit D.C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
You are confused about the logic in the above two paragraphs, not I.
So you see, even the Eleventh Circuit court agreed that the evidence was presented and accepted. Stop arguing over that one. It has been accepted by the court already!!!! Read the ruling.
Tyson then argued "... that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifcations".pg.13
That quote and its acceptance by the court made all of the "or"s between a, b, c, d,e.... of Section 202 into "and"s. They used the London to back themselves up on this one. They legislated from the bench. That is all there is to it. In addition, there was a word "whatsoever" that was taken out for a 5 year period so they could more easily have the London case and the Pickett case save them from a 1.28 billion dollar judgement. Both the reasons behind the legislating from the bench of changing the "or" and taking the word "whatsoever" need to be investigated and thoroughly explained by those involved. We need to see how much a word costs on capital hill.
This court has some very serious issues on its own credibility in regards to its Robinson-Patman example which goes to the heart of its ability to judge the efficacy of the expert witness on the evidence. This line of reasoning was the no "mere scintilla of evidence" line used as a justification for overturning the jury verdict!! The court also has some very serious issues in interpreting the law as written instead of its own re-writing. They must somehow be related to SH. Don't misquote me on that one.
Since the court has a history of changing two letter words into three letter words, they should change "NO" to the Plaintiffs to "PAY" for Tyson.
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:agman said:Econ101 said:I would have loved to keep this discussion on a different level than the one you and SH have brought it to, Agman. Read my first posting and you will see that is the case. I don't think we need to be condescending in our discussion of these issues but I do know how to hit back.
I know you can introduce us all to another of your claims, of course, no substantiating facts will be provided. That has been your MO since you showed up on this forum. Behind every position you have a conspiracy. If you call that hitting back well good luck. Someone might even believe you. You are too easy.
It is so easy to refute your claims, Agman. Even in the Panhandle studies, the academics did not have the extra discovery data that was used in the Pickett case. If you can not provide that discovery material then you need to stop calling on me to provide it. It is easy to refute your arguments based on the theory of the case and real logic. If there is a problem with the jury's verdict based on the evidence at the trial then produce that evidence. The appellate judges could not. There was plenty of evidence at the trial and the judges avoided any mention of it to substantiate their ruling. They even got the Robinson-Patman example wrong which shows their lack of competency!!! You are in the same boat as them and like New Orleans, it is sinking.
It appears to me it is up to the accuser to prove his point. You continue to claim that something was proven in court. I submit that is the one truth in your statements. The plaintiff's witness, under oath, stated he tested none of his theories as to how "captive supply" caused lower prices. I don't think the court would just say "if you say so that is fine with the court." If he does not know how "captive supply" caused lower prices then how can he certain that his opiion regarding cause was correct? The court did not buy his unsupported claim.
The complexities of the market are such that even the best analysis could not prove "captive supply" contracts cause prices to be lower. There are too many factors outside of the common variables that occur that influence prices independent of "captive supply" I stated I have already done that research over a broader time frame and no correlation existed. What have you done to feel comfortable with your position that is independent of what you claim Dr Taylor proved?
While you are quick to resort to one statement by the court regarding Taylor's testimony you have yet to post footnote #7, page 13, of the Appellate Court's opinion regarding Dr Taylor's so called "proof".
Other studies that you cite have a similar problem. They looked to isolate only any downward price movement. They were not designed to look for any positive benefit which may have included a net positive price influence. I suggest you look at Azaam and Schroter's work per this subject. That is why Dr Azaam would not testify as a witness for the plaintiffs. They only examined one side. The conclusion drawn by the plaintiffs from his research was wrong. He stated that quite clearly. You do know the plaintiffs desperately tried to get Dr Azaam to testify on their behalf?
Why have you not answered my question regarding Dr Taylors inability to show any negative impact from captive supply in 1999-2000. Did he change his methodology or did some other variable change? Which is it?
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said:I know you can introduce us all to another of your claims, of course, no substantiating facts will be provided. That has been your MO since you showed up on this forum. Behind every position you have a conspiracy. If you call that hitting back well good luck. Someone might even believe you. You are too easy.
It is so easy to refute your claims, Agman. Even in the Panhandle studies, the academics did not have the extra discovery data that was used in the Pickett case. If you can not provide that discovery material then you need to stop calling on me to provide it. It is easy to refute your arguments based on the theory of the case and real logic. If there is a problem with the jury's verdict based on the evidence at the trial then produce that evidence. The appellate judges could not. There was plenty of evidence at the trial and the judges avoided any mention of it to substantiate their ruling. They even got the Robinson-Patman example wrong which shows their lack of competency!!! You are in the same boat as them and like New Orleans, it is sinking.
It appears to me it is up to the accuser to prove his point. You continue to claim that something was proven in court. I submit that is the one truth in your statements. The plaintiff's witness, under oath, stated he tested none of his theories as to how "captive supply" caused lower prices. I don't think the court would just say "if you say so that is fine with the court." If he does not know how "captive supply" caused lower prices then how can he certain that his opiion regarding cause was correct? The court did not buy his unsupported claim.
The complexities of the market are such that even the best analysis could not prove "captive supply" contracts cause prices to be lower. There are too many factors outside of the common variables that occur that influence prices independent of "captive supply" I stated I have already done that research over a broader time frame and no correlation existed. What have you done to feel comfortable with your position that is independent of what you claim Dr Taylor proved?
While you are quick to resort to one statement by the court regarding Taylor's testimony you have yet to post footnote #7, page 13, of the Appellate Court's opinion regarding Dr Taylor's so called "proof".
Other studies that you cite have a similar problem. They looked to isolate only any downward price movement. They were not designed to look for any positive benefit which may have included a net positive price influence. I suggest you look at Azaam and Schroter's work per this subject. That is why Dr Azaam would not testify as a witness for the plaintiffs. They only examined one side. The conclusion drawn by the plaintiffs from his research was wrong. He stated that quite clearly. You do know the plaintiffs desperately tried to get Dr Azaam to testify on their behalf?
Why have you not answered my question regarding Dr Taylors inability to show any negative impact from captive supply in 1999-2000. Did he change his methodology or did some other variable change? Which is it?
Dr. Azzam has already said there was a negative correlation between captive supply and cash prices (meaning more captive supply, lower cash prices).
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten Econ.: "Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation but not necessarily so."
NOW YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR STORY!!!
Here's what you said before:
OCM: "If there was any difference in price between the "captive supply" and the cash market then that is the proof required for the case."
Econ. 101: "If this had been a real market where traders could arbitrage the difference between the cash market and the "captive supplies" there would be no price difference betweem the two."
Econ: "If Tyson had been interested in maximizing profits the honest way, they would have bid up the price of the cash market to equal that of the "captive supply" market."
Econ. 101: "If there was no difference between the cash and the captive supply you might have a leg to stand on. If there was a statistical difference, then you have lost the argument."
YOU DECEPTIVE SON OF SNITCH!
You are plainly backpeddling on your previous position leaving no doubt that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
"... there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." pg. 12 and 13 of the Eleventh Circuit D.C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
WHAT EVIDENCE?????????
BRING THAT EVIDENCE KINDERGARTEN!
Until you do, you don't have anything but empty theories.
I'm tired of listening to those EMPTY THEORIES!!!
BRING THE FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION or quit deceiving people with your bullsh*t.
How can you credit captive supplies for lowering prices without isolating the other variables that affect cattle markets?
YOU CAN'T!!!!
This theory is absolute insanity!
I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
~SH~
~SH~ said:"... there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." pg. 12 and 13 of the Eleventh Circuit D.C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
WHAT EVIDENCE?????????
BRING THAT EVIDENCE KINDERGARTEN!
Until you do, you don't have anything but empty theories.
I'm tired of listening to EMPTY THEORIES!!!
BRING THE FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION or quit deceiving people with your bullsh*t.
How can you credit captive supplies for lowering prices without isolating the other variables that affect cattle markets?
YOU CAN'T!!!!
This theory is absolute insanity!
I've never heard anything so ridiculous.
~SH~
You probably can't, SH, but the jury believed Dr. Taylor did. Thats all that should count in a U.S. court unless there were some real problems with Taylor's testimony which I did not see in the appellate decisions. The appellate decisions were just plain goofy and it showed.
It is true that some estimates of demand curves must be made. They are estimates, not exacts because there are ways to construct them. The intersection of the demand and supply curve is always a moving target but that is no excuse for saying you can not tell it was influenced by a particular factor, in this case captive supply.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "The intersection of the demand and supply curve is always a moving target but that is no excuse for saying you can not tell it was influenced by a particular factor, in this case captive supply."
A supply/demand curve tells you nothing without breaking out the variables that affect that supply/demand curve.
You are in way over your head.
You don't know what you are talking about.
~SH~
If good scientists can break out the effects of gravity of large planets on thier suns in distant universes and use it to prove their existence, then this too can be shown. The jury believed it did and that is what the trial was for.
Packers (SH and Agman included), like tobacco company executives, will never admit to their complicity in market manipulation nor will they stop using erroneous arguments that pertain to the virtues of free trade to sell their fraud.
Packers (SH and Agman included), like tobacco company executives, will never admit to their complicity in market manipulation nor will they stop using erroneous arguments that pertain to the virtues of free trade to sell their fraud.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Nope, STILL NOTHING!
~SH~
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten Econ: "It has already been done on both accounts, and yet you still believe the world is flat."
Judge Strom ruled in the case and the 11th Circuit upheld that ruling. You are the one who believes the world is flat.
Until you bring the proof that proves either of them wrong, you have nothing, PERIOD.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Judge Strom added requirements that are NOT in PSA. Why do you support the ultra liberal practice of legislating from the bench?
Time to wade into this argumaent.
I agree with you Econ101. It is a true benefit to the packers to lock up their supply of a superior, consistent raw product. In contrast to buying on the spot market and gambling on quality. Is that wrong?
If I was a manufacturer, I would contract my supply of raw materials.
Imagine the auto industry, if Ford was to have to go to an auction every two weeks or less to buy components for their vehicles. 1000 makers of frames , outbid GM, on frames they know nothing about. What would the satisfaction or reliabilty level be? What would the safety level be? Would the inefficiecies cost the industry as a whole, not cost more than "market manipulation"
The days of killing 5000 animals a day and saying, "this one goes to this market, and this one goes to that market, are gone. These packers want to buy large volumes of a consistent product that will fill an individual market, by specs.
I see a day when a packer will be killing all "choice" animals on one day for a National buyer, and then on the next killing all "prime" animals for another customer. They will also further process another day, the quality of carcass, that will go into "prepared meals" for those that would not eat beef if it was not convenient and be suitable for their busy schedules. (Pre-cooked roasts as example)
Cargill has just taken ownership of Better Beef in Guelph Ontario (Sept. 01). What's their plan, well I can only guess. But I would assume they have purchased the plant because:
1) Better Beef is an updated/technology advanced plant.
2) 2 hours of driving distance to the largest concentration of population in North America. Can anybody guess the pop. within this distance?
3) Assests include a further processing food company
4) Producers in this area, are not accustomed to being paid for quality, they have always been paid on a commodity basis, they are eager to be acknowledged for producing a superior product, and be paid on a variety of grids.
5) Branded beef lines are going to grow and with the diversity of breeds and genetics in Ontario, they can provide the consumer with choice
6) With boxed beef being exported from Canada in record numbers, quality of product, traceability, and efficiencies within the system, they will be able to create further demand.
7) Aging plants like Taylor in Pennsylvania, do not provide the efficiencies they need. (Another US plant will be closed.)
8) Capacity to double shift and kill capacity, will mean importing live animals from the States south of Ontario. With the rising Canadian dollar, this is becoming more attractive.
Just some guesses, but I do believe we are entering a phase of "value added" purchases and sales in this industry. And no, I'm not a packer lover, just an individual with an open mind to the "big-picture" and a desire to change, so I can reap the benefits of the inevitable change.
[/b]"don't try to adjust the situation/reality to suit the processes, adjust the processes."
Dr. Azzam has already said there was a negative correlation between captive supply and cash prices (meaning more captive supply, lower cash prices).
I agree with you Econ101. It is a true benefit to the packers to lock up their supply of a superior, consistent raw product. In contrast to buying on the spot market and gambling on quality. Is that wrong?
If I was a manufacturer, I would contract my supply of raw materials.
Imagine the auto industry, if Ford was to have to go to an auction every two weeks or less to buy components for their vehicles. 1000 makers of frames , outbid GM, on frames they know nothing about. What would the satisfaction or reliabilty level be? What would the safety level be? Would the inefficiecies cost the industry as a whole, not cost more than "market manipulation"
The days of killing 5000 animals a day and saying, "this one goes to this market, and this one goes to that market, are gone. These packers want to buy large volumes of a consistent product that will fill an individual market, by specs.
I see a day when a packer will be killing all "choice" animals on one day for a National buyer, and then on the next killing all "prime" animals for another customer. They will also further process another day, the quality of carcass, that will go into "prepared meals" for those that would not eat beef if it was not convenient and be suitable for their busy schedules. (Pre-cooked roasts as example)
Cargill has just taken ownership of Better Beef in Guelph Ontario (Sept. 01). What's their plan, well I can only guess. But I would assume they have purchased the plant because:
1) Better Beef is an updated/technology advanced plant.
2) 2 hours of driving distance to the largest concentration of population in North America. Can anybody guess the pop. within this distance?
3) Assests include a further processing food company
4) Producers in this area, are not accustomed to being paid for quality, they have always been paid on a commodity basis, they are eager to be acknowledged for producing a superior product, and be paid on a variety of grids.
5) Branded beef lines are going to grow and with the diversity of breeds and genetics in Ontario, they can provide the consumer with choice
6) With boxed beef being exported from Canada in record numbers, quality of product, traceability, and efficiencies within the system, they will be able to create further demand.
7) Aging plants like Taylor in Pennsylvania, do not provide the efficiencies they need. (Another US plant will be closed.)
8) Capacity to double shift and kill capacity, will mean importing live animals from the States south of Ontario. With the rising Canadian dollar, this is becoming more attractive.
Just some guesses, but I do believe we are entering a phase of "value added" purchases and sales in this industry. And no, I'm not a packer lover, just an individual with an open mind to the "big-picture" and a desire to change, so I can reap the benefits of the inevitable change.
[/b]"don't try to adjust the situation/reality to suit the processes, adjust the processes."
PORKER
Well-known member
AS in SSI web site the word spreads, Just some guesses, but I do believe we are entering a phase of "value added" purchases and sales in this industry. And no, I'm not a packer lover, just an individual with an open mind to the "big-picture" and a desire to change, so I can reap the benefits of the inevitable change.
