Chicken Replacing Beef

[Econ101]

Murgen

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?

Murgen I do not think that is wrong at all.

The problem in the Pickett case was that Tyson could get just as good quality from the cash market for less money than they were paying in the captive supplies and they did not do this. They did not do it because they could use the captive supplies they had and drive down the cash market. Since much of the captive supply price was based on the cash market, they were able to lower overall prices to cattlemen, not based on the efficiencies of captive supplies, but by using a buying strategy that lowered their overall costs.

Essentially, they divided the total market for beef and then played a little game on the sellers. This reduced their overall price paid (and the price paid by other packers) for cattle that was not based on supply/demand but on a deceptive practice. The key the plaintiff had to prove was that the cash market had a value that was undervalued due to the above game. If there were more packers than just a few, this game would not have worked because competitive markets would have bid the cash price for cattle up and there would not have been an artificial movement down the supply curve.

The cattle market can give all the benefits to the packers you described above with price signals. If angus cattle are preferred more by consumers then the packers can pay more for them and more cattle ranchers would see the premium and produce for it. Same with prime, choice, or whatever the market demands.

The PSA was written not to frustrate efficiency, but frustrate the abuses of market power. The definition of efficiency is not Tyson's definition of efficiency, but the economy's efficiency. The economy's efficiency includes the farmer's definition of efficiency and not just the packers. Tyson is already abusing its market power in the poultry markets with its poultry farmers and nothing is being done about it. With more market power they will do the same in beef. It is just a matter of time.

I have never advocated the doing away with contracts that promote efficiency--but the definition of efficiency must not belong only to Tyson or the other packers. When the abuse of contracts is found out and shown, it is understandable that the vehicle for the fraud be taken away. Just as you would take the license away from a drunk driver. The law should not be concerned with the driver not being able to go to work "efficiently in his own car". The drunk driver should have thought about that when he drove drunk. If that puts Tyson at a competitive disadvantage so what? That is part of the penalty to be paid.

The Tysons of this world are drunk with market power and no one is taking their keys away from them. What do we need-- Mothers Against Market Power? The inefficiencies that market power produces is paid by producers. That cost shifting should be shifted back to the ones who broke the law, took the producer surplus and played robin hood with it as to consumer surplus. That robin hood game made barriers to entry that will further help the industry consolidate and become more concentrated.

As my first post on this forum explained, the economy has a net loss when this game is played.

Thanks for your info. on the Canadian beef company.

 

[Murgen]

The PSA was written not to frustrate efficiency, but frustrate the abuses of market power. The definition of efficiency is not Tyson's definition of efficiency, but the economy's efficiency. The economy's efficiency includes the farmer's definition of efficiency and not just the packers. Tyson is already abusing its market power in the poultry markets with its poultry farmers and nothing is being done about it. With more market power they will do the same in beef. It is just a matter of time.

How old is the PSA? Is it current for the business climate of today?

Would that definition of efficiency also include the producer? We as producers need to evaluate how efficiently we produce the raw product, and how well we can market towards a target market. The efficiencies at the manufacturer level, provides the consumer demand, by keeping the equilbrium price. As I understand economics, high price is not sustainable if demand slides. The efficiency at the producer level of raw product, provides for more margin, that is willingly paid by the manufacturer.

We talk about trucking costs right now. Has anybody explored the possibility of going back to the "good ole days" and transporting by rail? Just some thoughts, I don't even try to educate, when it comes to the "beef", still learning and thinking!

 

[Murgen]

Thanks for your info. on the Canadian beef company

It's no longer a Canadian company, but an American company. But hopefully we can use what you think is a negative and make it into a positve for this geographical area.

"pessimists will never prosper"

 

[Econ101]

I agree, Murgen, sorry about that. Global companies are not national unless you have a system like China. I happen to like Canada

The PSA was passed in 1921 after a particularly bad bought with market power during industrialization. Most of the act centers around the economic harms and therefore are universal in time. These games being played today have been played with different names and different variations over centuries. We (judges) have forgotten those lessons and now we must re-learn them.

Sec. 201 (2) When used in this Act, the term "packer" means any person engaged in the business (a) of buying livestock in commerce for purposes of slaughter, or (b) of manufacturing or preparing meats or meat food products for sale or shipment in commerce, or © of marketing meats, meat food products, or livestock products in an unmanufactured form acting as a wholesale broker, dealer, or distributor in commerce. (7 U.S.C. 191)

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

The problem in the U.S. is that the government agency that is supposed to be administering the act is either incompetent or corrupt or both. This is due to well placed people in the political appointee level or in the bureaucratic level of the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration who answers directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary answers to the President of the U. S. and the committee chairs in agriculture and agriculture related committees. I have traced the incompetence all the way to the Secretary and have spoken to him personally on these issues. It is unknown to me at this time as to whether Bush is corrupt on these matters or just incompetent (does Katrina give you a hint?) and relying on his republican friends to run the show.

Parts a) and b) have to do with items that directly affect the producer surplus. Any economist worth his salt knows that if a company can get away with items in a) or b) he can use economic tools to capture the producer surplus and either make excess profits or gain more market power. With more market power the company can make more barriers to entry and reduce competition. Less competition, again, means it is easier to capture the producer surplus. (producer surplus is an economic term that essentially means producer's profits) It is a viscous circle that only benefits the middle man.

The courts have allowed the packers to define "efficiency" and with their definition of "efficiency" they are able to break a) and b). This is not economic efficiency, however. When the producer's efficiency is not taken into account, there are deadweight losses to the economy. Deadweight losses are net losses to an economy when considering consumer surplus and producer surplus and the maximum surplus that a market can make. Packers and the middlemen try to argue that they represent the consumer surplus, but that is not the case. The PSA is designed to prevent them from taking too large of a piece of pie from the producers (cattlemen) and consumers (packers make the argument that they are the consumers but you know that is not true).

I hope this is not too hard to follow. I would much rather discuss these issues and how they pertain to a circumstance than to keep talking to SH and Agman.

Talking to SH and Agman is like castrating a barrow. You get a lot of squeeling, might get kicked, and don't accomplish anything. The reason is that they are the defendents advocates.

 

[Sandhusker]

Judge Strom, I don't believe I saw the words "effeciency" or "competition", or anything about "legitimate use".

 

[agman]

Judge Strom added requirements that are NOT in PSA. Why do you support the ultra liberal practice of legislating from the bench?

Do you know more about the PSA than the judges who ruled in this case-yes or no?

Judge Strom knows more about about all the testimony and the law then either you or Econ101. He ruled appropriately and his decision was backed by a unanimous opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Is the world supposed to believe that you are right and judges with all their legal backround are wrong?

Just a reminder, Judge Strom did not invent or derive his opinion by copying verbatim, even spelling errors, as Judge Cebull did. You never scrutinized Cebull's actions did you? Even I know enough to know that if you copy an opinion verbatim from the plantiff's that a red flag should go up immediately. Why did you overlook that if you know so much about legal rulings and proceedings? I see hypocrisy in your positions.

 

[ocm]

Judge Strom added requirements that are NOT in PSA. Why do you support the ultra liberal practice of legislating from the bench?

Do you know more about the PSA than the judges who ruled in this case-yes or no?

Absolutely. The dichotomy between what the PSA says and what the judge ruled is obvious. The PSA is incredibly clear.

It shall be unlawful for any packer... to...
Engage in any course of business ... with the effect of manipulating ...prices

There is no "AND" or "EXCEPT" or "UNLESS" after this.

Perhaps this is not so much about knowledge as it is integrity and the willingness to legislate from the bench.

BEFORE the verdict Judge Strom stated in plaintiff attorney's presence. "How can I possibly order injunctive relief against Tyson?"

You don't suppose he had already made up his mind?

 

[agman]

Judge Strom added requirements that are NOT in PSA. Why do you support the ultra liberal practice of legislating from the bench?

Do you know more about the PSA than the judges who ruled in this case-yes or no?

Absolutely. The dichotomy between what the PSA says and what the judge ruled is obvious. The PSA is incredibly clear.

It shall be unlawful for any packer... to...
Engage in any course of business ... with the effect of manipulating ...prices

There is no "AND" or "EXCEPT" or "UNLESS" after this.

Perhaps this is not so much about knowledge as it is integrity and the willingness to legislate from the bench.

BEFORE the verdict Judge Strom stated in plaintiff attorney's presence. "How can I possibly order injunctive relief against Tyson?"

You don't suppose he had already made up his mind?

That statement was made AFTER the evidence or more importantly the lack thereof was presented. There is a little more to it than what you posted OCM.

 

[Econ101]

Judge Strom, I don't believe I saw the words "effeciency" or "competition", or anything about "legitimate use".

That was the debate behind closed doors. It should never have been.

 

[Econ101]

Judge Strom added requirements that are NOT in PSA. Why do you support the ultra liberal practice of legislating from the bench?

Do you know more about the PSA than the judges who ruled in this case-yes or no?

Judge Strom knows more about about all the testimony and the law then either you or Econ101. He ruled appropriately and his decision was backed by a unanimous opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Is the world supposed to believe that you are right and judges with all their legal backround are wrong?

Just a reminder, Judge Strom did not invent or derive his opinion by copying verbatim, even spelling errors, as Judge Cebull did. You never scrutinized Cebull's actions did you? Even I know enough to know that if you copy an opinion verbatim from the plantiff's that a red flag should go up immediately. Why did you overlook that if you know so much about legal rulings and proceedings? I see hypocrisy in your positions.

I have stated over and over again that the court lacked the economic intelligence to make such rulings as they have. This was evidenced in the Robinson-Patman example they used in their ruling in the court's own words, verbatum.

In their ruling they showed their ignorance and arrogance. You have not taken me up on my challenges on that one, Agman. Are you scared? You could even call the appellate decision "nuts" because of the Robinson-Patman example.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten Econ.: "The problem in the Pickett case was that Tyson could get just as good quality from the cash market for less money than they were paying in the captive supplies and they did not do this."

Allow me to introduce you to your ignorance again Kindergarten Econ.

First, it is important for any packer to procure cattle by any means necessary. The pickett plaintiffs even testified to this fact.

Second, "quality" is a relative term. Relative to the choice/select spread at the time, relative to the affect of overfed carcasses at the time on the market itself, relative to the Y3 and Y4 discounts at the time, and relative to the oversized carcass discounts at the time.

Fact: During this period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, there was even a time when the value of "select" cattle was higher than "choice" due to the many overfed cattle.

Fact: In formula/grid pricing, overfed cattle receive discounts due to excessive fat.

Fact: Larger carcass weights from overfeeding leads to extra tonnage which lowers the cash market. Precisely why the "currentness" of fat cattle is such a red flag.

Fact: In formula/grid pricing, cattle receive discounts when their carcasses exceed a certain weight. Usually 950 pounds.

You will refute none of these facts.

Third, NOBODY KNOWS THE "QUALITY" OF THE CARCASSES OF CASH CATTLE UNTIL THOSE HIDES COME OFF AND THEY ARE PROPERLY GRADED.


These facts absolutely shatter your bullsh*t conspiracy theory of packers being able to buy higher quality cattle in the cash market.

AS IF THEY SHOULD REFUSE TO BUY CATTLE THROUGH MARKETING AGREEMENTS?????

Once again, you have proven your ignorance on this issue.

Kindergarten Econ.: "They did not do it because they could use the captive supplies they had and drive down the cash market."

Bull sh*t!

This is the same baseless conspiracy theory that is repeated over and over without any proof to back it.

Kindergarten: "Since much of the captive supply price was based on the cash market, they were able to lower overall prices to cattlemen, not based on the efficiencies of captive supplies, but by using a buying strategy that lowered their overall costs."

The same baseless conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

CHEAP TALK!

Nobody sorted out normal supply and demand factors in order to credit lower cattle prices in the cash market to market manipulation.

There was no proof of market manipulation.

Kindergarten Econ.: "Essentially, they divided the total market for beef and then played a little game on the sellers."

More bullsh*t!

The packers can only acquire cattle if the sellers are willing sellers. The only way to have willing sellers is to pay a price that is acceptable to those sellers. The packers cannot "DIVIDE THE MARKET", the division between captive cattle and cash cattle is based on HOW FEEDERS DESIRE TO MARKET THEIR CATTLE.

This is controlled by the feeder, not by the packer.

Another baseless conspiracy theory that is absolutely shattered by the facts.

Kindergarten Econ. 101: "This reduced their overall price paid (and the price paid by other packers) for cattle that was not based on supply/demand but on a deceptive practice."

More bullsh*t!

The only way to prove that would be to isolate normal supply and demand factors that normally play on the market.

TALK IS CHEAP!

Did anyone see any proof for this allegation? Of course not because ever since Kindergarten Economics made his arrival, he has avoided any discussions of supply and demand principles at this time and has only presented "THEORIES", "OPINIONS", "SPECULATION", and "CONJECTURE".

EMPTY ARGUMENTS!

Kindergarten Econ.: "The key the plaintiff had to prove was that the cash market had a value that was undervalued due to the above game."

WHICH THEY DID NOT DO!

Kindergarten Economics: "If there were more packers than just a few, this game would not have worked because competitive markets would have bid the cash price for cattle up and there would not have been an artificial movement down the supply curve."

Another baseless theory!

There is 5 major packers and about 12 level 2 packers all competing for the same cattle. Every auction ends up with two bidders in the end. The two with the most need and the deepest pockets.

For Kindergarten's theories to have valididity would be to suggest there is no competition between Tyson, Excel, Swift & Co., Smithfield, and USPB.

Now that really takes a stretch of the imagination.

Kindergarten 101: "The cattle market can give all the benefits to the packers you described above with price signals. If angus cattle are preferred more by consumers then the packers can pay more for them and more cattle ranchers would see the premium and produce for it. Same with prime, choice, or whatever the market demands."

The very reason that formulas and grids were developed was at the request of the feeders that were tired of having the high quality cattle carry the value of the poorer cattle. VALUE BASED MARKETING is exactly what the formulas and grids accomplish.

The base price has to be established before premiums and discounts can be added or subtracted. The base price is based on the weekly weighted average the week prior to delivery. Angus Gene Net which deals with Swift & Co. allows producers the option to "BID THE GRID" to establish the base price.

To force all cattle to be sold in the cash market would be a step towards "socialized cattle marketing" rather than VALUE BASED.

Kindergarten: "The PSA was written not to frustrate efficiency, but frustrate the abuses of market power."

The PSA was written to prevent packers from getting together in dark rooms and establishing a common price.


If anyone thinks the PSA, as it is written, is a good law read this:

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

That is a platform for "socialized cattle marketing" and falls on the court's interpretation of the word "UNREASONABLE".

I disagree with this aspect of the PSA and believe any person or persons should be able to conduct business with whoever they want and pay accordingly. That's my definition of "REASONABLE".

Why should I, as a cattle feeder, not be able to give preferential treatment to producers that have treated me well in the past and whose cattle perform better than some chronic bitching packer blamer who thinks his cattle are better than they really are?

If one producers cattle perform better than another's in the feedlot, I should be able to pay more for those cattle than for those cattle that fall apart, get sick and die. That's how I define "REASONABLE" but that might not be how some "socialist" packer blamer defines "REASONABLE".

Kindergarten Econ. "With more market power they will do the same in beef. It is just a matter of time."

Typical "SKY IS FALLING" doomsday profit.

Kindergarten Economics: "When the abuse of contracts is found out and shown, it is understandable that the vehicle for the fraud be taken away."

Let me assure you that you packer blaming conspiracy theorists will not determine how the cattle feeding industry will sell their fat cattle without a bloody fight.

Kindergarten Economics: "The inefficiencies that market power produces is paid by producers."

To the contrary, the efficiencies of market power has led to higher cattle prices. Local locker plants have to pay to have their ofal hauled away while the larger more efficient packing companies are paying producers for their ofal by the value that they add to it. That's just one example of many where larger more efficient packing plants can pay more for cattle than smaller less efficient packing plants.


Now, where is your evidence to prove that ibp manipulated the markets with captive supply arrangements?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Stop calling me names as that should not be a part of the discussion. I can keep referring to you as SH-- Hawker if you would like to keep doing it. As I said before, those tactics are for someone who does not have enough logical points to make. Can you not argue based on logic?

SH, I would agree to some of what you said but not all parts of it. For example:

SH- That is a platform for "socialized cattle marketing" and falls on the court's interpretation of the word "UNREASONABLE".

I disagree with this aspect of the PSA and believe any person or persons should be able to conduct business with whoever they want and pay accordingly. That's my definition of "REASONABLE".

Why should I, as a cattle feeder, not be able to give preferential treatment to producers that have treated me well in the past and whose cattle perform better than some chronic bitching packer blamer who thinks his cattle are better than they really are?

If one producers cattle perform better than another's in the feedlot, I should be able to pay more for those cattle than for those cattle that fall apart, get sick and die. That's how I define "REASONABLE" but that might not be how some "socialist" packer blamer defines "REASONABLE".

What was in question was Tyson's "reasonable" definition. Obviously the plaintiffs contended that their cattle were just as good as the captive supply markets and they were discriminated against because Tyson wanted to depress the cash market, and hence depress the captive supply market and the total beef market. They proved that to the jury. The proof of this was in the pricing of the captive supply vs. the cash market. Tyson did not argue against the prima fascia case the plaintiffs brought as it did not produce the discovery evidence the plaintiffs requested on the grid pricing. This evidence could have supported Tyson's claims that you make on captive supply being priced higher for some real reason. Instead Tyson hid behind the lack of evidence. Go back and read the prima facia case burden of proof I brought out to you from the Robinson-Patman Act.

The plaintiffs made the prima fascia case that the margin paid to the captive supply was "unreasonable" and the defendants did not prove otherwise by their grid pricing excuse in the data. You can prove someone is guilty with circumstantial evidence at a trial if their alibi does not check out. It happens every day. Tyson did not provide the alibi they are using. They are using the alibi that "sometimes I was somewhere else wasn't I?", or "I have the right to be somewhere else don't I?" All salesmen's tricks of diversion and leading questions. It did not work with the jury.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:44 am Post subject:
Quote:
Kindergarten Econ.: "The problem in the Pickett case was that Tyson could get just as good quality from the cash market for less money than they were paying in the captive supplies and they did not do this."


Allow me to introduce you to your ignorance again Kindergarten Econ.

First, it is important for any packer to procure cattle by any means necessary. The pickett plaintiffs even testified to this fact.

Second, "quality" is a relative term. Relative to the choice/select spread at the time, relative to the affect of overfed carcasses at the time on the market itself, relative to the Y3 and Y4 discounts at the time, and relative to the oversized carcass discounts at the time.

Fact: During this period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, there was even a time when the value of "select" cattle was higher than "choice" due to the many overfed cattle.

Fact: In formula/grid pricing, overfed cattle receive discounts due to excessive fat.

Fact: Larger carcass weights from overfeeding leads to extra tonnage which lowers the cash market. Precisely why the "currentness" of fat cattle is such a red flag.

Fact: In formula/grid pricing, cattle receive discounts when their carcasses exceed a certain weight. Usually 950 pounds.

You will refute none of these facts.

Again, this is all premised on the captive price compared to the cash price over periods of time. Tyson could have proved this with the sum of the pricing of the captive supply pricing compared to cash market. To refute the arguments, Tyson would have had to present the evidence that the larger price paid in the captive supplies was a result of the quality situations or market situations you described above instead of a discriminatiory pricing method the plaintiffs argued. They did not present this evidence. The prima fascia case was made and they did not refute it in court in front of the 12 jurors.

The empty answer of Tyson's pricing policy is the key.

More bullsh*t!

The only way to prove that would be to isolate normal supply and demand factors that normally play on the market.

Exactly my point. The defendants were required to break out the variables they used in paying captive supply higher than the cash market on each of the transactions they made and they did not do it. Instead they relied on everyone else saying that there could be a benefit to captive supplies. They even said the plaintiffs stated as much. Tyson had to prove, after the prima fascia case was made, that they did not pay the cash market less due to the factors above. They did not present this evidence. It was missing. Tyson can not use your reasons as a defense if they did not prove otherwise at trial. They did not even try to prove otherwise, they waited to argue later all of your reasons above, which is not where they had to make the argument. The above alibi was missing from the trial for the time periods the expert witness studied. Elements of an alibi are TIME and place. Boy these guys sure do get "and" and "or" mixed up a lot.

Another baseless theory!

There is 5 major packers and about 12 level 2 packers all competing for the same cattle. Every auction ends up with two bidders in the end. The two with the most need and the deepest pockets.

For Kindergarten's theories to have valididity would be to suggest there is no competition between Tyson, Excel, Swift & Co., Smithfield, and USPB.

Now that really takes a stretch of the imagination.

No stretch needed here if you read packer history. No stretch here if you understand the economics of collusion, whether explicit or implied. No stretch here if you know how thin the cash market really was. No stretch here if there are geographic barriers to bidding. No stretch here at all. Heck, you couldn't teach a yoga class on the amount of stretching necessary for this conclusion.

Quote:
Kindergarten 101: "The cattle market can give all the benefits to the packers you described above with price signals. If angus cattle are preferred more by consumers then the packers can pay more for them and more cattle ranchers would see the premium and produce for it. Same with prime, choice, or whatever the market demands."


The very reason that formulas and grids were developed was at the request of the feeders that were tired of having the high quality cattle carry the value of the poorer cattle. VALUE BASED MARKETING is exactly what the formulas and grids accomplish.

The base price has to be established before premiums and discounts can be added or subtracted. The base price is based on the weekly weighted average the week prior to delivery. Angus Gene Net which deals with Swift & Co. allows producers the option to "BID THE GRID" to establish the base price.

To force all cattle to be sold in the cash market would be a step towards "socialized cattle marketing" rather than VALUE BASED.

Grid and formula pricing is not the issue. I have already agreed that they can be benificial to efficient markets.

To force all cattle to be sold in the cash market is a possible remedy to the harm done to the market. I would disagree with this on theory but agree with it in reality. Whether you call it "socialized cattle marketing" or not is of no concern. This is analogous to the drunk driver example I used before. You are essentially arguing that it is unfair to take all cars away from drivers. I never said that. I think the car needs to be taken away from the driver who drove drunk, not the other drivers. In reality, the problem with concentration is that the big 5 are all heavy drinkers. Get the joke Senator Specter? By the way, you look good on TV. Pass it up, Agman.

Quote:
Kindergarten Econ. "With more market power they will do the same in beef. It is just a matter of time."


Typical "SKY IS FALLING" doomsday profit.

Again, I am in Poland, the lowlands are being invaded and this is the battle of Brittain. Ask the Brittish about the World War II air raids.

Let me assure you that you packer blaming conspiracy theorists will not determine how the cattle feeding industry will sell their fat cattle without a bloody fight.

Who cares? The fight was in the court room and should have been decided by the jurors unless there was some overwhelming reason not to. The appellate court dismissed the testimony of an expert witness for the plaintiffs while showing their ignorance the economic issues they chastized him for. That is not overwhelming reason. That looks more like incompetence or corruption of the courts. Ask the judges who look towards Arlen Specter and the Senate Judicial Committee for promotions for that one. It is a good question and one that should be asked. It should be pointed out that this was not the entire 11th Circuit, just a 3 judge panel but the circuit's reputation is at stake. For that reason alone they should review the case.

Kindergarten Economics: "The inefficiencies that market power produces is paid by producers."


To the contrary, the efficiencies of market power has led to higher cattle prices. Local locker plants have to pay to have their ofal hauled away while the larger more efficient packing companies are paying producers for their ofal by the value that they add to it. That's just one example of many where larger more efficient packing plants can pay more for cattle than smaller less efficient packing plants.

You are right, I should have said "The inefficiencies that the ABUSE of market power produces is paid by producers." Sometimes it is paid by consumers (when there is a monopoly or oligopoly and market power is exerted). Since we were talking about the cattlemen's side (Section 202 a. and b.) of the Pickett case I took the liberty of thinking you understood these things in my statement. It seems I am always making the mistake that you are able to understand anything. At least it provides you some diverticuli.

I have stated at least two times in this post that you are right on some things that needed clarifying, SH. Do not let it go to your head. These are the same arguments you bring to the table and the problem is that a part of what you say could be considered right, but the substance is missing.

 

[PORKER]

May I step in and say that During this period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, there was even a time when the value of "select" cattle was higher than "choice" due to the many overfed cattle.

This will be more carefully watched as a national ID system comes into play.The record movement part of the M'ID system will give the exact date and time of ownership of a animal in real time from owner to owner right to the packer's back door and the kill floor.

 

[Econ101]

May I step in and say that During this period of "ALLEGED" market manipulation, there was even a time when the value of "select" cattle was higher than "choice" due to the many overfed cattle.

This will be more carefully watched as a national ID system comes into play.The record movement part of the M'ID system will give the exact date and time of ownership of a animal in real time from owner to owner right to the packer's back door and the kill floor.

Good point, Porker. Anomolies in data do not disprove cause and effect. A string of anomolies could be statistically important though. Take the example of the two years where captive supply did not decrease the cash market. This could easily be explained away by the packers not cooperating to depress prices. Captive supplies do not necessarily mean the abuse of captive supplies to depress the market. There is a negative correlation, as Dr. Azzam points out, that increased captive supplies does supress the cash market. This would lend support to the argument that with the ability to manipulate markets for their own self interest, the packers do it.

Usually market anomolies are "arbitraged" out of the market in a very short time. This would show that markets are responsive. The argument was that these anomolies were not "arbitraged" out of the market and therefore were acts of market manipulation.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "Stop calling me names as that should not be a part of the discussion. I can keep referring to you as SH-- Hawker if you would like to keep doing it."

Look at the contradictions in your own statement! You are such a hypocrite.

You can dish it out but you can't take it.

If you want to have a more civil discussion and stop the name calling, then start making civil posts and I will respond in kind just as I always have.

Econ. 101: "Can you not argue based on logic?"

All my arguments are based on logic and facts.

Yours are based on emotion and "OPINIONS" based on what you want to believe.

Econ. 101: "SH, I would agree to some of what you said but not all parts of it. For example:"

I don't care what you agree with or not.

Until you can present facts that contradict what I have stated rather than "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES", your opinion is worth what I paid for it.

Econ. 101: "What was in question was Tyson's "reasonable" definition. Obviously the plaintiffs contended that their cattle were just as good as the captive supply markets and they were discriminated against because Tyson wanted to depress the cash market, and hence depress the captive supply market and the total beef market. They proved that to the jury. The proof of this was in the pricing of the captive supply vs. the cash market."

NOW YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR STORY AGAIN!

You just got done saying:

"Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation but not necessarily so."

Take a position and stick with it!

Now which way is it going to be?

"COULD BE" proof or IS IT PROOF?


There is no "PRICE DEPRESSING". If packers could depress prices, why wouldn't they do it all the time? Why would prices ever move higher? Do packers have "periods of generosity"????

We know for a fact that markets move up and down so why don't packers always depress prices? Got a "THEORY" for that?

The obvious is simply too obvious for you isn't it?

Econ. 101: "Tyson did not argue against the prima fascia case the plaintiffs brought as it did not produce the discovery evidence the plaintiffs requested on the grid pricing. This evidence could have supported Tyson's claims that you make on captive supply being priced higher for some real reason. Instead Tyson hid behind the lack of evidence."

Tyson does not have to prove their innocense. The plaintiffs had to prove Tyson's guilt. How many times do I have to tell you that?

Econ. 101: "Go back and read the prima facia case burden of proof I brought out to you from the Robinson-Patman Act."

You brought nothing!

Econ. 101: " You can prove someone is guilty with circumstantial evidence at a trial if their alibi does not check out. It happens every day."

Someone's alibi not checking out is not the case here. You said the jury did not see the captive supply prices vs. cash price comparison which doesn't prove guilt anyway due to normal supply and demand factors not being isolated.

You got nothing here either!

Econ. 101: "To refute the arguments, Tyson would have had to present the evidence that the larger price paid in the captive supplies was a result of the quality situations or market situations you described above instead of a discriminatiory pricing method the plaintiffs argued."

There is no such thing as "guilty until proven innocent".

THE PLAINTIFFS HAD TO PROVE ibp WAS GUILTY OF MARKET MANIPULATION AND THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

If they did, you would have provided that evidence. You don't because the proof of market manipulation doesn't exist.

You think you know so much about this trial and you admit that you didn't even read the court proceedings.

How do you know what evidence was presented without reading the court proceedings?

Econ. 101: "Exactly my point. The defendants were required to break out the variables they used in paying captive supply higher than the cash market on each of the transactions they made and they did not do it. Instead they relied on everyone else saying that there could be a benefit to captive supplies. They even said the plaintiffs stated as much. Tyson had to prove, after the prima fascia case was made, that they did not pay the cash market less due to the factors above. They did not present this evidence. It was missing. Tyson can not use your reasons as a defense if they did not prove otherwise at trial. They did not even try to prove otherwise, they waited to argue later all of your reasons above, which is not where they had to make the argument. The above alibi was missing from the trial for the time periods the expert witness studied. Elements of an alibi are TIME and place. Boy these guys sure do get "and" and "or" mixed up a lot."

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, IT'S NOT ibp'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE, IT'S THE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE ibp'S GUILT!

THAT IS A COMMON FACT OF LAW!

How do you know what ibp presented in court if you didn't even read the court proceedings?

HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ibp ISOLATED NORMAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS????

Econ. 101: "No stretch needed here if you read packer history. No stretch here if you understand the economics of collusion, whether explicit or implied. No stretch here if you know how thin the cash market really was. No stretch here if there are geographic barriers to bidding. No stretch here at all. Heck, you couldn't teach a yoga class on the amount of stretching necessary for this conclusion."

More empty statements unsupported by facts.

Econ. 101: "It seems I am always making the mistake that you are able to understand anything. At least it provides you some diverticuli."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Talk is so cheap!


You have proved nothing in this case, absolutely nothing!


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "Take the example of the two years where captive supply did not decrease the cash market. This could easily be explained away by the packers not cooperating to depress prices."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Periods of generosity"???????

Some times they chose to make money and sometimes they chose to go broke? LITERALLY LOL!!

I guess I'll have to send them a Thank you card for their "periods of generosity".

What a clown you are!

With that one you have absolutely cinched yourself as a conspiracy theorist.

Econ. 101: "Captive supplies do not necessarily mean the abuse of captive supplies to depress the market. There is a negative correlation, as Dr. Azzam points out, that increased captive supplies does supress the cash market. This would lend support to the argument that with the ability to manipulate markets for their own self interest, the packers do it."[/i]

All the research I have seen both University Research (2 seperate studies) and GIPSA's research shows no correlation.

For every time that captive supply prices were higher, there is times when captive supply prices are lower.


EMPTY HANDED AGAIN!



~SH~

 

[Murgen]

All my arguments are based on logic and facts.

Yours are based on emotion and "OPINIONS" based on what you want to believe.

I don't care what you agree with or not.

Until you can present facts that contradict what I have stated rather than "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES", your opinion is worth what I paid for it.

SH, this forum is for all: facts, opinion, emotion and theory. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have a forum to post on. But it is a great learning experience for all of us. I just hope that all will continue to post, so we can take what we want, and leave the rest.

We won't be able to do this if we "prove" others wrong. I don't want to spend time on here if everybody thinks the way I do.

So, I'm going to be blunt, with the danger of pissing you off. Tone it down, or we won't have anybody to argue/learn with. We're chasing away alternative viewpoints.

 

[Anonymous]

Murgen: "Tone it down, or we won't have anybody to argue/learn with. We're chasing away alternative viewpoints."

Sorry but I'm not going to "tone it down". I respond in kind.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them! Same goes for anyone else.

I have been a part of this forum from the very begginning and the popularity of this forum is due much in part to the sorting of the wheat of truth from the chaff of empty rhetoric that can only be accomplished in debate.

I have a low tolerance level for lies and deception and that will continue to be reflected in my posts for better or for worse. I will continue to treat others the way they treat me. I'm not going to fit anyone's mold.

As long as R-CALF and the rest of the packer blamers are out there presenting false information, I will be here correcting it.

This is the one place that people can go to see how the facts and the truth stand up to the "conspiracy theories" that are plaguing this industry.

I'm not out to win any popularity contests by exposing the lies and deception of R-CULT and their followers.

Now that we have had yet another of the endless pshychoevaluations, can we get back to the debate?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

How about that Murgen, and right after he said he would "respond in kind". :roll: Geeeeeeeeeeeeze

 

[Murgen]

Now that we have had yet another of the endless pshychoevaluations, can we get back to the debate?

Yep, go to her. Did you debate in High School? Were you on the champion team?

When did pshychoevaluations, not enter into an argument, or the selling of your ideas? If you are only going to deal in facts, you've lost me, this business is not only about facts, but also opinion, emotion, and a way of life for many. I've seen many, that are doing it "like Dad did, and Granddad." It's not that easy to turn it into a business overnight, and you have to be respectfull of that too. You've heard of the turtle, right?

And I guess I'll be called names for my opposing point of view from now on, when it comes from you, but that's okay, I can handle it. I too deal in facts, but I do realize that perceptions of reality count for a lot too.

Your job includes enforcement, right? Some are just not programmed for persuassion!