Chicken Replacing Beef

[ocm]

the popularity of this forum is due much in part to the sorting of the wheat of truth from the chaff of empty rhetoric accomplished only in debate.

That's only YOUR opinion. This theory won't hold water. Quit spouting lies and only present the FACTS. Back up what you say.

I have a low tolerance level

We already knew that!

I will continue to treat others the way they treat me.

Talk about getting the Golden Rule backwards!!!

I'm not out to win any popularity contests

You're not in any danger of doing that.


I just had to try "to treat ~SH~ the way he treats me."

I think I'll go take my shower now.

 

[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.

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.

No, I am hardly scared of someone who makes claims while providing zero factual support and believes his phone is being tapped. I trust in the judges decision and intrepretation of the law more than I do yours. If they ruled improperly then there are solid grounds for an appeal. I will repeat what I have previously stated. The mere fact that this was a unamious decision by the Appellate court virtually negates the possibility of any appeal. The possibility of this ruling being heard by the Supreme court is a close to zero as one can get. All of the judges did not get it wrong.

BTW, your comment in a previous thread regarding Judge Strom's statement in the judges chamber is not a first time event in any courtroom. That process is done so as to not prejudice the case to the jury. You might serve the readers well by posting the legal precedent establishing that process.

 

[Anonymous]

Murgen,

I never called you a name.

What puzzles me is why the standard has been set higher for me than for those I respond to?

The manner in which I post continually becomes a topic of discussion yet I have been called every name in the book by those who continually lie and deceive. Idiot, moron, suckhole, full of SH, dipsh*t, and the list goes on and on. Why no comments then?

Funny how presenting the truth can create so much resentment.

It just goes to show how deep the need to blame runs for some.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Quit spouting lies and only present the FACTS."

When you think you can contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary you are welcome to it.

Until that point, you have proven just how cheap talk really is.

The manner in which I post sure makes a nice diversion doesn't it?

Beats the heck out of having to back your "market manipulation" conspiracy theories with supporting facts doesn't it?

You packer blamers are all the same.


Are we having fun now?



~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM: "Quit spouting lies and only present the FACTS."

When you think you can contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary you are welcome to it.

Until that point, you have proven just how cheap talk really is.

The manner in which I post sure makes a nice diversion doesn't it?

Beats the heck out of having to back your "market manipulation" conspiracy theories with supporting facts doesn't it?

You packer blamers are all the same.


Are we having fun now?



~SH~

You just called me a name. Is that treating me like I treat you?

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "You just called me a name. Is that treating me like I treat you?"

You blame packers for market manipulation so you are a packer blamer by definition.

Why would you consider that "name calling"?

Moron, idiot, & dipshit, now that's name calling.

If you hold the packers responsible for or attribute guilt to them for manipulating cattle markets, then you are a packer blamer by definition.

Sorry if you don't like that definition but I didn't write it, WEBSTER did.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

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.

No, I am hardly scared of someone who makes claims while providing zero factual support and believes his phone is being tapped. I trust in the judges decision and intrepretation of the law more than I do yours. If they ruled improperly then there are solid grounds for an appeal. I will repeat what I have previously stated. The mere fact that this was a unamious decision by the Appellate court virtually negates the possibility of any appeal. The possibility of this ruling being heard by the Supreme court is a close to zero as one can get. All of the judges did not get it wrong.

BTW, your comment in a previous thread regarding Judge Strom's statement in the judges chamber is not a first time event in any courtroom. That process is done so as to not prejudice the case to the jury. You might serve the readers well by posting the legal precedent establishing that process.

The jurors were unanimous. To overturn a jury verdict you need more than a scintilla of evidence. The circuit court proved it did not know the economics it questioned Taylor on. The court needs more than a scintilla of evidence to overturn a jury verdict and they need more than a scintilla or correct knowledge to dismiss an expert witness the jury depended on.

I have said before that I do not have a transcript of the trial. I do not have the data that you keep asking for. I just have the appellate court's ruling and arguments. I have looked into some of the studies you have mentioned and in ALL of the studies academia says it needs more evidence not provided and that Taylor had more evidence provided to him because of discovery. If there is nothing to hide and you want the evidence, why don't you post it on the internet in its entirety? Is it a trade secret? The data is old, why not post it so even the academic studies you claim were conclusive can have at least the information Taylor had. Are you scared to post it? Do you want to keep making claims based on nothing? Do you want to keep asking me to provide evidence that you claim to have access to and I admit I do not?

I have pointed out inaccuracies in almost all of your statements you have made to me and your misquotes of my own words. Is this how you think cases should be won?

SH, on my one quote, I will answer you.

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

Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation given that captive supplies were based on the cash market. This could easily be shown if Tyson paid a premium in its formula pricing for a high percent of choice cattle on the formula and then did not do the same thing in the cash market. That is why, I suspect, Tyson declined to answer that question and stood on the "if you don't have the evidence, then we win" argument. In a court of law people usually see through these type of tactics. The 12 jurors did.

Now, I said, not necessarily so. That possibility was if the quality (or demand) of the formula prices cattle were superior to the cash market. This would mean that there had to be a difference in value between the two classes of cattle. In that case the formula prices should be higher at statistically all times. Of course we will not know the answer to that question because Tyson did not answer the question of its premiums in the formula pricing. It is entirely possible that the market wanted it one way sometimes and another sometimes. The proof in the pudding, if you will, is if there was a difference in prices (due to changing demands; sometimes market wanting more choice and sometime wanting more lean) for the cash market without corresponding differences in the in the formula pricing for the sum of very short terms (2 or 3 week period) in question. An analysis of a sumation of these differences over the short term could easily tell if captive supplies depressed the cash market or if it was just a long term trend of supply/demand or the market trying to find its place as SH claims. If it is the market trying to find its place you would expect to see differences correct themsleves quickly and the cash price being higher sometimes and lower sometimes. My suspicions, given your arguments Agman, is that there were certainly anomolies present in the data but also long term trends that could be separated out by careful analysis. Dr. Taylor seperated this out to be 5% shift in the price over certain periods of time. The judges need more than a "nuts" discription to discount Dr. Taylor's work. You claim these anomolies as proof of your case but anomolies are just anomolies. Statistical analysis can be done to see if anomolies are just anomolies, the market finding its place, or trends. Dr. Azzam said that there is a negative correlation between captive supply and price and I believe him. So did the jury.

I know the above paragraph is hard to understand but a good application of mathematics can be used to sort it out depending on the data available. Remember Cattle Co's statement and remember garbage in garbage out.
Real price data could be comprised of actual boxed beef prices, actual payments to cattlemen for their cattle, and other evidence verifiable by outside or competing sources.

Those type of mathematical dissection should not be merely dismissed as "theory". Those type of mathematical applications are the same applications that have allowed astronomers to theorize that there were more planets to be found and they were right. It is also the same type of mathematical analysis that can predict eclipses etc.. I did not look at Dr. Taylors computations but if they were wrong we would probably be debating them now instead of this empty rhetoric that comes from you and SH, Agman, full of diversions and fish.

As always, the devil is in the details. They swore to tell the truth, the whole truth. The details were part of discovery and yet Tyson did not answer. That told the jurors something and it tells me something also.

I told you before that I don't have the data but from just reading the decisions in this case I can see the courts did not deliver justice. They delivered a present to the defendants, and a big one at that. These type of presents do not only cost cattlemen, they cost the economy. They cost all of us and there is a net loss to us all.

 

[ocm]

OCM: "You just called me a name. Is that treating me like I treat you?"

You blame packers for market manipulation so you are a packer blamer by definition.

Why would you consider that "name calling"?

Moron, idiot, & dipshit, now that's name calling.

If you hold the packers responsible for or attribute guilt to them for manipulating cattle markets, then you are a packer blamer by definition.

Sorry if you don't like that definition but I didn't write it, WEBSTER did.



~SH~

I don't blame Creekstone. The "name" is not appropriate.

 

[agman]

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.

No, I am hardly scared of someone who makes claims while providing zero factual support and believes his phone is being tapped. I trust in the judges decision and intrepretation of the law more than I do yours. If they ruled improperly then there are solid grounds for an appeal. I will repeat what I have previously stated. The mere fact that this was a unamious decision by the Appellate court virtually negates the possibility of any appeal. The possibility of this ruling being heard by the Supreme court is a close to zero as one can get. All of the judges did not get it wrong.

BTW, your comment in a previous thread regarding Judge Strom's statement in the judges chamber is not a first time event in any courtroom. That process is done so as to not prejudice the case to the jury. You might serve the readers well by posting the legal precedent establishing that process.

The jurors were unanimous. To overturn a jury verdict you need more than a scintilla of evidence. The circuit court proved it did not know the economics it questioned Taylor on. The court needs more than a scintilla of evidence to overturn a jury verdict and they need more than a scintilla or correct knowledge to dismiss an expert witness the jury depended on.

I have said before that I do not have a transcript of the trial. I do not have the data that you keep asking for. I just have the appellate court's ruling and arguments. I have looked into some of the studies you have mentioned and in ALL of the studies academia says it needs more evidence not provided and that Taylor had more evidence provided to him because of discovery. If there is nothing to hide and you want the evidence, why don't you post it on the internet in its entirety? Is it a trade secret? The data is old, why not post it so even the academic studies you claim were conclusive can have at least the information Taylor had. Are you scared to post it? Do you want to keep making claims based on nothing? Do you want to keep asking me to provide evidence that you claim to have access to and I admit I do not?

I have pointed out inaccuracies in almost all of your statements you have made to me and your misquotes of my own words. Is this how you think cases should be won?

SH, on my one quote, I will answer you.

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

Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation given that captive supplies were based on the cash market. This could easily be shown if Tyson paid a premium in its formula pricing for a high percent of choice cattle on the formula and then did not do the same thing in the cash market. That is why, I suspect, Tyson declined to answer that question and stood on the "if you don't have the evidence, then we win" argument. In a court of law people usually see through these type of tactics. The 12 jurors did.

Now, I said, not necessarily so. That possibility was if the quality (or demand) of the formula prices cattle were superior to the cash market. This would mean that there had to be a difference in value between the two classes of cattle. In that case the formula prices should be higher at statistically all times. Of course we will not know the answer to that question because Tyson did not answer the question of its premiums in the formula pricing. It is entirely possible that the market wanted it one way sometimes and another sometimes. The proof in the pudding, if you will, is if there was a difference in prices (due to changing demands; sometimes market wanting more choice and sometime wanting more lean) for the cash market without corresponding differences in the in the formula pricing for the sum of very short terms (2 or 3 week period) in question. An analysis of a sumation of these differences over the short term could easily tell if captive supplies depressed the cash market or if it was just a long term trend of supply/demand or the market trying to find its place as SH claims. If it is the market trying to find its place you would expect to see differences correct themsleves quickly and the cash price being higher sometimes and lower sometimes. My suspicions, given your arguments Agman, is that there were certainly anomolies present in the data but also long term trends that could be separated out by careful analysis. Dr. Taylor seperated this out to be 5% shift in the price over certain periods of time. The judges need more than a "nuts" discription to discount Dr. Taylor's work. You claim these anomolies as proof of your case but anomolies are just anomolies. Statistical analysis can be done to see if anomolies are just anomolies, the market finding its place, or trends. Dr. Azzam said that there is a negative correlation between captive supply and price and I believe him. So did the jury.

I know the above paragraph is hard to understand but a good application of mathematics can be used to sort it out depending on the data available. Remember Cattle Co's statement and remember garbage in garbage out.
Real price data could be comprised of actual boxed beef prices, actual payments to cattlemen for their cattle, and other evidence verifiable by outside or competing sources.

Those type of mathematical dissection should not be merely dismissed as "theory". Those type of mathematical applications are the same applications that have allowed astronomers to theorize that there were more planets to be found and they were right. It is also the same type of mathematical analysis that can predict eclipses etc.. I did not look at Dr. Taylors computations but if they were wrong we would probably be debating them now instead of this empty rhetoric that comes from you and SH, Agman, full of diversions and fish.

As always, the devil is in the details. They swore to tell the truth, the whole truth. The details were part of discovery and yet Tyson did not answer. That told the jurors something and it tells me something also.

I told you before that I don't have the data but from just reading the decisions in this case I can see the courts did not deliver justice. They delivered a present to the defendants, and a big one at that. These type of presents do not only cost cattlemen, they cost the economy. They cost all of us and there is a net loss to us all.

You have several major problems with your hypothetical. First you did not see nor review the testimony and the cross exam. In its simplest terms, Taylor's work got demolished under cross exam-period. Judge Strom recognized that while the jury failed to realize how severely Taylor's testimony was rebuked by the defense. That is precisely why the defense rested their case so quickly. Taylor's work was exposed as total garbage.

First, Azzam did not testify for the Plaintiffs as they misinterpreted his works and conclusion. Azzam's work did not examine the NET impact of "captive supply". His work examined only "one" side of the equation. That is his statement not mine, although I have read and discussed his work with him per this subject. For you to attemt to suggest otherwise is simply a mistatement of facts. I will excuse you for that error since it is very apparent that you have not read his works just as you by admission have not read Taylor's tesitmaony and cross-exam in the Pickett case.
Yet you claim as Taylor did that he proved something. He proved nothing and neither have you. I don't need a discertation on economic modeling. I have already done my own work as I previously indicated while you have done none per this subject. I remain puzzled why you fail to answer my question about Taylor's finding or lack thereof in 1999 & 2000. Why do you keep evading that question?

What we have is you saying the judge, who saw and heard all the evidence, was wrong without you having read the testimony in the Pickett case and making a misstatement per Azzam's work which you have never seen or likely even head of until I made mention of his works.

Additioanlly, due to the fact that IBP's major accounts are large retailers who deal in "select" product as opposed to "choice" product the quality of cattle was less important than red meat yield. Thus, their cash purchases would reflect the need for that specific type of animal as opposed to "high choice" cattle. So could a price differential exist, yes, due to cattle type differential.

 

[Econ101]

Yet you claim as Taylor did that he proved something. He proved nothing and neither have you. I don't need a discertation on economic modeling. I have already done my own work as I previously indicated while you have done none per this subject. I remain puzzled why you fail to answer my question about Taylor's finding or lack thereof in 1999 & 2000. Why do you keep evading that question?

What we have is you saying the judge, who saw and heard all the evidence, was wrong without you having read the testimony in the Pickett case and making a misstatement per Azzam's work which you have never seen or likely even head of until I made mention of his works.

Additioanlly, due to the fact that IBP's major accounts are large retailers who deal in "select" product as opposed to "choice" product the quality of cattle was less important than red meat yield. Thus, their cash purchases would reflect the need for that specific type of animal as opposed to "high choice" cattle. So could a price differential exist, yes, due to cattle type differential.

I don't have a problem at all answering your question on 1999 and 2000 not having a negative correlation. The abuse of captive supplies was always the allegation. The defense has made the proposition that since IBP did not use the mechanism in 1999 and 2000 to exert market power that the plaintiffs arguments must be false. Of course this linkage was never claimed by the plaintiffs. This is a total misconception you try to perpetrate. I have already gone over this with my example of the embeze
ler. You are the one who keeps using it as a defense, not I. It is not a defense at all and stop misquoting the plaintiffs in saying it is an integral part of their reasoning. It never was. You made it up. Does that clear that one up for you? Stop making up things so you can win a fictitous argument.

On Dr. Azzam, I talked to him before I talked to you about this but who cares? If you talk to someone first does that make that person a "captive" supporter? You are really reaching. You are beginning to sound like SH. He is full of hot air, I thought you had a little more class. Your arguments on this are really revealing.

On your arguments that IBP's customers are "select" customers-- What a bunch of B.S. It has probably taken a few customer like me to telling these retailers that we know the grades of meat and know quality differences in meat sold so stop selling "select" as a higher grade than choice. The only reason I buy select over choice is that either choice is not available because of the BS like this that you tout or that the price spead for that particular meat is not worth the difference. You have now insulted the intelligence of every retail customer. That might work where you come from but I aint buying it. Selling select for choice!!! You should be ashamed for even trying to pull that one over. Even my wife, who has never cut a beef knows the difference. The next thing you are going to try to tell us is that good is better than select.

Question: In the grid pricing is there a premium paid for choice? Why do we even need fed cattle? Why don't we just take them off the field? We would get a lot more select that way. Hey, we could even select them ourselves ane they would be sooooo good. Heck, the USDA will even stamp them "inspected". It only takes a few tough chews to convince people they should be eating chicken instead.

You have claimed to do some analysis on data and you claim to have superior knowledge because of it. Put it out here. Let us look at it. If your analysis is as one sided and ignorant as your arguments in this post I know why you will not show it!!! It wouldn't past muster. Stop claiming to be such an expert with great cards. I am calling your bluff. Show your cards or fold 'em. The more you post the more people are able to see through you and your rediculous arguments.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation given that captive supplies were based on the cash market. This could easily be shown if Tyson paid a premium in its formula pricing for a high percent of choice cattle on the formula and then did not do the same thing in the cash market."

You just don't get it do you????

Your logic is so flawed on so many accounts.

Since talk is cheap, unlike you, I'll show you why your logic is flawed rather than just telling you your logic is flawed.

1. With the exception of the few feedlots that ultrasound their cattle and provide that data to the packer buyer, in most cases the cattle buyer cannot look at a cash cattle fat and know what's under the hide for quality. He can only make an educated guess. That carcass is not graded until it is slaughtered WHICH IS AFTER IT IS SOLD.

With that cold hard fact in mind, how can Tyson pay premiums for higher quality cattle in the cash market when quality is not realized until after they are slaughtered?

BUSTED!

2. AGAIN (heavy sigh) Quality is relative to the grade and yield factors mentioned previously.

Quality as defined in this case is "quality grade". There is a good chance there is more choice cattle in the cash market when that market is "UNCURRENT". What happens when there is too many choice cattle available? The choice/select spread narrows. THAT IS A FACT!

3. AGAIN (heavy sigh), the base price for THIS WEEKS formula/grid cattle is based on the weekly weighted average cash price of LAST WEEK, not this weeks cash price. This weeks cash price could be higher or lower depending on typical supply and demand factors.

Unless THE PLAINTIFF'S isolated those supply/demand factors, they wouldn't have a foot to stand on AND NO, IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENSE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE.


Seriously, Econ, all sarcasm aside, do you understand these three facts?


4. How do you explain the times when the cash cattle prices were higher than the captive supply markets?

5. With the knowledge that cash cattle prices were higher than the captive supply base price at times DUE TO CLIMBING MARKETS DUE TO TYPICAL SUPPLY/DEMAND FACTORS, why would packers only depress markets at certain times???

6. The fact that markets move both up and down daily proves that packers cannot depress markets.

7. What was different about captive supplies recently when fat cattle prices hit $116?

Econ. 101: "An analysis of a sumation of these differences over the short term could easily tell if captive supplies depressed the cash market or if it was just a long term trend of supply/demand or the market trying to find its place as SH claims."

THERE IT IS FOLKS, IN BLACK LETTERS.

AN ABSOLUTE ADMISSION BY ECON. 101 THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE PROOF POSITIVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SORT OUT NORMAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS.

WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED THAT THE PLAINTIFF's CASE WAS BUILT ON THEORIES UNSUPPORTED BY FACT?????

IT WAS PURE "THEORY" AND "SPECULATION" ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THAT IS WHY ECON AND THE PLAINTIFFS WANTED IBP TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE AGAINST THESE "UNTESTED" THEORIES!!!

Econ. 101: " I did not look at Dr. Taylors computations but if they were wrong we would probably be debating them now instead of this empty rhetoric that comes from you and SH, Agman, full of diversions and fish."

No wonder you continually insist on trying to discredit what I bring to the table. You are that desperate at this time.

PROVE IT'S EMPTY RHETORIC BY TAKING THE ABOVE FACTS AND PRESENTING FACTS TO THE CONTRARY!

You won't because you can't which leaves you with no option but to make a feeble attempt to discredit me. Hahaha! You're a dandy!

Econ. 101: "The defense has made the proposition that since IBP did not use the mechanism in 1999 and 2000 to exert market power that the plaintiffs arguments must be false."

If the "ALLEGED" "captive supply mechanism" to lower prices was available in 1999 and 2000, why would they not use it to lower prices?

Was this one of those "periods of generosity" or did they start "finding a conscience"??? LOL!

Econ. 101: "You are beginning to sound like SH. He is full of hot air, I thought you had a little more class."

Talk is cheap!

PROVE IT!

Prove it by contradicting anything I have stated here with opposing facts. You won't because you can't so you resort to your typical little meaningless discrediting statements like this. You are so exposed!

Econ. 101: "On your arguments that IBP's customers are "select" customers-- What a bunch of B.S. It has probably taken a few customer like me to telling these retailers that we know the grades of meat and know quality differences in meat sold so stop selling "select" as a higher grade than choice. The only reason I buy select over choice is that either choice is not available because of the BS like this that you tout or that the price spead for that particular meat is not worth the difference. You have now insulted the intelligence of every retail customer. That might work where you come from but I aint buying it. Selling select for choice!!! You should be ashamed for even trying to pull that one over. Even my wife, who has never cut a beef knows the difference. The next thing you are going to try to tell us is that good is better than select."

Three facts for you to refute:

1. Research on tenderness between choice and select has shown only a 10% tenderness advantage of "choice" over "select". That was using the shear force test.

Want to try to refute that Econ.?

I didn't think so!

2. Modern cryovac aging of "select" beef in the package has narrowed that difference even further.

Want to try to refute that?

I didn't think so!

3. Colorado State University did taste tests comparing CAB (which requires the upper 2/3 level of the choice grade) against CHB which allows select cattle in the mix. CHB beat CAB in all categories of tenderness, flavor, and palatability.

How do you like those apples?

Want to refute that?

4. There is minimal difference between low choice and high select.

There is no refuting that because that difference might be less marbling in the low choice than in the high select depending on the grader.

5. Marbling was always an insurance policy against overcooking. With modern cryovac aging and better steak preperation methods, those differences have been minimized. That is a fact!

I challenge you to try to refute any one of these facts Econ. and we'll quickly see who can back their position with supporting facts and who's "blowing hot air".

You won't because you can't!


Agman and I differ on the issue of choice vs select. Agman believes like you that highly marbled beef is better in most cases. I also happen to know that Agman eats mostly aged "prime" beef.

I'll give Agman the benefit of the doubt in that he may notice a total flavor/palatability/tenderness difference of "Prime" over "Select" because he's probably always ate quality beef and knows precisely how to prepare it.

I still contend that when properly aged and properly prepared, there is minimal difference between select and choice TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMER.

Nobody has to look past the CSU taste test which was conduted like a "Pepsi challenge" to see that anyone who says "choice" is always better than "select" is flat wrong when there is only one fleck difference in marbling between high select and low choice.

I don't know where you took Agman's statement out of context but you certainly did because he and I have had this discussion before.

I don't know where you took the above statement from but nobody knows better than Agman what quality of beef goes where. To assume that you know and he doesn't is the epitomy of arrogance on your part if you knew Agman as I know him.

I wish you'd respond to a direct quote like I do insted of taking quotes out of context.

Where did anyone sell "select" as a higher grade than "choice" particularly AGMAN?


Chew on that for a while!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Econ. 101: "Consistent lower fat cattle prices compared to formula prices could be proof of market manipulation given that captive supplies were based on the cash market. This could easily be shown if Tyson paid a premium in its formula pricing for a high percent of choice cattle on the formula and then did not do the same thing in the cash market."

You just don't get it do you????

Your logic is so flawed on so many accounts.

Since talk is cheap, unlike you, I'll show you why your logic is flawed rather than just telling you your logic is flawed.

1. With the exception of the few feedlots that ultrasound their cattle and provide that data to the packer buyer, in most cases the cattle buyer cannot look at a cash cattle fat and know what's under the hide for quality. He can only make an educated guess. That carcass is not graded until it is slaughtered WHICH IS AFTER IT IS SOLD.

With that cold hard fact in mind, how can Tyson pay premiums for higher quality cattle in the cash market when quality is not realized until after they are slaughtered?

BUSTED!

2. AGAIN (heavy sigh) Quality is relative to the grade and yield factors mentioned previously.

Quality as defined in this case is "quality grade". There is a good chance there is more choice cattle in the cash market when that market is "UNCURRENT". What happens when there is too many choice cattle available? The choice/select spread narrows. THAT IS A FACT!

3. AGAIN (heavy sigh), the base price for THIS WEEKS formula/grid cattle is based on the weekly weighted average cash price of LAST WEEK, not this weeks cash price. This weeks cash price could be higher or lower depending on typical supply and demand factors.

Unless THE PLAINTIFF'S isolated those supply/demand factors, they wouldn't have a foot to stand on AND NO, IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENSE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE.


Seriously, Econ, all sarcasm aside, do you understand these three facts?


4. How do you explain the times when the cash cattle prices were higher than the captive supply markets?

5. With the knowledge that cash cattle prices were higher than the captive supply base price at times DUE TO CLIMBING MARKETS DUE TO TYPICAL SUPPLY/DEMAND FACTORS, why would packers only depress markets at certain times???

6. The fact that markets move both up and down daily proves that packers cannot depress markets.

7. What was different about captive supplies recently when fat cattle prices hit $116?

Econ. 101: "An analysis of a sumation of these differences over the short term could easily tell if captive supplies depressed the cash market or if it was just a long term trend of supply/demand or the market trying to find its place as SH claims."

THERE IT IS FOLKS, IN BLACK LETTERS.

AN ABSOLUTE ADMISSION BY ECON. 101 THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE PROOF POSITIVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SORT OUT NORMAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS.

WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED THAT THE PLAINTIFF's CASE WAS BUILT ON THEORIES UNSUPPORTED BY FACT?????

IT WAS PURE "THEORY" AND "SPECULATION" ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THAT IS WHY ECON AND THE PLAINTIFFS WANTED IBP TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE AGAINST THESE "UNTESTED" THEORIES!!!

Econ. 101: " I did not look at Dr. Taylors computations but if they were wrong we would probably be debating them now instead of this empty rhetoric that comes from you and SH, Agman, full of diversions and fish."

No wonder you continually insist on trying to discredit what I bring to the table. You are that desperate at this time.

PROVE IT'S EMPTY RHETORIC BY TAKING THE ABOVE FACTS AND PRESENTING FACTS TO THE CONTRARY!

You won't because you can't which leaves you with no option but to make a feeble attempt to discredit me. Hahaha! You're a dandy!

Econ. 101: "The defense has made the proposition that since IBP did not use the mechanism in 1999 and 2000 to exert market power that the plaintiffs arguments must be false."

If the "ALLEGED" "captive supply mechanism" to lower prices was available in 1999 and 2000, why would they not use it to lower prices?

Was this one of those "periods of generosity" or did they start "finding a conscience"??? LOL!

Econ. 101: "You are beginning to sound like SH. He is full of hot air, I thought you had a little more class."

Talk is cheap!

PROVE IT!

Prove it by contradicting anything I have stated here with opposing facts. You won't because you can't so you resort to your typical little meaningless discrediting statements like this. You are so exposed!

Econ. 101: "On your arguments that IBP's customers are "select" customers-- What a bunch of B.S. It has probably taken a few customer like me to telling these retailers that we know the grades of meat and know quality differences in meat sold so stop selling "select" as a higher grade than choice. The only reason I buy select over choice is that either choice is not available because of the BS like this that you tout or that the price spead for that particular meat is not worth the difference. You have now insulted the intelligence of every retail customer. That might work where you come from but I aint buying it. Selling select for choice!!! You should be ashamed for even trying to pull that one over. Even my wife, who has never cut a beef knows the difference. The next thing you are going to try to tell us is that good is better than select."

Three facts for you to refute:

1. Research on tenderness between choice and select has shown only a 10% tenderness advantage of "choice" over "select". That was using the shear force test.

Want to try to refute that Econ.?

I didn't think so!

2. Modern cryovac aging of "select" beef in the package has narrowed that difference even further.

Want to try to refute that?

I didn't think so!

3. Colorado State University did taste tests comparing CAB (which requires the upper 2/3 level of the choice grade) against CHB which allows select cattle in the mix. CHB beat CAB in all categories of tenderness, flavor, and palatability.

How do you like those apples?

Want to refute that?

4. There is minimal difference between low choice and high select.

There is no refuting that because that difference might be less marbling in the low choice than in the high select depending on the grader.

5. Marbling was always an insurance policy against overcooking. With modern cryovac aging and better steak preperation methods, those differences have been minimized. That is a fact!

I challenge you to try to refute any one of these facts Econ. and we'll quickly see who can back their position with supporting facts and who's "blowing hot air".

You won't because you can't!


Agman and I differ on the issue of choice vs select. Agman believes like you that highly marbled beef is better in most cases. I also happen to know that Agman eats mostly aged "prime" beef.

I'll give Agman the benefit of the doubt in that he may notice a total flavor/palatability/tenderness difference of "Prime" over "Select" because he's probably always ate quality beef and knows precisely how to prepare it.

I still contend that when properly aged and properly prepared, there is minimal difference between select and choice TO THE AVERAGE CONSUMER.

Nobody has to look past the CSU taste test which was conduted like a "Pepsi challenge" to see that anyone who says "choice" is always better than "select" is flat wrong when there is only one fleck difference in marbling between high select and low choice.

I don't know where you took Agman's statement out of context but you certainly did because he and I have had this discussion before.

I don't know where you took the above statement from but nobody knows better than Agman what quality of beef goes where. To assume that you know and he doesn't is the epitomy of arrogance on your part if you knew Agman as I know him.

I wish you'd respond to a direct quote like I do insted of taking quotes out of context.

Where did anyone sell "select" as a higher grade than "choice" particularly AGMAN?


Chew on that for a while!



~SH~

Boy I sure like to make you type. Murgen is much more efficient than I in total words typed by Murgen and words typed by SH and Agman.

I will post the answer to Agman's card game shortly.

 

[Econ101]

"The evidence disputed is not available to the public. You may want to
contact Robert Taylor about that. The Texas Panhandle report is available
on GIPSA's website so it is available to the public.

Regards.

Azzam."



Exact words hot off the net. I had a friend send them to me. Hide behind your lies SH and Agman. Show us your hand or fold 'em. Notice Azzam did not suggest getting the info. from you packerboys. I think CattleCo asked if you had inside information, Agman. Are you the man behind the shell game table or do you just work for him?

 

[Jessie]

Okay not trying to play with the bulls here.
I work for a major grocery chain and am involved with weight lifting/bodybuilding.
Here are some of the reasons why ppl ARE buying more chicken.
They have been TOLD it is leaner.
One person said to me they just can not keep up with the, is the beef going to kill me or isn't. Their words not mine.
I do know that some of the bodybuilding ppl still eat the leaner cuts of steak and or not as afraid to eat red meat as the general public. By general public I mean the house wife that is buying the groceries for the household. Who is trying to consume less fat. So is opting for the chicken and pork.
With so much negative press regarding beef some don't know what to think so they stay away from it.
I also read some ones post about all the ads for chicken. This is so true and the general masses do listen to all the lil jingles and the pretty pictures on the idiot box in the living room.

 

[agman]

Yet you claim as Taylor did that he proved something. He proved nothing and neither have you. I don't need a discertation on economic modeling. I have already done my own work as I previously indicated while you have done none per this subject. I remain puzzled why you fail to answer my question about Taylor's finding or lack thereof in 1999 & 2000. Why do you keep evading that question?

What we have is you saying the judge, who saw and heard all the evidence, was wrong without you having read the testimony in the Pickett case and making a misstatement per Azzam's work which you have never seen or likely even head of until I made mention of his works.

Additioanlly, due to the fact that IBP's major accounts are large retailers who deal in "select" product as opposed to "choice" product the quality of cattle was less important than red meat yield. Thus, their cash purchases would reflect the need for that specific type of animal as opposed to "high choice" cattle. So could a price differential exist, yes, due to cattle type differential.

I don't have a problem at all answering your question on 1999 and 2000 not having a negative correlation. The abuse of captive supplies was always the allegation. The defense has made the proposition that since IBP did not use the mechanism in 1999 and 2000 to exert market power that the plaintiffs arguments must be false. Of course this linkage was never claimed by the plaintiffs. This is a total misconception you try to perpetrate. I have already gone over this with my example of the embeze
ler. You are the one who keeps using it as a defense, not I. It is not a defense at all and stop misquoting the plaintiffs in saying it is an integral part of their reasoning. It never was. You made it up. Does that clear that one up for you? Stop making up things so you can win a fictitous argument.

On Dr. Azzam, I talked to him before I talked to you about this but who cares? If you talk to someone first does that make that person a "captive" supporter? You are really reaching. You are beginning to sound like SH. He is full of hot air, I thought you had a little more class. Your arguments on this are really revealing.

On your arguments that IBP's customers are "select" customers-- What a bunch of B.S. It has probably taken a few customer like me to telling these retailers that we know the grades of meat and know quality differences in meat sold so stop selling "select" as a higher grade than choice. The only reason I buy select over choice is that either choice is not available because of the BS like this that you tout or that the price spead for that particular meat is not worth the difference. You have now insulted the intelligence of every retail customer. That might work where you come from but I aint buying it. Selling select for choice!!! You should be ashamed for even trying to pull that one over. Even my wife, who has never cut a beef knows the difference. The next thing you are going to try to tell us is that good is better than select.

Question: In the grid pricing is there a premium paid for choice? Why do we even need fed cattle? Why don't we just take them off the field? We would get a lot more select that way. Hey, we could even select them ourselves ane they would be sooooo good. Heck, the USDA will even stamp them "inspected". It only takes a few tough chews to convince people they should be eating chicken instead.

You have claimed to do some analysis on data and you claim to have superior knowledge because of it. Put it out here. Let us look at it. If your analysis is as one sided and ignorant as your arguments in this post I know why you will not show it!!! It wouldn't past muster. Stop claiming to be such an expert with great cards. I am calling your bluff. Show your cards or fold 'em. The more you post the more people are able to see through you and your rediculous arguments.

Talk about ignorant arguments, take a look at the nonsense you have posted with no supporting data period. Is it not convenient for you to rationalize that no market power was exerted in 1999 and 200o as that was the packers choice. Give the world a break from your nonsense.

If you talked to Dr Azzam as you indicate then post his entire answer. Are you just as guilty as the plaintiffs when paraphrasing only one sentence in his entire report? That is par for you folks. Why did he not testify to the one sentence in his report which you seem to cling to? As I previously stated. His research only examined one part of the equation. If you read his entire report he is very clear about that. Even you should not become too confused! I know, you could not ask him that question since your phone was being tappped; how ridiculious and paranoid are you?

Your ignorance of the beef industry is truly amazing. You say my comments regarding IBP's use of more select cattle is BS. Most beef offered by major retailers is select grade, not choice. That is a known fact by anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the beef or retail industry. That fact was also established at trial. For starters Wal-mart, Kroger, Safeway and Albertson's would be a good place to begin educating yourself about select beef sales. I guess you qualified your lack of knowledge one more time for the world to see. You are just too easy.

Grid pricing varies, it is not static. Some pay bigger premiums for grade while others pay bigger premiums for yield. Are you also absent the fact that there is a difference between carcass yield and red meat yield?

What I stated is "I have done the research to see if there was any negative price impact the captive supply". I found no correlation that was not explained by a supply change totally independent of the level of captive supply. BTW, that research was completed and maintied before any lawsuits were filed. You refute that finding while you admit you have done no independent work on your own. Who are you kidding? I guess that is how you claim to know more than I per this subject!!! You just assume you know something or take for granted Taylor's work since it fits you bias even though his work got shredded during the cross exam. Perhaps you can convince students or R-Calf sheep of your position but I expect anyone thinking for themselves has already qualified your position as totally baseless. I believe your phone is tapped if you say so! Do you also converse with Martians or have you not elevated yourself to that hierarchy yet?

 

[Sandhusker]

Hmmmm, Agman says Dr. Taylor's work got shredded during cross exam....yet the 12 jurors were unanimous in finding Tyson guilty....yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

It looks to me the only thing that is getting shredded is Agman's credibility!

 

[Murgen]

It looks to me the only thing that is getting shredded is Agman's credibility!

AND BEEF's

"Big business is taking advantage of us"

"BSE is at epedemic levels." "what else are they hiding?"

"the USDA is not protecting us against BSE, or other food saftey concerns"

"Canadian beef is tainted, beef is not labelled to Country of Origin, are the USDA not doing their job when it comes to imports, do not the same regulations apply?"

"trade is lowering food safety, not just price"

etc. etc etc.

The blamers are bringing more press onto this industry than the promoters can handle, increase your checkoff, you'll need lots of promotion in the next few years. They are doing more damage than the health or the animal activists are doing.

"what are we to think as consumers, when industry partners are questioning their own beef industry?"

"there must be a problem, I choose to stay clear of it all, I'll eat chicken or pork." "Tenderness and marbling aren't the problem, food safety is, just like that group in Montana says!"

 

[agman]

Hmmmm, Agman says Dr. Taylor's work got shredded during cross exam....yet the 12 jurors were unanimous in finding Tyson guilty....yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

It looks to me the only thing that is getting shredded is Agman's credibility!

If you have not read the testimaony and cross exam you are the one with no credibility. But who ever said you had any to begin with?

 

[Sandhusker]

Hmmmm, Agman says Dr. Taylor's work got shredded during cross exam....yet the 12 jurors were unanimous in finding Tyson guilty....yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

It looks to me the only thing that is getting shredded is Agman's credibility!

If you have not read the testimaony and cross exam you are the one with no credibility. But who ever said you had any to begin with?

12 people out of the 12 that were there every day, heard every word, and were asked to make a decision.....but you read it. :roll:

I don't care what trial over what case you are discusssing. When a jury decision comes back unamimous in favor of one side, it's pretty obvious that the winner's expert didn't have his/her testimony "shredded". :?

 

[Mike]

Hmmmm, Agman says Dr. Taylor's work got shredded during cross exam....yet the 12 jurors were unanimous in finding Tyson guilty....yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

It looks to me the only thing that is getting shredded is Agman's credibility!

If you have not read the testimaony and cross exam you are the one with no credibility. But who ever said you had any to begin with?

12 people out of the 12 that were there every day, heard every word, and were asked to make a decision.....but you read it. :roll:

I don't care what trial over what case you are discusssing. When a jury decision comes back unamimous in favor of one side, it's pretty obvious that the winner's expert didn't have his/her testimony "shredded". :?

8 college graduates -3 ex-military - 1 research librarian =12 Pickett jurors
that are pissed, really pissed!