Chicken Replacing Beef

[Murgen]

Sandhusker, I have a question for you? What will have more impact, on the price US beef producers are paid?

1) Ending captive supplies, being paid for a commodity, with no incentive to produce a quality product.

2) Ending exports of high quality US meat, vs. importing lower quality to meet an established need.

3) Lobbying for reduced trade, becoming self sufficient within the US, lowering demand for product that would not be typically purchased in the US

The way I see it, if you are willing to lower the retail price of quality meat to compete with the lower quality imported from Brazil and other South American countries, go to it.

Paying for "beef" just becasue it comes from a cattle beast, does not do anything for consumer satisfaction or willingness to pay a premium. If they see any differnece in beef from another country, they will have to realize quality, and a good eating experience.

Are there any chicken , pork products that offer a "diiferent" preference, or are they all they same.

We in the beef industry have an advantage at present of providing differentiated lines of beef, be careful of asking for uniformity. you will lower the marketability of our product.

 

[PORKER]

Hey Murgen, Great Quote ;We in the beef industry have an advantage at present of providing differentiated lines of beef, be careful of asking for uniformity. you will lower the marketability of our product.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, I have a question for you? What will have more impact, on the price US beef producers are paid?

1) Ending captive supplies, being paid for a commodity, with no incentive to produce a quality product.

2) Ending exports of high quality US meat, vs. importing lower quality to meet an established need.

3) Lobbying for reduced trade, becoming self sufficient within the US, lowering demand for product that would not be typically purchased in the US

The way I see it, if you are willing to lower the retail price of quality meat to compete with the lower quality imported from Brazil and other South American countries, go to it.

Paying for "beef" just becasue it comes from a cattle beast, does not do anything for consumer satisfaction or willingness to pay a premium. If they see any differnece in beef from another country, they will have to realize quality, and a good eating experience.

Are there any chicken , pork products that offer a "diiferent" preference, or are they all they same.

We in the beef industry have an advantage at present of providing differentiated lines of beef, be careful of asking for uniformity. you will lower the marketability of our product.

Murgen, I"ll give you my opinions the best I can.

1) First of all, are you making a connection between quality incentives and captive supply? That is how I interpret your question. If so, I can't answer as I don't agree. I don't see any correlation between quality incentives and captive supply. Maybe I'm not understanding the question?

2) Again, I'm not sure what you are asking or implying. Why would anybody be in favor of ending US exports of beef, unless you are a competitor? I'm certainly not nor have I heard of anybody who is. I do understand the economics of bringing in some burger meat so we don't have to grind our roasts, but I think it should be labeled so the buyer may beware.

3) I've never heard of anyone lobbying for reduced trade. Fair trade, yes, but that is not necessarly the same as reduced. I think that trade, like everything else, should be tempered with common sense, and I don't see much of that happening. Physics teaches that everything has an equal and opposite reaction. I don't think the opposite reaction part is considered anymore.

You can answer your own question on pork and chicken by paying attention to the advertisements on TV.

I agree with you that we have to deliver on our promise of quality beef. I don't know where you got the impression that I was asking for uniformity. On the contrary, I'm asking for COOL and for the checkoff to be tweaked because I don't want uniformity. I want my product segregated and promoted because I believe it superior.

 

[ocm]

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 p****d, really p****d!

I heard that someone(s) from the jury submitted to the judge some questions to ask Bob Taylor that revealed the somone on the jury understood at least enough about regression analysis to ask an intelligent question. And this was after cross examination. Questions the defense failed to ask.

Stupid jury? Ha. I'll bet they're PO'ed.

 

[Econ101]

Murgen,

All of the arguments I have proposed are inside politics of the beef industry. They are problems that can and will spill over to the consumer if we don't handle them, just like the R-calf / Canadian border problem was a spilloff of these very issues. Read what SH wrote, his reasons why select is so wanted by the consumers. I agree that we should be more concerned with the tear test and palatability issues-- You can not make a brahman taste like an angus. These concerns are being made not in the interest of the consumer, but in the interests of the packers.

If this isn't so then why haven't the packers already started to pay based on the tear test and other strictly consumer issues? The fact is that the packers want to use the consumer issues as a way to win arguments for the benefit of their own profitability at the expense of the producers. It doesn't have to be this way. Tyson could pay based on what consumers want and send those price signals down to the real producers so that they will produce more of that type of product. That is how real markets are supposed to work. PRICE signals reflect the demand curve.

Grid pricing is an argument for this idea, but when it is coupled with last week's price it is ripe for manipulation. It should be a price setter, not a lag on the market. Grid pricing this way mixes these issues and creates a way for packers to manipulate the price signals to the cattlemen. It had the effect of taking money out of the cattleman's pocket just as other forms of captive supply do.

I have never been against efficiencies of the market-- I am against market power masquerading as efficiency. This is bad for the whole industry but so are artificial swings in the supply/demand equilibrium. In a free market we must have price signals without market manipulation to have the maximum an economy can produce. Due to the cow/calf production cycle compared to poultry or hogs, these swings will continue to erode the demand for beef in relation to these substitutes. Everyone should know this is the game being played in the industry.

My problem with the trend in the cattle business is that the packers will take all the profits for themselves by confusing these issues just as they have done in poultry. I believe in everyone getting their fair share of an economy's pie, not just a top few people eating the whole pie. If you want more pie, make the pie bigger, stop stealing someone else's piece. You are right in your analysis that the pie should be bigger for everyone to come out ahead. I wish that were happening but it is not.

What does it profit Canada cattlemen to have an American company come in and make all the money in the beef industry? If all gains to an increased pie acrue to the packers then there is no gain. It just means that the cattleman will work harder for the same money. It is market failure.

 

[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?

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". :?

Once again what you think is not improtant. Those were the same twelve people who concluded on their own that IBP had no business purpose to use supply contracts. That was their conclusion although the plaintiff's witnesses and all other witnesses testified to the contrary. May I remind you that such contracts are not illegal.

Looks to me like this jury was asleep most of the time or they had their mind made up to get the corporation. Certainly you know the record of such juries in Alabama. I believe they are ranked number 48 out of 50 states for rulings and awards against corporations. That sounds like an enviable record to have if you are interested in justice!!

Hearing every word and undestanding every word are vastly different situations. It was very clear they did not undestand the testimony nor the fact that Dr Taylor's testimaony was shredded.

 

[Sandhusker]

So now the fact that they were citizens of Alabama is the problem? They were asleep? Minds already made up? Good grief. You sure they weren't vegetarian Democrats? As Mike has presented, these were educated people.

No matter how much you want it to be true nor how many times you say it (am I talking to SH?), you can't make it true. Saying that the winning side's expert witness' testimony was shredded when a jury unanimously agrees with them is an absolutely assinine thing to say. Who do you expect to believe that?

 

[ocm]

There's just not any way that I can believe that twelve upstanding and intelligent people who prayed together at least twice daily for God's wisdom for four weeks so that they could make the right decision did not get God's wisdom and make the right decision.

It's easier for me to believe that a judge misapplied, misinterpreted, or distorted the law.

I think sometimes those who inpugn others tell us more about themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "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?"

As totally expected!

You, the prostitute of misinformation, make another feeble attempt to discredit Agman and myself to avoid having to contradict anything that we have presented with facts to the contrary.

Another volley of misinformation and "THEORIES" would be more to your liking as you avoid having to defend your ridiculous statements.

You are so ignorant of this industry and you display it every time you post. I didn't just say that Econ., I proved it.

Until you can actually prove something I have stated is a lie, you are only showing the world how desperate you and your packer blaming cohorts really are.

Hide behind my lies?

PROVE IT! TALK IS CHEAP!


Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD


Who's hiding?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "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".'

When a jury comes back and awards damages in excess of ibp's total profits AND CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY REACHED THOSE DAMAGES, it's pretty obvious the jurors did not understand the case.

Where is the logic in awarding damages HIGHER THAN A COMPANY'S ENTIRE PROFITS????

Where is the logic in awarding damages AND NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THOSE DAMAGES WERE DERIVED???

How do you explain that away?

How can a jury disagree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for captive supplies WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY????
How could the lack of understanding of this jury be more obvious than that???

Taylor's recommended damages were even higher than the jury's WHEN IBP'S PROFITS HAD BEEN SUBPOENOED INTO COURT!!!

Ahhhh let's see.......per head profits x number of head slaughtered = TOTAL PROFIT.

How can TOTAL PROFIT be less than TOTAL DAMAGES???

DUHHHHHHHH!

Where is the understanding in that?

How was this jury supposed to understand cattle marketing WHEN PRODUCERS WITHIN THIS INDUSTRY DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT ???

Look no further than the inclusion of formula/grid cattle as captive supplies.

LOOK AT LAST YEARS CALF PRICES COMPARED TO THIS YEARS. Does that reflect R-CULT's position of the affect of Canadian imports? How could ignorance of market fundamentals be more obvious yet it is this same "victim mentality" that was feeding information to the jury.

How can a jury possibly reach a fair verdict when Mike Callicrate is lying to them and the rest of the plaintiffs are presenting "OPINIONS" and "untested theories"????

I believe the jury did their best but they got it wrong. The jury does not know more about law than the judge and the 11th circuit.

The jury obviously didn't understand the case and did not know who to believe so they sided against another large, evil corporation. Whoda thought?

Econ. 101: "Read what SH wrote, his reasons why select is so wanted by the consumers."

I did not say Select was "SO WANTED BY THE CONSUMER".

You are lying again!

I said there is very little difference between choice and select when it is properly aged and prepared and consumers verified this in side by side taste tests and research also verified this with shear force tests.

AS ALWAYS, YOU CONTRADICTED NOTHING I STATED WITH OPPOSING FACTS!

Econ. 101: "I agree that we should be more concerned with the tear test and palatability issues-- You can not make a brahman taste like an angus. These concerns are being made not in the interest of the consumer, but in the interests of the packers."

Another conspiracy theory "STATEMENT" by Econ. 101 unsupported by fact.

ALL FUNCTIONS NORMAL!

Econ. 101: "If this isn't so then why haven't the packers already started to pay based on the tear test and other strictly consumer issues?"

Another display of complete ignorance regarding how this industry operates.

What are they supposed to do? Rip a chunk of flesh off a standing ripe fat animal, cook it, conduct a shear force test THEN PAY ACCORDINGLY for those who insist on selling in the cash market?

Your ignorance is clearly on display again.

Econ. 101: "The fact is that the packers want to use the consumer issues as a way to win arguments for the benefit of their own profitability at the expense of the producers."

Another conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

Econ. 101: "Tyson could pay based on what consumers want and send those price signals down to the real producers so that they will produce more of that type of product.'

JUST LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

On one hand, you cuss formula and grid arrangements because you accuse packers of manipulating markets with them ("captive supplies").

On the other hand, you suggest that Tyson should pay based on what consumers want WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT GRID PRICING DOES.

WHERE THE CONSISTANCY IN YOUR ARGUMENTS???

Grid pricing awards LESS FAT and MORE MARBLING! That's what consumers want.

Grid pricing was initiated by producers until some of them started finding out that their cattle didn't have it when the hides came off. So they made up some wild conspiracy theory about market manipulation so those better cattle could carry their junk in the cash market.

Again, you reveal your ignorance by contradicting yourself!

Econ. 101: "Grid pricing is an argument for this idea, but when it is coupled with last week's price it is ripe for manipulation. Grid pricing this way mixes these issues and creates a way for packers to manipulate the price signals to the cattlemen. It had the effect of taking money out of the cattleman's pocket just as other forms of captive supply do."

CHOOSE YOUR POISON!

"PERCEIVED" MARKET MANIPULATION OR CONSUMER DRIVEN VALUE BASED MARKETING???

Lesson learned: You can never satisfy a chronic bitcher like Econ. 101!

The fact remains you have not provided one iota of fact to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories. To the contrary, the simple fact that you expected the Plaintiffs to prove their innocense proves that the plaintiffs could not prove ibp's guilt.

Sandman: "So now the fact that they were citizens of Alabama is the problem? They were asleep? Minds already made up? Good grief. You sure they weren't vegetarian Democrats? As Mike has presented, these were educated people."

Let's give the jury the benefit of the doubt for one minute.

How do you explain how the jury could reach a damage assessement higher than ibp's total profits then not have the ability to explain how that damage figure was derived?

Nah, don't even go down the "conspiracy theory road" of hiding profits FROM YOUR OWN INVESTORS. LOL! This is a publicly traded company with profit information readily available.

How do you explain their damage figures?

How do you explain how they could agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary?

You can argue that this should not have been a question asked but how do you defend their answer to that question?


I suppose you prefer to believe that the judge was "BOUGHT OFF" or had political leanings. Funny how the attitude changed. At one time the R-CULTers were singing the praises of Judge Strom for hearing their stupid case.

OCM: "There's just not any way that I can believe that twelve upstanding and intelligent people who prayed together at least twice daily for God's wisdom for four weeks so that they could make the right decision did not get God's wisdom and make the right decision."

I suppose you believe the Judge and 11th Circuit prayed to ALLAH for guidance huh?

It's not hard for me to understand!

How do you expect the jury to make an informed decision when you have one plaintiff lying to them UNDER OATH and other plaintiffs and expert witnesses presenting "untested theories"?

I wonder how God decides who's going to win an election when both parties are praying for a victory?

I think it's important to pray but I think prayers for flood victims have a lot more meaning when said by those stacking sandbags.

OCM: "It's easier for me to believe that a judge misapplied, misinterpreted, or distorted the law."

Of course it is because if you can convince yourself that packers screwed you, you can justify reduced profitability while you "BWAME DA PACKAH".
.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

So now the fact that they were citizens of Alabama is the problem? They were asleep? Minds already made up? Good grief. You sure they weren't vegetarian Democrats? As Mike has presented, these were educated people.

No matter how much you want it to be true nor how many times you say it (am I talking to SH?), you can't make it true. Saying that the winning side's expert witness' testimony was shredded when a jury unanimously agrees with them is an absolutely assinine thing to say. Who do you expect to believe that?

Sandhusker, You can obviously see what kind of people you are dealing with here. On one hand, the "THEORISTS" AND "CONSPIRITISTS" are chastised for giving an opposite opinion and are considered "FACTUALLY VOID".

But when the charge is made that the jurors were "ASLEEP", or "OUT TO GET THE CORPORATIONS", the comedy intensifies. To use this as a defense for Judge Strom and the Appeals Court is downright childish. The word "Credibility" has been thrown out the window here.

The writers intent of the PSA is clear as was the reason for it's being a part of U.S. law, it was enacted simply to: eliminate any seemingly unfair buying practices of the concentrated packers. The fact that Pickett went to a jury, in itself, shows that there was evidence of it.

Judge Strom started raising the bar before the trial ended and the Appeals court continued raising it until it is completely out of sight of the original intent of the PSA.

I hope the Supreme Court will hear the case.

The missing words "AND" or "OR" could win the day.

 

[Econ101]

Once again what you think is not improtant. Those were the same twelve people who concluded on their own that IBP had no business purpose to use supply contracts. That was their conclusion although the plaintiff's witnesses and all other witnesses testified to the contrary. May I remind you that such contracts are not illegal.

RIGHT TO CONTRACT DOES NOT TRUMP THE PSA!!!! The PSA sets the rules and some of these contract terms do not follow them. That is why we have laws like the PSA, so companies do not use market power to gain advantage in the market place. When market power is exerted we all lose. This is the argument the packers want to make-- that their right to contract and break the rules set forth in the PSA is dominant. It just isn't so. Just because you formalize fraud with a contract is no excuse for you to get away with it. The excuse that "the cattlemen made up these contracts" or that the cattlemen are somehow responsible for Tyson exerting market power because some of them willingly entered into contracts is ridiculous.

Companies breaking laws through contracts that market participants enter into willingly is no defense against the company using those mechanisms to exert market power.

I have continually argued that in cattle the contracts themselves were not the culpret, they were the vehicle. I am continually pointing to Tyson's other reason for swinging the beef markets, their poultry business. In the poultry contracts I have looked into they are the mechanism for the fraud. Poultry producers are now being paid based on their facilities, not on the poultry they are producing. When cattlemen are paid based on factors that provide efficiencies for the packers instead of the product the are producing, they too will lose their producer surplus and the companies will capture all of the profits in the industry. Tyson already knows that game well.

Again, just because the contracts were not illegal and could have good business purposes, does not mean that they could not also be used as a mechanism for exerting market power and extracting the producer surplus. Don't get the two mixed up and don't keep insulting my intelligence when you do.

Having producers sign contracts that include predatory pricing does not mean that predatory pricing was non existent or that the producers are somehow to blame. The entity exerting the market power and the predatory pricing are to blame, not the many producers seeking to maximize their return in the market.

Again, the remedy of not allowing Tyson to enter into these type of contracts is a legitimate remedy if Tyson used them to exert market power. So what if they are at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors in the market place because of it? So what if Tyson will lose out in the market place and not have as much money to give on capital hill. The armed robber who has gun privledges taken away from him is at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the population in regards to self protection. It is the price he had to pay for the armed robbery.

In response to your last sentence in this quote, using the example of the armed robber; it was not illegal for him to have a gun before the armed robbery, but that did not excuse him for using it during the armed robbery.

Your knowledge of the industry and this particular case does not exclude your incorrect application of logic and economic reasoning that was the basis of the PSA. It does not excuse the appellate judge's decisons either; it just reduces their credibility and compromises their judicial integrity.

 

[RobertMac]

I believe in everyone getting their fair share of an economy's pie, not just a top few people eating the whole pie. If you want more pie, make the pie bigger, stop stealing someone else's piece.

If you aren't happy with your piece of pie, make your own pie. Producers can't just sell a weaned calf and expect to control their profit.

Econ101. you are in TX...are you familiar with the rice industry...particularly the late 1970s and 1980s? Who is Riceland Foods?

 

[Econ101]

I believe in everyone getting their fair share of an economy's pie, not just a top few people eating the whole pie. If you want more pie, make the pie bigger, stop stealing someone else's piece.

If you aren't happy with your piece of pie, make your own pie. Producers can't just sell a weaned calf and expect to control their profit.

Econ101. you are in TX...are you familiar with the rice industry...particularly the late 1970s and 1980s? Who is Riceland Foods?

In this discussion I am not interested in the rice industry but I will ask a question since my brother went to Rice University and I did not.

What comes out of a China man's butt?

The answer next post.

 

[Econ101]

I believe in everyone getting their fair share of an economy's pie, not just a top few people eating the whole pie. If you want more pie, make the pie bigger, stop stealing someone else's piece.

If you aren't happy with your piece of pie, make your own pie. Producers can't just sell a weaned calf and expect to control their profit.

Econ101. you are in TX...are you familiar with the rice industry...particularly the late 1970s and 1980s? Who is Riceland Foods?

In this discussion I am not interested in the rice industry but I will ask a question since my brother went to Rice University and I did not.

What comes out of a China man's butt?

The answer next post.

What goes in?

 

[nr]

To the la-de-da crowd, "dinner" is supper.

HaHaHa! :roll: no, dinner would be "dinner" to the la-de-da crowd.:lol:

 

[agman]

Once again what you think is not improtant. Those were the same twelve people who concluded on their own that IBP had no business purpose to use supply contracts. That was their conclusion although the plaintiff's witnesses and all other witnesses testified to the contrary. May I remind you that such contracts are not illegal.

RIGHT TO CONTRACT DOES NOT TRUMP THE PSA!!!! The PSA sets the rules and some of these contract terms do not follow them. That is why we have laws like the PSA, so companies do not use market power to gain advantage in the market place. When market power is exerted we all lose. This is the argument the packers want to make-- that their right to contract and break the rules set forth in the PSA is dominant. It just isn't so. Just because you formalize fraud with a contract is no excuse for you to get away with it. The excuse that "the cattlemen made up these contracts" or that the cattlemen are somehow responsible for Tyson exerting market power because some of them willingly entered into contracts is ridiculous.

Companies breaking laws through contracts that market participants enter into willingly is no defense against the company using those mechanisms to exert market power.

I have continually argued that in cattle the contracts themselves were not the culpret, they were the vehicle. I am continually pointing to Tyson's other reason for swinging the beef markets, their poultry business. In the poultry contracts I have looked into they are the mechanism for the fraud. Poultry producers are now being paid based on their facilities, not on the poultry they are producing. When cattlemen are paid based on factors that provide efficiencies for the packers instead of the product the are producing, they too will lose their producer surplus and the companies will capture all of the profits in the industry. Tyson already knows that game well.

Again, just because the contracts were not illegal and could have good business purposes, does not mean that they could not also be used as a mechanism for exerting market power and extracting the producer surplus. Don't get the two mixed up and don't keep insulting my intelligence when you do.

Having producers sign contracts that include predatory pricing does not mean that predatory pricing was non existent or that the producers are somehow to blame. The entity exerting the market power and the predatory pricing are to blame, not the many producers seeking to maximize their return in the market.

Again, the remedy of not allowing Tyson to enter into these type of contracts is a legitimate remedy if Tyson used them to exert market power. So what if they are at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors in the market place because of it? So what if Tyson will lose out in the market place and not have as much money to give on capital hill. The armed robber who has gun privledges taken away from him is at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the population in regards to self protection. It is the price he had to pay for the armed robbery.

In response to your last sentence in this quote, using the example of the armed robber; it was not illegal for him to have a gun before the armed robbery, but that did not excuse him for using it during the armed robbery.

Your knowledge of the industry and this particular case does not exclude your incorrect application of logic and economic reasoning that was the basis of the PSA. It does not excuse the appellate judge's decisons either; it just reduces their credibility and compromises their judicial integrity.

If you are correct and I am so wrong then this case will get a quick review and be overturned by the Supreme Court. I will say again, they will not waste their time on a case where the decision of the Appellate court was unanimous. It appears you are the one with misplaced logic. If you could demonstrate that you knew even the basics of how this industry works then you would not be so confused. You have derived your opinions from heresay, not factual events. Do you still think major retailers only sell choice beef? I will save you the effort of checking, they sell predominately select beef.

The one thing you have proven to be adept at is taking one small phrase and implying that constitutes that entire law. Sorry Bud, but you are not the first one to pull that shell game. You are only fooling yourself and some R-Calf sheep.

 

[PORKER]

You have derived your opinions from heresay, not factual events. Do you still think major retailers only sell choice beef? I will save you the effort of checking, they sell predominately select beef. Agman

Webers in Chicago sells PRIME
Good Diners sell the good Choice cuts.
Good Grocerys sell the Selects
Food service and Walmart sells the bottum end with lots of marenated water and salt.
Mickey Dee's and the rest sell cutters and boners. in the form of pressed hamburger patties.

Can you make a better List?

 

[mrj]

So now the fact that they were citizens of Alabama is the problem? They were asleep? Minds already made up? Good grief. You sure they weren't vegetarian Democrats? As Mike has presented, these were educated people.

No matter how much you want it to be true nor how many times you say it (am I talking to SH?), you can't make it true. Saying that the winning side's expert witness' testimony was shredded when a jury unanimously agrees with them is an absolutely assinine thing to say. Who do you expect to believe that?

And no matter how much you want it to be untrue, nor how many times you (and others who believe in the Pickett case) say it (that the jury was right), the fact remains that juries in that jurisdiction have a very strong history of finding for "the victims" and giving them huge financial awards, taken from the "evil corporate giants".

 

[Econ101]

SH--

When a jury comes back and awards damages in excess of ibp's total profits AND CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY REACHED THOSE DAMAGES, it's pretty obvious the jurors did not understand the case.

Where is the logic in awarding damages HIGHER THAN A COMPANY'S ENTIRE PROFITS????

Where is the logic in awarding damages AND NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THOSE DAMAGES WERE DERIVED???

How do you explain that away?

The jury was never asked to explain how they reached those damages so stop asking dumb questions. Awarding damages higher than a company's entire profits--easy, happens everyday. Maybe they need to sell some assets to pay for their crime. Corporate criminals often steal more than they make. That is no justification for limiting the amount they must pay based on how much money they make; they should pay for their damages. Everyone who has car insurance and at fault for a bad wreck understands this one. Often times they must pay (or their insurance must pay) more than they make in a year. What is your argument?

SH--

How can a jury disagree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for captive supplies WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY????
How could the lack of understanding of this jury be more obvious than that???

Lacking a legitimate reason to own a gun is no excuse for an armed robber to use a gun in the robbery. How much more obvious can that be?

SH--

How can TOTAL PROFIT be less than TOTAL DAMAGES???

DUHHHHHHHH!

Where is the understanding in that?

Don't keep showing how dumb you are with your vocabulary-
DUHHHHHHHH!. That brings nothing to the discussion. My pre-teens try that all the time and my wife and I never let them get away with that. I have already answered the question.

SH--

How was this jury supposed to understand cattle marketing WHEN PRODUCERS WITHIN THIS INDUSTRY DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT ???

Look no further than the inclusion of formula/grid cattle as captive supplies.

Pickett understood what happened and he convinced 12 unrelated people. The inclusion of formula/grid cattle as captive supplies was correct if they took supply off of the market and thinned the cash supply. What do you not understand about that?

How can a jury possibly reach a fair verdict when Mike Callicrate is lying to them and the rest of the plaintiffs are presenting "OPINIONS" and "untested theories"????

Was he ever convicted of perjury? I thought you believed in innocense until proven guilty or is that only for packers? How did Mike lie to the jury? Please explain.

I believe the jury did their best but they got it wrong. The jury does not know more about law than the judge and the 11th circuit.

So you are the judge now? We have a system in the U.S. where 12 jurors have to be convinced. They were. What you believe is of no consequence. Would you rather the ranchers that were victims of percieved or real abuse to have the power to hang the packers? They get the same jury system everyone else gets. Was it a conspiracy of 12 jurors that got it wrong?

SH--

I did not say Select was "SO WANTED BY THE CONSUMER".

You are lying again!

I said there is very little difference between choice and select when it is properly aged and prepared and consumers verified this in side by side taste tests and research also verified this with shear force tests.

AS ALWAYS, YOU CONTRADICTED NOTHING I STATED WITH OPPOSING FACTS!

You brought up the whole select/choice and shear force tests as justifications for the market wanting less "fat" beef, not me. Where am I lying?

Another conspiracy theory "STATEMENT" by Econ. 101 unsupported by fact.

ALL FUNCTIONS NORMAL!

I am glad to know all your functions are normal, but it was too much information for me. My 4 year old stopped telling me that when she was 2 and was out of diapers. Where is the conspiracy theory statement?

SH--

Another display of complete ignorance regarding how this industry operates.

What are they supposed to do? Rip a chunk of flesh off a standing ripe fat animal, cook it, conduct a shear force test THEN PAY ACCORDINGLY for those who insist on selling in the cash market?

Your ignorance is clearly on display again.

You brought up the shear test on select, not me. I might volunteer to be the taste tester if they ever do get one though.

Quote:
Econ. 101: "The fact is that the packers want to use the consumer issues as a way to win arguments for the benefit of their own profitability at the expense of the producers."


Another conspiracy theory unsupported by fact.

Where is the conspiracy theory here? Are the packers not using arguments of what the consumer wants to pay the cash market less? Even you have made these arguments, SH.

Econ. 101: "Tyson could pay based on what consumers want and send those price signals down to the real producers so that they will produce more of that type of product.'


JUST LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

On one hand, you cuss formula and grid arrangements because you accuse packers of manipulating markets with them ("captive supplies").

On the other hand, you suggest that Tyson should pay based on what consumers want WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT GRID PRICING DOES.

WHERE THE CONSISTANCY IN YOUR ARGUMENTS???

Grid pricing awards LESS FAT and MORE MARBLING! That's what consumers want.

Grid pricing was initiated by producers until some of them started finding out that their cattle didn't have it when the hides came off. So they made up some wild conspiracy theory about market manipulation so those better cattle could carry their junk in the cash market.

Again, you reveal your ignorance by contradicting yourself!

I have not argued against grids. The base price must be a price that is negotiated, not based on last week's price or a future price. If they are, they could be considered captive supplies. Then what is the difference between the cash market and captive supply prices? NOTHING. That is what it should have been. Where is the ignorance here? You are not the judge. 12 jurors were and they agreed with Pickett. You have brought no evidence to the table to suggest they made a mistake and neither has judge Strom or the appellate courts.

SH --

Grid pricing was initiated by producers until some of them started finding out that their cattle didn't have it when the hides came off. So they made up some wild conspiracy theory about market manipulation so those better cattle could carry their junk in the cash market.

Again, you reveal your ignorance by contradicting yourself!

Where is the contridiction? You made the conclusion that the case was about grid pricing, not I. Grid pricing, because it was not a negotiated price, had the effect of thinning the cash market. If there was no difference in price between the cash and captive supplies as adjusted for yield/grade, etc, then there would not have been a case.

SH--

Quote:
Econ. 101: "Grid pricing is an argument for this idea, but when it is coupled with last week's price it is ripe for manipulation. Grid pricing this way mixes these issues and creates a way for packers to manipulate the price signals to the cattlemen. It had the effect of taking money out of the cattleman's pocket just as other forms of captive supply do."


CHOOSE YOUR POISON!

"PERCEIVED" MARKET MANIPULATION OR CONSUMER DRIVEN VALUE BASED MARKETING???

Lesson learned: You can never satisfy a chronic bitcher like Econ. 101!

If grid pricing was negotiated and all sellers had the same access to that type of pricing there would be no problem. It would be the cash market. I am not chronic anything except pointing out where you misquote, misunderstand, or misuse logic in this case. With all your misses in this case it is easy to understand why very few people see you as a straight shooter. Please quit calling names and making judgments on what I say or write. If you disagree, just tell your point of view. You don't need to do any name calling or razzel dazzel anyone with your knowledge of details unless they are pertinant to your point.

SH--

The fact remains you have not provided one iota of fact to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories. To the contrary, the simple fact that you expected the Plaintiffs to prove their innocense proves that the plaintiffs could not prove ibp's guilt.

You are right, I did not present the facts of the case, they were presented to the jury. I have just pointed out the problems with your arguments.

SH--

How do you explain how the jury could reach a damage assessement higher than ibp's total profits then not have the ability to explain how that damage figure was derived?

Nah, don't even go down the "conspiracy theory road" of hiding profits FROM YOUR OWN INVESTORS. LOL! This is a publicly traded company with profit information readily available.

Tyson already made the front page of the Wall Street Journal of the SEC investigating the family for using company assets as personal assets. Don Tyson had to refund to the company over a million dollars that was given to him against the rules of the corporation. I bet Taylor could explain how the damages asked for were derived. He convinced the jury it was a lot of money. You and your 12 juror conspiracy theory.

SH--

How do you explain how they could agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary?

You can argue that this should not have been a question asked but how do you defend their answer to that question?

Just because I have the right to own a gun does not give me the right to do an armed robbery. I say disarm Tyson for the robbery, it is the law forcaught armed robbers and felons.

I suppose you prefer to believe that the judge was "BOUGHT OFF" or had political leanings. Funny how the attitude changed. At one time the R-CULTers were singing the praises of Judge Strom for hearing their stupid case.

I never said Judge Strom was bought off. I even accept the possibilty that the appellate court is just incompetent with their ability to understand the PSA and the Robinson-Patman Act and the economic reasons for the acts. The appellate court showed this incompetence in their brief. For this they should have no right to call Dr. Taylor's testimony into question. They are not credible. Maybe they had some aids make it up while they went fishing. For the appellate court, both possibilities of corruption and incompetence should have consequences and we should all demand an explanation.

Quote:
Econ. 101: "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?"


As totally expected!

You, the prostitute of misinformation, make another feeble attempt to discredit Agman and myself to avoid having to contradict anything that we have presented with facts to the contrary.

Another volley of misinformation and "THEORIES" would be more to your liking as you avoid having to defend your ridiculous statements.

You are so ignorant of this industry and you display it every time you post. I didn't just say that Econ., I proved it.

Until you can actually prove something I have stated is a lie, you are only showing the world how desperate you and your packer blaming cohorts really are.

Hide behind my lies?

PROVE IT! TALK IS CHEAP!


Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD


Who's hiding?

How did you prove anything except that you did not understand the case? On the contrary, you have proven that you claim knowledge about an industry, throw a few interesting facts in here or there, and then profess that you are right on everything but will not engage in a good discussion of the issues. I already know who you are, but it doesn't matter anyway. You are being judged on your ability to convince others with your arguments. You claim to be a victorious champion of the arguments but you are just a self-proclaimed idiot who can only repeat the same old thing time and time again.