You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help Support Ranchers.net:
~SH~ said:Conman: "I already posted to this once completely and something happened to the post, or the connection. I don't know which."
MRJ,
In fairness, Conman did respond to the whole thing! I read it and it is wierd that it's not there now. I just didn't have time to respond to it yet. A lot of it was simply copying my post to appear as a response. LOL!
Conman,
Just answer the 8 questions that are bolded.
~SH~
No, SH, I copied parts of your stupid posts to answer the questions posed because the numbering was getting out of order in your post and the comments and questions in your post were not going with the numbering. Then my computer froze up, went off line, and I had to get back online and push the submit button and then when I read my post, it wasn't what I had posted. some of the comments I had cut and pasted were not limited to the cut and paste I did. That is when I decided to just cut the whole thing out and start over, if needed. I just did not want to go through all that again as I had other things to do also at the time.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "In contrast, I spend my time learning about the truth as opposed to wondering how to defend or divert a lie."
Should I put this forward in a poll and see how many people believe you, SH? Or, would your lack of credibilty even matter to you?
Should I put this forward in a poll and see how many people believe you, SH? Or, would your lack of credibilty even matter to you?
Econ101 said:Any dog that ate as much crap as SH is throwing out on this thread would have a big stomach ache. Need any pepto bismol, MRJ?
Stop whining and playing your little games and present some solid, factual EVIDENCE to counter the claims if you truly believe they are "crap" as you so elegantly state.
MRJ
MRJ said:Econ101 said:Any dog that ate as much crap as SH is throwing out on this thread would have a big stomach ache. Need any pepto bismol, MRJ?
Stop whining and playing your little games and present some solid, factual EVIDENCE to counter the claims if you truly believe they are "crap" as you so elegantly state.
MRJ
What claims, MRJ? SH just asked a bunch of questions. I already answered them once. He wants another go round. Do you even know what you are talking about here? Maybe you should lay off the bottle.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Should I put this forward in a poll and see how many people believe you, SH? Or, would your lack of credibilty even matter to you?"
Of course you would prefer to consult your packer blaming support group as opposed to bringing facts to contradict anything I have stated.
"CREATING THE ILLUSION" of my being wrong would always be your path of choice over actual "PROVING ME WRONG" with opposing facts.
Conman: "No, SH, I copied parts of your stupid posts to answer the questions posed because the numbering was getting out of order in your post and the comments and questions in your post were not going with the numbering."
Hahaha! Ahhhh.....ok?
I think you are just getting tired of tipping your phony hand by your inability to answer direct questions.
Let me make it easier for you:
1. Once again, give me an example of where formula pricing, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE, does not use the cash market as a base price IN THE UNITED STATES.
1a. Did Randy Kaiser sell some fat cattle to Tyson?
1b. If Randy Kaiser did sell some fat cattle to Tyson, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? RANDY IS FROM CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.
1c. What do you know about the formula to establish the base price on Tyson's Canadian formula purchases?
2. Which of the following methods does Tyson use to determine the base price for their formula cattle IN THE UNITED STATES:
a) Weekly weighted average of the USDA reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery.
b) Weekly weighted average of Tysons reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery for all their plants.
c) Weekly weighted average of Tyson's individual packing plant fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery to that same plant.
"Conman: " Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price."
3. What is the difference between the "average market price" and the "cash market price". Please differentiate between whether you are talking about the U.S. or Canada.
Conman: "Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week."
4. Why in the world would the other packers discriminate against the cash market IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE???
Conman: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."
5. THE BASE PRICE OF THE FORMULA HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED so how could they possibly assume that the cash market was discriminated against in comparison to the formula market????
Conman: " If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies."
6. HOW CAN THEY MANIPULATE THE CASH MARKET IF 90% OF THEIR NEEDS REMAIN UNFILLED AFTER THEIR FORMULA PURCHASES???
Conman: "Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA."
7. Where did I say the PSA prohibitions were against the individual sellers?
Conman: "Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else."
8. What question? I asked and you diverted numerous questions.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "Should I put this forward in a poll and see how many people believe you, SH? Or, would your lack of credibilty even matter to you?"
Of course you would prefer to consult your packer blaming support group as opposed to bringing facts to contradict anything I have stated.
"CREATING THE ILLUSION" of my being wrong would always be your path of choice over actual "PROVING ME WRONG" with opposing facts.
Conman: "No, SH, I copied parts of your stupid posts to answer the questions posed because the numbering was getting out of order in your post and the comments and questions in your post were not going with the numbering."
Hahaha! Ahhhh.....ok?
I think you are just getting tired of tipping your phony hand by your inability to answer direct questions.
Let me make it easier for you:
1. Once again, give me an example of where formula pricing, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE, does not use the cash market as a base price IN THE UNITED STATES.
1a. Did Randy Kaiser sell some fat cattle to Tyson?
1b. If Randy Kaiser did sell some fat cattle to Tyson, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? RANDY IS FROM CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.
1c. What do you know about the formula to establish the base price on Tyson's Canadian formula purchases?
2. Which of the following methods does Tyson use to determine the base price for their formula cattle IN THE UNITED STATES:
a) Weekly weighted average of the USDA reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery.
b) Weekly weighted average of Tysons reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery for all their plants.
c) Weekly weighted average of Tyson's individual packing plant fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery to that same plant.
"Conman: " Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price."
3. What is the difference between the "average market price" and the "cash market price". Please differentiate between whether you are talking about the U.S. or Canada.
Conman: "Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week."
4. Why in the world would the other packers discriminate against the cash market IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE???
Conman: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."
5. THE BASE PRICE OF THE FORMULA HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED so how could they possibly assume that the cash market was discriminated against in comparison to the formula market????
Conman: " If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies."
6. HOW CAN THEY MANIPULATE THE CASH MARKET IF 90% OF THEIR NEEDS REMAIN UNFILLED AFTER THEIR FORMULA PURCHASES???
Conman: "Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA."
7. Where did I say the PSA prohibitions were against the individual sellers?
Conman: "Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else."
8. What question? I asked and you diverted numerous questions.
~SH~
You are really funny, SH. Thanks for making this a little easier.
1. My neighbor. When you are talking about "formula" cattle, you need the exact formula. Pickett had it. That formula cattle was based on the cash price but not all is. My neighber is an example and numerous sales I have been involved in of cattle to be slaughtered.
1a. I don't know. Go ask him.
1b. You have to define your terms. I was just showing how you did not do it very well. Your question had a possiblility of being interpreted for the present time period and the actual mechanism in Tyson's current forumla pricing would have to be looked at. Pickett's time period was defined as was the forumla.
1c. Don't know a whole lot about it at the present time. Would you like to post a formula contract? It would be interesting to compare that with the U.S. markets right now. I used rkaiser as an example here because he already posted teh formula he uses for his program. Made it real simple.
2.a. b. c. Industry specific knowledge, again, I see. Maybe you would like to litigate a case and make this information relevant.
3. Average market price is the weighted average price for cattle in a given week. Average cash price is that for just the cash market. What is your definition? You could even differentiate between the two countries if you like.
4. To lower their prices. They have the same incentive as Tyson to do it. Why would there be a law against collusive activities if this was not a percieved problem?
5. I thought you said that the formula cattle were based on last week's avg. cash price. Wouldn't that mean that at least the packers know what it is or could get Agman to figure it out for them?
6. Collude with the other buyers. That is why it is specifically outlawed.
7. You keep saying that feeders don't need me or anyone esle to tell them how they can sell. No one has. The PSA limits packers, not feeders. This is the argument you keep bringing up, I am just showing that it is not even an argument at all, exept in your own head.
8. Question 10. Here I will give it to you again:
SH: "10. Can you point out anything I have stated as fact, that is not fact and support that with contradicting facts?
Yes or no?
~SH~"
Here is my answer: "10. An example is not speculation. It is for illustrative purposes only.
10. I will let you read over this post. Take as much time as you want. Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else.
Good luck!!!!!!"
I am glad I could help you today with your reading comprehension.
How long do these questions go on? It is kind of fun.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "1. My neighbor. When you are talking about "formula" cattle, you need the exact formula. Pickett had it. That formula cattle was based on the cash price but not all is. My neighber is an example and numerous sales I have been involved in of cattle to be slaughtered."
You neighbor is an example of a formula price that is currently in use that does not use the cash market as a base price in the U.S.??? Hahaha!
DIVERSION!
1. What formula does your neighbor sell under?
Conman: "1a. I don't know. Go ask him."
DIVERSION!
You were the one that brought up:
Conman (previous): "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."
You said Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts.
If you know that Randy's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tysons contracts, you would have to know that these fat cattle would not be included in the weekly weighted average.
2. How do you know that Randy's fat cattle sales would not be reported in the weekly weighted average?
Conman: "1b. You have to define your terms. I was just showing how you did not do it very well. Your question had a possiblility of being interpreted for the present time period and the actual mechanism in Tyson's current forumla pricing would have to be looked at. Pickett's time period was defined as was the forumla."
DIVERSION!
I didn't need to define anything. You were the one who defined the terms and the time period by bringing up something about "Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts".
If not, elaborate on how you would know that Randy's fat cattle sales were not included in the weekly weighted average.
I think you're full of sh*t again.
Conman: "1c. Don't know a whole lot about it at the present time. Would you like to post a formula contract? It would be interesting to compare that with the U.S. markets right now. I used rkaiser as an example here because he already posted teh formula he uses for his program. Made it real simple."
If you don't know a whole lot about it, then how could you come to the conclusion that "Rkaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts"?
You lied again because you if don't know much about Tyson's formula to establish the base price for Canadian cattle, then you can't possibly know whether Randy's fat cattle sales would be included in the weekly weighted average formulation of that formula base price or not.
BUSTED!
Conman: "2.a. b. c. Industry specific knowledge, again, I see. Maybe you would like to litigate a case and make this information relevant."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
3. How can it be "industry specific knowledge" and the feeders not know how the base price is derived??????
Ridiculous!
Why don't you just admit that you don't know how Tyson derives their base price. BE HONEST FOR ONCE.
Conman: "3. Average market price is the weighted average price for cattle in a given week. Average cash price is that for just the cash market. What is your definition? You could even differentiate between the two countries if you like."
4. Using that definition, are you suggesting that there is "average market price" information available as well as a weekly weighted average of the cash price????
If the weekly weighted average of the cash price is the basis for the formula cattle, why they need to report the average of the formula cattle?
Remember, the formula cattle are based on last week's weekly weighted average cash price so why would you report the average base price for the formula cattle, to include it in a "average market price", IF IT'S A WEEK OLD???
That doesn't make sense. If I am going to sell cattle on the formula this week, I want the base price to be based on this week's supply and demand factors, not last weeks "AVERAGE MARKET PRICE" which was based on an "AVERAGE OF THE CASH MARKET".
Conman: "4. To lower their prices. They have the same incentive as Tyson to do it. Why would there be a law against collusive activities if this was not a percieved problem?"
Listen, if Tyson has over 90% of their needs filled in the formula market, THAT'S THAT MANY LESS CATTLE FOR EXCEL AND SWIFT.
5. HOW CAN THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES ("discriminate against the cash market") IF THEY NEED THOSE REMAINING CATTLE??????
If Tyson has that many cattle tied up in the formula market, that leaves that many less cattle for Excel and Swift. Use your damn head for once. They can't drop their price OR NOBODY WOULD SELL TO THEM.
Your brain is so full of market manipulation conspiracy theories that you can't even reason. Swift and Excel have just under 50% of the slaughter capacity when combined. HOW COULD THEY AFFORD TO DROP PRICES IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE.
You keep forgetting that this is the barter system where you have buyer and seller, NOT JUST BUYER.
Conman: "5. I thought you said that the formula cattle were based on last week's avg. cash price. Wouldn't that mean that at least the packers know what it is or could get Agman to figure it out for them?"
This is what you said:
Conman (previous: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."
THEY WOULD NOT SELL SORRY CATTLE IN THE FORMULA, THEY WOULD SELL THEM IN THE CASH MARKET.
Grid pricing discounts "sorry cattle". Don't you know anything?
Secondly, this week's cash market is the basis for the formula price so he would basically be taking this week's average cash price minus the discounts for "sorry cattle".
6. WHO THE HELL WOULD KNOWINGLY SELL "SORRY CATTLE" IN THE FORMULA MARKET KNOWING THEY WOULD BE DISCOUNTED???
Conman: "6. Collude with the other buyers. That is why it is specifically outlawed."
Pickett never proved market manipulation LET ALONE COLLUSION.
7. Where is your proof of collusion?
Conman: "7. You keep saying that feeders don't need me or anyone esle to tell them how they can sell. No one has. The PSA limits packers, not feeders. This is the argument you keep bringing up, I am just showing that it is not even an argument at all, exept in your own head."
8. What does my saying "feeders don't need you or anyone else telling them how to market their cattle" have to do with the PSA???
How did you make that leap?
When you limit marketing options, you are limiting feeders.
Considering your arrogance, I think it's important to point something out to you. I'm not asking you questions because I think you have answers, I am asking you questions to point out just how little you know about this industry by your inability to answer those questions.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out your ignorance to the entire industry. What a shame that there is not a name to go along with your ignorance.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "1. My neighbor. When you are talking about "formula" cattle, you need the exact formula. Pickett had it. That formula cattle was based on the cash price but not all is. My neighber is an example and numerous sales I have been involved in of cattle to be slaughtered."
You neighbor is an example of a formula price that is currently in use that does not use the cash market as a base price in the U.S.??? Hahaha!
DIVERSION!
1. What formula does your neighbor sell under?
Conman: "1a. I don't know. Go ask him."
DIVERSION!
You were the one that brought up:
Conman (previous): "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."
You said Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts.
If you know that Randy's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tysons contracts, you would have to know that these fat cattle would not be included in the weekly weighted average.
2. How do you know that Randy's fat cattle sales would not be reported in the weekly weighted average?
Conman: "1b. You have to define your terms. I was just showing how you did not do it very well. Your question had a possiblility of being interpreted for the present time period and the actual mechanism in Tyson's current forumla pricing would have to be looked at. Pickett's time period was defined as was the forumla."
DIVERSION!
I didn't need to define anything. You were the one who defined the terms and the time period by bringing up something about "Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts".
If not, elaborate on how you would know that Randy's fat cattle sales were not included in the weekly weighted average.
I think you're full of sh*t again.
Conman: "1c. Don't know a whole lot about it at the present time. Would you like to post a formula contract? It would be interesting to compare that with the U.S. markets right now. I used rkaiser as an example here because he already posted teh formula he uses for his program. Made it real simple."
If you don't know a whole lot about it, then how could you come to the conclusion that "Rkaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts"?
You lied again because you if don't know much about Tyson's formula to establish the base price for Canadian cattle, then you can't possibly know whether Randy's fat cattle sales would be included in the weekly weighted average formulation of that formula base price or not.
BUSTED!
Conman: "2.a. b. c. Industry specific knowledge, again, I see. Maybe you would like to litigate a case and make this information relevant."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
3. How can it be "industry specific knowledge" and the feeders not know how the base price is derived??????
Ridiculous!
Why don't you just admit that you don't know how Tyson derives their base price. BE HONEST FOR ONCE.
Conman: "3. Average market price is the weighted average price for cattle in a given week. Average cash price is that for just the cash market. What is your definition? You could even differentiate between the two countries if you like."
4. Using that definition, are you suggesting that there is "average market price" information available as well as a weekly weighted average of the cash price????
If the weekly weighted average of the cash price is the basis for the formula cattle, why they need to report the average of the formula cattle?
Remember, the formula cattle are based on last week's weekly weighted average cash price so why would you report the average base price for the formula cattle, to include it in a "average market price", IF IT'S A WEEK OLD???
That doesn't make sense. If I am going to sell cattle on the formula this week, I want the base price to be based on this week's supply and demand factors, not last weeks "AVERAGE MARKET PRICE" which was based on an "AVERAGE OF THE CASH MARKET".
Conman: "4. To lower their prices. They have the same incentive as Tyson to do it. Why would there be a law against collusive activities if this was not a percieved problem?"
Listen, if Tyson has over 90% of their needs filled in the formula market, THAT'S THAT MANY LESS CATTLE FOR EXCEL AND SWIFT.
5. HOW CAN THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES ("discriminate against the cash market") IF THEY NEED THOSE REMAINING CATTLE??????
If Tyson has that many cattle tied up in the formula market, that leaves that many less cattle for Excel and Swift. Use your damn head for once. They can't drop their price OR NOBODY WOULD SELL TO THEM.
Your brain is so full of market manipulation conspiracy theories that you can't even reason. Swift and Excel have just under 50% of the slaughter capacity when combined. HOW COULD THEY AFFORD TO DROP PRICES IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE.
You keep forgetting that this is the barter system where you have buyer and seller, NOT JUST BUYER.
Conman: "5. I thought you said that the formula cattle were based on last week's avg. cash price. Wouldn't that mean that at least the packers know what it is or could get Agman to figure it out for them?"
This is what you said:
Conman (previous: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."
THEY WOULD NOT SELL SORRY CATTLE IN THE FORMULA, THEY WOULD SELL THEM IN THE CASH MARKET.
Grid pricing discounts "sorry cattle". Don't you know anything?
Secondly, this week's cash market is the basis for the formula price so he would basically be taking this week's average cash price minus the discounts for "sorry cattle".
6. WHO THE HELL WOULD KNOWINGLY SELL "SORRY CATTLE" IN THE FORMULA MARKET KNOWING THEY WOULD BE DISCOUNTED???
Conman: "6. Collude with the other buyers. That is why it is specifically outlawed."
Pickett never proved market manipulation LET ALONE COLLUSION.
7. Where is your proof of collusion?
Conman: "7. You keep saying that feeders don't need me or anyone esle to tell them how they can sell. No one has. The PSA limits packers, not feeders. This is the argument you keep bringing up, I am just showing that it is not even an argument at all, exept in your own head."
8. What does my saying "feeders don't need you or anyone else telling them how to market their cattle" have to do with the PSA???
How did you make that leap?
When you limit marketing options, you are limiting feeders.
Considering your arrogance, I think it's important to point something out to you. I'm not asking you questions because I think you have answers, I am asking you questions to point out just how little you know about this industry by your inability to answer those questions.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out your ignorance to the entire industry. What a shame that there is not a name to go along with your ignorance.
~SH~
1. Either take my word for it or go ask my neighbor.
2. Why don't you ask Randy? Why ask me this question? Randy could probably give you a more accurate answer. Are you going to ask me what color of clothes he prefers to wear next? Ask him yourself if you want to know the answer to your senseless questions.
3. How the number is derived and its accuracy are two different things as the recent report on the AMS points out. Why do you ask such a senseless question? This is already # 3 for you in this category, but I will humor you and go on.
4. Tyson sure knows the average price it pays for cattle. Other packers do too. This gets into the dichotomy of information in the market between the buyers and sellers. More market info in the hands of one of these parties is very valuable. Don't you know that is how Martha Stewart got into trouble?
5. I have already explained the first part of this question to you, SH. Go read my previous post. If you would like to have the answer again, maybe you could ask it seperately. If I have to keep going over the same thing time and again with you, you might want to invest in a tutor.
I know grid pricing discounts sorry cattle. That is what makes my example I used before so credible. Thanks for the support, SH.
6. This is really part of #5, but since you ask again, I will answer it again. First we have to make a few assumptions. Suppose the formula cattle had a base price of 80 cents per lb. Suppose this lot of "sorry" cattle were only going to get 76 cents per lb. in the formula market after the grid was applied. Then suppose a buyer comes around and sees the pen of cattle and makes a cash offer of 73 cents per lb. The cattleman has the opportunity of selling to the grid, knowing that he will get 76 cents per lb. after the grid is applied or selling to the cash price of 73 cents per lb.
Which one is he going to take? This example, coupled with my last example, shows how the offers in the cash market make a difference to the overall weighted average for the market. If the cash market is being discriminated against, the prices for the market as a whole will go lower. Price discrimination is all relevant to the quality/yield of the cattle and the offers being made. Let us suppose that all the cattle went into the formula market. In that case, the formula market price would be the average market price paid for cattle. Since there is no negotiation for that price, it is a lid on prices.
7. I am not currently prosecuting one of these cases. The facts on the ground, similar to what Pickett provided, would be the evidence needed to convince a jury. Why don't you ask Agman for the trial transcripts? Collusion and the other prohibitions against discrimination are two different things but closely related. The discrimination allows for implicit collusion. Under the PSA prohibited collusive activities and discrimination activities are both outlawed and are seperated by "or"s, not "and"s. That means that they can be proven individulally and do not have to be proven collectively. Do you know the difference between "or" and "and"? The 11th circuit sure doesn't seem to know. How can we have appellate judges that don't know the difference between these two words? Do you have any relatives over there, SH?
8. "When you limit marketing options, you are limiting feeders. "
You and your friend Jason both made that leap. Feeders are not limited by the PSA, but packers are. It recognizes the fact that packers (livestock dealers) have or tend to have in the future, market power. Cattlemen do not. If cattlemen did get together and form a co-op, it would still be legal for them as the Capper Volstead Act allows them to do this. They would just be trying to obtain the same market power the packers have. Isn't this the economic issue that Lakeside and the Union were holding out over?
~SH~ said:Conman: "1. My neighbor. When you are talking about "formula" cattle, you need the exact formula. Pickett had it. That formula cattle was based on the cash price but not all is. My neighber is an example and numerous sales I have been involved in of cattle to be slaughtered."
You neighbor is an example of a formula price that is currently in use that does not use the cash market as a base price in the U.S.??? Hahaha!
DIVERSION!
1. What formula does your neighbor sell under?
Conman: "1a. I don't know. Go ask him."
DIVERSION!
You were the one that brought up:
Conman (previous): "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."
You said Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts.
If you know that Randy's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tysons contracts, you would have to know that these fat cattle would not be included in the weekly weighted average.
2. How do you know that Randy's fat cattle sales would not be reported in the weekly weighted average?
Conman: "1b. You have to define your terms. I was just showing how you did not do it very well. Your question had a possiblility of being interpreted for the present time period and the actual mechanism in Tyson's current forumla pricing would have to be looked at. Pickett's time period was defined as was the forumla."
DIVERSION!
I didn't need to define anything. You were the one who defined the terms and the time period by bringing up something about "Randy Kaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts".
If not, elaborate on how you would know that Randy's fat cattle sales were not included in the weekly weighted average.
I think you're full of sh*t again.
Conman: "1c. Don't know a whole lot about it at the present time. Would you like to post a formula contract? It would be interesting to compare that with the U.S. markets right now. I used rkaiser as an example here because he already posted teh formula he uses for his program. Made it real simple."
If you don't know a whole lot about it, then how could you come to the conclusion that "Rkaiser's cattle were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts"?
You lied again because you if don't know much about Tyson's formula to establish the base price for Canadian cattle, then you can't possibly know whether Randy's fat cattle sales would be included in the weekly weighted average formulation of that formula base price or not.
BUSTED!
Conman: "2.a. b. c. Industry specific knowledge, again, I see. Maybe you would like to litigate a case and make this information relevant."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
3. How can it be "industry specific knowledge" and the feeders not know how the base price is derived??????
Ridiculous!
Why don't you just admit that you don't know how Tyson derives their base price. BE HONEST FOR ONCE.
Conman: "3. Average market price is the weighted average price for cattle in a given week. Average cash price is that for just the cash market. What is your definition? You could even differentiate between the two countries if you like."
4. Using that definition, are you suggesting that there is "average market price" information available as well as a weekly weighted average of the cash price????
If the weekly weighted average of the cash price is the basis for the formula cattle, why they need to report the average of the formula cattle?
Remember, the formula cattle are based on last week's weekly weighted average cash price so why would you report the average base price for the formula cattle, to include it in a "average market price", IF IT'S A WEEK OLD???
That doesn't make sense. If I am going to sell cattle on the formula this week, I want the base price to be based on this week's supply and demand factors, not last weeks "AVERAGE MARKET PRICE" which was based on an "AVERAGE OF THE CASH MARKET".
Conman: "4. To lower their prices. They have the same incentive as Tyson to do it. Why would there be a law against collusive activities if this was not a percieved problem?"
Listen, if Tyson has over 90% of their needs filled in the formula market, THAT'S THAT MANY LESS CATTLE FOR EXCEL AND SWIFT.
5. HOW CAN THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES ("discriminate against the cash market") IF THEY NEED THOSE REMAINING CATTLE??????
If Tyson has that many cattle tied up in the formula market, that leaves that many less cattle for Excel and Swift. Use your damn head for once. They can't drop their price OR NOBODY WOULD SELL TO THEM.
Your brain is so full of market manipulation conspiracy theories that you can't even reason. Swift and Excel have just under 50% of the slaughter capacity when combined. HOW COULD THEY AFFORD TO DROP PRICES IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE.
You keep forgetting that this is the barter system where you have buyer and seller, NOT JUST BUYER.
Conman: "5. I thought you said that the formula cattle were based on last week's avg. cash price. Wouldn't that mean that at least the packers know what it is or could get Agman to figure it out for them?"
This is what you said:
Conman (previous: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."
THEY WOULD NOT SELL SORRY CATTLE IN THE FORMULA, THEY WOULD SELL THEM IN THE CASH MARKET.
Grid pricing discounts "sorry cattle". Don't you know anything?
Secondly, this week's cash market is the basis for the formula price so he would basically be taking this week's average cash price minus the discounts for "sorry cattle".
6. WHO THE HELL WOULD KNOWINGLY SELL "SORRY CATTLE" IN THE FORMULA MARKET KNOWING THEY WOULD BE DISCOUNTED???
Conman: "6. Collude with the other buyers. That is why it is specifically outlawed."
Pickett never proved market manipulation LET ALONE COLLUSION.
7. Where is your proof of collusion?
Conman: "7. You keep saying that feeders don't need me or anyone esle to tell them how they can sell. No one has. The PSA limits packers, not feeders. This is the argument you keep bringing up, I am just showing that it is not even an argument at all, exept in your own head."
8. What does my saying "feeders don't need you or anyone else telling them how to market their cattle" have to do with the PSA???
How did you make that leap?
When you limit marketing options, you are limiting feeders.
Considering your arrogance, I think it's important to point something out to you. I'm not asking you questions because I think you have answers, I am asking you questions to point out just how little you know about this industry by your inability to answer those questions.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out your ignorance to the entire industry. What a shame that there is not a name to go along with your ignorance.
~SH~
1. Either take my word for it or go ask my neighbor.
2. Why don't you ask Randy? Why ask me this question? Randy could probably give you a more accurate answer. Are you going to ask me what color of clothes he prefers to wear next? Ask him yourself if you want to know the answer to your senseless questions.
3. How the number is derived and its accuracy are two different things as the recent report on the AMS points out. Why do you ask such a senseless question? This is already # 3 for you in this category, but I will humor you and go on.
4. Tyson sure knows the average price it pays for cattle. Other packers do too. This gets into the dichotomy of information in the market between the buyers and sellers. More market info in the hands of one of these parties is very valuable. Don't you know that is how Martha Stewart got into trouble?
5. I have already explained the first part of this question to you, SH. Go read my previous post. If you would like to have the answer again, maybe you could ask it seperately. If I have to keep going over the same thing time and again with you, you might want to invest in a tutor.
I know grid pricing discounts sorry cattle. That is what makes my example I used before so credible. Thanks for the support, SH.
6. This is really part of #5, but since you ask again, I will answer it again. First we have to make a few assumptions. Suppose the formula cattle had a base price of 80 cents per lb. Suppose this lot of "sorry" cattle were only going to get 76 cents per lb. in the formula market after the grid was applied. Then suppose a buyer comes around and sees the pen of cattle and makes a cash offer of 73 cents per lb. The cattleman has the opportunity of selling to the grid, knowing that he will get 76 cents per lb. after the grid is applied or selling to the cash price of 73 cents per lb.
Which one is he going to take? This example, coupled with my last example, shows how the offers in the cash market make a difference to the overall weighted average for the market. If the cash market is being discriminated against, the prices for the market as a whole will go lower. Price discrimination is all relevant to the quality/yield of the cattle and the offers being made. Let us suppose that all the cattle went into the formula market. In that case, the formula market price would be the average market price paid for cattle. Since there is no negotiation for that price, it is a lid on prices.
7. I am not currently prosecuting one of these cases. The facts on the ground, similar to what Pickett provided, would be the evidence needed to convince a jury. Why don't you ask Agman for the trial transcripts? Collusion and the other prohibitions against discrimination are two different things but closely related. The discrimination allows for implicit collusion. Under the PSA prohibited collusive activities and discrimination activities are both outlawed and are seperated by "or"s, not "and"s. That means that they can be proven individulally and do not have to be proven collectively. Do you know the difference between "or" and "and"? The 11th circuit sure doesn't seem to know. How can we have appellate judges that don't know the difference between these two words? Do you have any relatives over there, SH?
8. "When you limit marketing options, you are limiting feeders. "
You and your friend Jason both made that leap. Feeders are not limited by the PSA, but packers are. It recognizes the fact that packers (livestock dealers) have or tend to have in the future, market power. Cattlemen do not. If cattlemen did get together and form a co-op, it would still be legal for them as the Capper Volstead Act allows them to do this. They would just be trying to obtain the same market power the packers have. Isn't this the economic issue that Lakeside and the Union were holding out over?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'll leave that as the final post in this thread.
Anyone that wants to see what a complete phony you are can read your statement, read my question in response to that statement, then read your diversion in response to my question.
You don't have a clue!
~SH~
Anyone that wants to see what a complete phony you are can read your statement, read my question in response to that statement, then read your diversion in response to my question.
You don't have a clue!
~SH~
~SH~ said:I'll leave that as the final post in this thread.
Anyone that wants to see what a complete phony you are can read your statement, read my question in response to that statement, then read your diversion in response to my question.
You don't have a clue!
~SH~
At least now Agman is using the correct economic wording in his posts, "All other things held constant."
Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life. Sandra Carey
