Lying King,
Then there is the lie about claiming that Walmart is selling "select" beef as "choice".
Econ: It happened at my local walmart.
Then there is the lie about finding fly larva in your beef.
Econ: It was a pork loin, you ninny. Get it right if you are going to accuse me of it. Go back and read the posts.
Then there is your claim that prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" as if demand was not a factor.
Econ: All other things held equal (economics jargon for you, SH. I know you don't understand it)
Then there is your relentless claims of "back door meetings" and "bought off politicians".
Econ: I posted the report. Back door meetings are going to come up in this next Congress's hearings. Want to bet on it?
Then there is your claims that Pickett proved market manipulation when Judge Strom stated that there was no proof of a PSA violation, the 11th circuit upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the 11th circuit decision.
Econ: Judge Strom is not the jury.
Then these is your claims of you phoneline being tapped.
Econ: It was a possibility. Do you have proof it wasn't?
You can't hardly make a post without lying Conman and everyone that has the intelligence to think for themselves can see right through your lies. You don't fool anyone but your blaming cheeleaders and they give you a blank pass to say anything you want without challenge.
Econ: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Lying King: "Tyson discriminated against the cash market so that next week's grid price would be lower. The jury believed it and so rendered a decision."
But Tyson dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market (which is not captive supply by definition) is not market manipulation. Tyson is not "THE MARKET". Tyson is "A MARKET WITHIN THE MARKET". If Tyson has their needs filled in the formula market and drops their price in the cash market accordingly, that means that there is that many less cash cattle available for USPB, Swift, and Excel.
Econ: When a market is sufficiently thin and not transparent, the price mechanisms may not show true supply/demand equliibrium points of the market as a whole. Do you disagree with that statement or agree with it?
You cannot even begin to argue that. It's a fact and anyone who understands anything about fat cattle marketing knows it's a fact. Tyson, Swift, Excel, and USPB do not always have the same needs at the same time.
In order to make the dumb assed claim that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market is market manipulation you also must claim that dropping your price at the salebarn to reflect your purchases on the video auction is also market manipulation.
Econ: The jury didn't buy those arguments. They listened to both sides, silently throughout the trial. They saw all the witnesses and heard all the arguments. Why have a jury trial if the judge is going to make a decision on his own?
SAME EXACT ARGUMENT! APPLES TO APPLES! Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases by other methods cannot apply to the packing industry and not also apply to the feeder cattle marketing industry.
Based on court documents Tyson's per head profits for this era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was $26 per head AND THAT WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT PACKER IN THEIR MOST PROFITABLE YEARS.
Wow, that's really market manipulation for marketing everything from the tongues to the rectums and paying for cattle accordingly.
You are so stupid you are dangerous.
Econ: Their big payoff was not in the beef market. It was in the chicken market. When the supply of beef went down because of depressed prices (less production because of lower prices) cattle prices started to go up. Although cattle ranchers got the main benefit from the price rise, the poultry producers did not. Chicken went up from a wholesale price of 52 cents per lb. to over 90 cents per lb. Tyson made their money off the chicken play, not the cattle play. They did have to depress the cattle markets for it to work.
Lying King: "The judge threw the case out, but should not have."
If that was the case, the 11th circuit court of appeals would not have upheld his decision and if the 11th circuit court of appels was wrong, then the Supreme Court would have heard the case. You packer blamers lost because there was no proof of market manipulation. Only proof that Tyson dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is nothing more than a normal reaction to supply and demand.
Econ: There may yet be a remedy for this.
Lying King: "Then they used the excuse from another case, the London case, where they used reasoning after the trial was over to justify this decision."
Red Herring!
The judge specifically addressed the PSA in his ruling. The 11th circuit upheld that decision. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Econ: Did you even read the decision? They got the economic reasoning behind the Robinson Patman Act wrong. You probably don't even understand why.
Lying King: "They then said that as long as the company has a legitimate business reason for breaking the packers and stockyards act, it was okay. This was the liberal decision by the court. It is okay to discriminate if it is in your company's best interest to do so."
That is an absolute and outright BOLD FACED LIE! The "legimate business reason" was not the only information that Judge Strom relied on to make his decision, it was simply one criteria to consider.
The "legitimate business reason" question was asked to determine whether there was viable alternatives to the formula market which would not result in market manipulation conspiracy theories.
Econ: If Tyson, the largest buyer, was discriminating against the cash market at will due to captive supply, do you think there was a viable market alternative?
Lying King: "There is corrective legislation proposed to reign in the 11th circuit who had 5 Clinton appointees. If they followed the law, who appointed them shouldn't matter. It is a sad state in jurisprudence that it does matter. Laws are not meant as written, they are meant as judges twist them to mean. Complete liberalism just to save the big business donors"
CONSPIRACY BASED LIES TO JUSTIFY A DECISION THAT DIDN'T GO THE WAY YOU THOUGHT IT SHOULD.
There was no proof of market manipulation, PERIOD!
If there was, BRING IT!
You won't because it never existed! I read the arguments, the proof of market manipulation was not there only the proof of Tyson dropping their cash price to reflect their formula purchases.
No producer benefits from baseless allegations against another entity of the beef industry.
~SH~
When someone comes to a board like this one(cattle) and is a very prolific poster you would wonder about there motive. The comon thread for most on this board is cattle for the others you have to wonder :???: If we continue to run down our industry from within why should we complain. Give us a few more flounder and reader posters so we can cut back on beef consumption,a few more econs and we can be vegatarians. Maybe the cattle people should just wonder off and let them have trhe board. Iwill probably regret posting this but it is something that needs to be said.