• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Discussion for the More Advanced: Beef Demand

Econ101

Well-known member
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.

It is apparent that you neither have a degree in economics and or law. You are just a wanna be with no real credentials-just talk and accusations which you always fail to support.

Their conclusion is valid and only proves how truly nano your knowledge level is of the beef industry and consumer and the many factors that determine consumer demand.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.

It is apparent that you neither have a degree in economics and or law. You are just a wanna be with no real credentials-just talk and accusations which you always fail to support.

Their conclusion is valid and only proves how truly nano your knowledge level is of the beef industry and consumer and the many factors that determine consumer demand.

Keep selling your propaganda, Agman. I knew this would draw you in because you are part of the problem in the industry, and not the solution. You have only the packer solution to offer, and it is certainly biased.

If you have any points you want to discuss, let us do them on the merits, and not on personal attacks. If you have only personal attacks, you have no arguments with merit.

Have you looked at page page 16?

You know this is going to lead into a casual debate. Lets make it causal.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
I'll bite. If you trust the woprk done on the replacement of beef with chicken, why not the rest of the report?

Was it not the same able people who wrote that portion?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Wait a minute Econ, Schroeder is the one that testified "AGAINST" the packers in the South Dakota trial last month.

He can't be all bad....................... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
Wait a minute Econ, Schroeder is the one that testified "AGAINST" the packers in the South Dakota trial last month.

He can't be all bad....................... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't judge politicians or economists on their best day. It leaves too much room for character development the rest of the time that is not good.

This study should be judged on its merit, not on who wrote it.

Look for what you have seen on this forum in the study.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen, would you like to look at the study and comment on it?

I am willing to keep it civil until we stray away from the analysis.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.

It can't be tree rings...... I think it's smoke rings you're seeing from whatever you've been puffing on lately. Better be careful with that TX ditch weed.

This data, first published Jan 2000 has some good points. The graph on P16 is sound. What's your point? Likewise, the data points to the significant increase in women in the workplace during the time period, and the resulting effect on beef demand. Why you getting so sweaty over this?

Some time ago, data was released (by NCBA??? not sure about this) showing most dinner plans are not made until after 4:30 p.m. by over 75% of the population. Look at all the hand held baskets in metropolitian grocery stores. People are buying dinner for that night The piece suggests convinient poultry products has fueled demand increase.

The authors wrote a good piece. Why you got such an ax to grind over sound six year old data?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.

It can't be tree rings...... I think it's smoke rings you're seeing from whatever you've been puffing on lately. Better be careful with that TX ditch weed.

This data, first published Jan 2000 has some good points. The graph on P16 is sound. What's your point? Likewise, the data points to the significant increase in women in the workplace during the time period, and the resulting effect on beef demand. Why you getting so sweaty over this?

Some time ago, data was released (by NCBA??? not sure about this) showing most dinner plans are not made until after 4:30 p.m. by over 75% of the population. Look at all the hand held baskets in metropolitian grocery stores. People are buying dinner for that night The piece suggests convinient poultry products has fueled demand increase.

The authors wrote a good piece. Why you got such an ax to grind over sound six year old data?

This study (or the abbreviated form) was brought to my attention last week, I believe, Beefman.

I can cook a piece of beef as fast as I can a piece of chicken, Beefman.

Can't you?

It seems like you are arguing that poultry products are replacing beef, not working women on skewers.

You might be on to something there, Beefman.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Murgen said:
I'll bite. If you trust the woprk done on the replacement of beef with chicken, why not the rest of the report?

Was it not the same able people who wrote that portion?

The data I have no problem with at this time. It is the conclusions and the models that need some explaining.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
I was researching a little more in depth the "Beef Demand Determinants" that was posted before as a question to me. What I found was a little concerning.

The paper was written by Ted C. Schroeder, Ph.D., Thomas L. Marsh, Ph.D. and James Mintert, Ph.D.

It was funded with checkoff dollars.

The paper can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/q645d

On page 16 of the paper, there is graph totally vindicates, without "expert" modeling, Robert Mac's theory that poultry has replaced beef.

The paper goes to great lengths to say something other than that apparent fact. In fact, the paper tries to say that women in the workforce is a greater demand factor than poultry being substituted for beef. After looking at the data used and a few other data bases, I have come to the conclusion that the growth of tree rings is a better correlation than the factor of women in the workforce, as the paper suggests.

If this is the kind of study that the beef checkoff is funding with cattleman's collected dollars, the people controlling these studies are better suited to studying the lumber industry than making up modes of beef demand determinates.

To say that women in the workforce are a greater determinate than poultry as a factor in understanding demand is just a fraud. The beef checkoff dollars are being used by the NCBA and their cronies to just make up nonsense and sell it back to cattlemen. These Ph.D.'s should all be fired. They are idiots. They are just using cattleman's money to make up propaganda to feed back to the cattlemen to control them and their thinking.

If anyone (sorry SH, this is for the more advanced) would like to look at the study and hash out the points (pointrider and pknoeber, you are welcome as well as others) and understand this fraud, please feel free to do so.

I can't believe some of these "economists". They need their teaching license pulled.

It is apparent that you neither have a degree in economics and or law. You are just a wanna be with no real credentials-just talk and accusations which you always fail to support.

Their conclusion is valid and only proves how truly nano your knowledge level is of the beef industry and consumer and the many factors that determine consumer demand.

Keep selling your propaganda, Agman. I knew this would draw you in because you are part of the problem in the industry, and not the solution. You have only the packer solution to offer, and it is certainly biased.

If you have any points you want to discuss, let us do them on the merits, and not on personal attacks. If you have only personal attacks, you have no arguments with merit.

Have you looked at page page 16?


You know this is going to lead into a casual debate. Lets make it causal.

You don't know anything about this industry. You are a wanna be lawyer and attempt to persuade others of you economic acumen - you are a total a failure at both, a total fraud. Need I remind you and readers about your professed superior knowledge of supply/demand analysis and you did not even know the level or trend in per capita beef consumption? Who do you really think you are fooling?

If your think I spout propaganda maybe some day you will have the opportunity to debate me in a open public forum. A forum in which you will have to answer your many accusatiuons with supporting facts. A neutral audience won't tolerate your pack of lies and unsupported allegations.

In such a forum you will last only as long as I chose to allow you to exist before I pull the noose around you and expose you for the audience to see you as the total fraud and liar that you are. You will dig your own grave with your endless stream of lies and accusations. I will just push you in the hole at the opportune time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Typical Conman post.

Empty allegations with no basis in fact.

Take a quote from the article and prove it wrong Conman. You have no credibility armed only with cheap talk criticism. Any idiot can offer that.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "Your arrogance has reached a "Climax" hasn't it, agman?"

Don't confuse arrogance with confidence.

Mike, if you want to play "FORUM POLICE", why didn't you comment on the "LYING KING's" statements to Agman you damn hypocrite. I know, I know, because the "LYING KING" tells blamers like you what you want to hear, TRUTH BE DAMNED.

Set the debate up and watch what happens to the "LYING KING" in a public forum when he can't back his "cheap talk" with supporting facts. Heck first you'll have to figure out who he is because he doesn't even posess enough self confidence to reveal his identity. LOL! A total phony.

A debate between Agman and the "LYING KING" would truly last as long as Agman wanted it to. That's just a fact.

fly eggs in the pork loins, Walmart selling "USDA SELECT" as USDA choice, tapped phonelines, market manipulation but no proof, prices can't raise unless supply falls, .....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Yeh, that debate would really last wouldn't it?


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Don't confuse arrogance with confidence.

I don't, nor with you either. A complete page of words from you guys that do nothing but bash ANYONE is a pretty good tell of arrogance.

Discrediting someone because you can't civilly argue a point is undoubtedly the heighth of arrogance.

But the BEST part is.............

BOY IF I COULD ONLY GET YOU IN A PUBLIC DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "A complete page of words from you guys that do nothing but bash ANYONE is a pretty good tell of arrogance."

OH LISTEN TO YOU?

WHERE'S THE CONCERN WHEN THE "LYING KING" AND THE "MASTER OF ILLUSION" RATTLE ON AND ON AND ON WITH THEIR DISCREDITING RANTS?????

Oh, but that's different because they're singing your anti corporate packer blaming song. Doesn't matter if Conman's lying half the time and can't ever back his "OPINIONS" with supporting facts, it's what you want to hear right?

Why is it that blamers like you think "UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS" are equal in importance to "UNREFUTED FACTS"???

I could just see you as a court judge. "Well, we just have to agree to disagree because all opinions are equal in importance".


Mike: "Discrediting someone because you can't civilly argue a point is undoubtedly the heighth of arrogance."

Tell that to Sandbag and Conman and TELL THAT TO YOURSELF. I guess when you join in with the discrediting tactics that must be the heigth of arrogance too huh? But....but...but

Face it, you blamers just don't like being introduced to your "factually void" positions. How dare someone let the facts get in the way of a good story.

You bet Mike, lecture me on your "IVORY TOWER CODE OF CONDUCT" and give your fellow packer blamers a free pass you damn hypocrite.


~SH~
 
Top