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

Do we need the captive supply Reform act ?

Do we need the captive supply reform act

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
2. Doesn't matter what the jury allowed the plaintiffs to convince them of. The Jury's determination was wrong, was overturned, and upheld. You show me where Judge Strom said that cash market basis contracts have an overall depressive effect on THE ENTIRE CASH MARKET.

The initial quote that I BOLDED for you said the second jury finding of cash basis contracts being bad for you was never overturned, therefore the Judge and all the courts that followed agreed with the juries determination.

~SH~ said:
Congratulations, you have just defeated your own argument. With all of these other factors playing on the cash market, HOW THE HELL COULD YOU POSSIBLY SINGLE OUT AND MEASURE THE IMPACT OF CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS????

I defeated nothing and you only showed your complete and total ignorance of economics. Individual economics impacts can be isolated and formulated. Economists do it every single day. How do you think Agman arrives at his prices? How do you think futures are determined? You think they just dream this stuff up?

~SH~ said:
Explain it Rod! You just admitted that there is other factors playing on the market so how can you credit one factor for creating a lower OVERALL cash market??? Hmmmm????

I never once said that just one factor could create a lower OVERALL cash market. Quit putting words into my mouth because you're losing the debate. I said that cash basis contracts have a depressive EFFECT on the cash market price. I've already explained this to you, so go back and read please. I'm tired of typing the same stuff over and over to you.

~SH~ said:
Rod: "First, the Mennonite colony has 30,000 head under CASH MARKET BASIS contracts on a permanent basis."

What the hell does that have to do with delivery 2 months later than when the formula arrangement was agreed upon?

Because they agreed to the contract 2 years ago. Good god. Each year, they guarantee delivery of their entire stock of fed cattle with the grid BASIS being whatever the cash market was in the week they called in the delivery.

~SH~ said:
Formula contracts are not delivered 2 months later. Futures contracts are.

You don't even know what futures are.

~SH~ said:
Make it up as you go just like when your neighbor was supposedly going to give you carcass weights by the end of the week. You bet!

SH, you've called me a liar before. Now you've done it again. You'd better hope that we never meet face to face.

~SH~ said:
GIVE ME THE DETAILS OF THESE CONTRACTS SO I CAN SEE FOR MYSELF WHETHER YOU'RE BLOWING SMOKE AGAIN. Nobody that I know delivers formula contract cattle 2 months after the contract was agreed upon.

Grab a grip on reality. Those contracts aren't available for everyone to see. We have a privacy act up here.

~SH~ said:
Rod: "Let me see if I can walk you through this:

1) Producers A sign cash basis forward contracts in week 1 for delivery in week 3.

2) Producers B sign cash basis forward contracts in week 2 for delivery in week 4. They have NO idea that producers A will be delivering in week 3.

3) Producers A delivers cattle on cash market basis contract. The packer drops his bids in the cash market, depressing prices. Normal market reaction. However, the packer also knows that he'll be getting more contract delivered livestock next week as well, so he can further drop his bids in the cash market, even further depressing the cash market. Nothing illegal about it. Perfectly normal business practice.

4) Producers B deliver cattle in week 4, receiving a lower price for their animals because the cash market is depressed from week 3. But now, they're receiving an even LOWER price because there were TWO depressions on the cash market price.

Now, drop the lame arguement 'but cash prices can also go up'. We're going to hold ALL other cash price influences steady. Shoot holes in the ABOVE statements SH."

Have you even fed or sold fat cattle? I HAVE! I've sold cash cattle and formula cattle. I've been there, have you?

Formula arrangement cattle that are sold in week 1 are usually delivered in week 2, not week 3.

I'll tell you what is wrong with your example. YOUR EXAMPLE IS ALL WITHIN ONE MARKET!!! NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL IN JUST ONE MARKET. THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

My example contained cash markets AND cash basis contracts. I didn't think you could argue against it.

~SH~ said:
Remember, you have to sort out all the other factors playing on the market too. See how stupid your logic is? Of course you don't!

I'll type this slow: It doesn't matter about all the other factors, it doesn't change the fact that there was a depressive effect, no matter how big or how small, it was still there. As long as one packer dropped their bids twice, as in my example, there was a depressive effect on the cash market.

~SH~ said:
Producers do know when contracts are coming due.

What a load of crap. They know when their OWN contracts are coming due, not the other 1000 contracts out there. Those other contracts are the ones affecting their cash basis pricing.

~SH~ said:
Most cattle are delivered the following week.

Not in this area. Most deliveries are two weeks after, and the cash basis is in the week of delivery. It makes no difference if its one week or two weeks. It could be 1 day and 2 days. And yes I've sold fats.

~SH~ said:
Using your logic, that would be considered market manipulation.

No its not. Did you not read what I wrote. Everything about cash basis contracts is normal market and company reactions. Nothing illegal or manipulative about it. But they are BAD for the market.

~SH~ said:
Here's something else you don't understand. NOBODY IS EVER FORCED TO SELL!!!!!!!!!! IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE OFFER, THEY CAN HOLD OFF.

NOT IF THEY'VE SIGNED THE CONTRACT A WEEK OR TWO AGO! Think.

~SH~ said:
You don't know sh*t Rod!

Grab a grip. My 2 year old has a better grasp of ag economics than you do. Where did you say you went to school? I'll want my boys to stay a long ways away.

~SH~ said:
Blah, blah, blah! You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.

<chuckle> I don't think you've even READ an economics paper, yet you spew drivel on and on. Go buy more Tyson stock SH and let the real cattlemen raise their livestock. Thankfully there are more people like me who know the damage of cash basis contracts than there are people like you who would happily allow a market to be destroyed for their own personal gain.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "The initial quote that I BOLDED for you said the second jury finding of cash basis contracts being bad for you was never overturned, therefore the Judge and all the courts that followed agreed with the juries determination."

Bullsh*t! Just because the judges never addressed certain conclusions reached by the jury doesn't mean the judges supported those conclusions. WHAT A LEAP!

What is at issue here was whether Tyson dropping their price in the cash market due to their purchases in the formula market, was market manipulation. That was the only issue here.

The issue here was not whether Tyson dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market was TEMPORARILY BAD for "TYSON'S CASH MARKET", the issue was whether or not that practice constitutes market manipulation. The judge said no. The 11th Circuit said no. The Supreme court agreed with the 11th circuit court.


Rod: "I defeated nothing and you only showed your complete and total ignorance of economics. Individual economics impacts can be isolated and formulated. Economists do it every single day. How do you think Agman arrives at his prices? How do you think futures are determined? You think they just dream this stuff up?"

Show me the numbers on sorting the affects of captive supplies from other factors playing on the market.

How do I think futures are determined? LOL! Futures are a guess of what that market is going to be and many times they are so far off the base by the time the cash market comes around that they are not even close. What the hell do you think causes "LIMIT UP" and "LIMIT DOWN" movements at times? EMOTION! A perfect example is a bse positive cow and how that might affect the market. EMOTION! How the hell do you measure emotion?


Rod: "I never once said that just one factor could create a lower OVERALL cash market. Quit putting words into my mouth because you're losing the debate. I said that cash basis contracts have a depressive EFFECT on the cash market price. I've already explained this to you, so go back and read please. I'm tired of typing the same stuff over and over to you."

Then how could you or anyone else credit formula cattle pricing as having a depressive EFFECT on the cash market without measuring all the factors playing on the market???

Show me the research that proves that cash basis contracts have a depresssive effect on the cash market price by singling out all the other factors playing on the market.

How did you arrive at your conclusion Rod? By repeating a populist blamer's "OPINION" I presume.


Rod: "Because they agreed to the contract 2 years ago. Good god. Each year, they guarantee delivery of their entire stock of fed cattle with the grid BASIS being whatever the cash market was in the week they called in the delivery."

Hahaha!

That's a forward contract, not formula pricing.

You don't even know what you're talking about.


Rod: "You don't even know what futures are."

I've bought futures contracts Rod.


Rod: "Those contracts aren't available for everyone to see. We have a privacy act up here."

In that case, I don't believe you because nobody delivers their cattle 2 months after they sell them on a formula contract. You're confusing forward contracts with formula pricing. You don't even know the difference.


Rod: "My example contained cash markets AND cash basis contracts. I didn't think you could argue against it."

Your argument didn't prove your case. You made the case that a packer can drop his prices in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market. THAT DOESN'T PROVE THAT CAPTIVE SUPPLY CATTLE HAVE AN OVERALL DEPRESSIVE AFFECT ON "THE" MARKET, IT ONLY PROVES THAT "THIS PACKER'S" CAPTIVE SUPPLY PURCHASES "AT THIS TIME" HAVE A DEPRESSIVE AFFECT ON THAT PACKER'S CASH MARKET AT THAT TIME.

Your claim is that captive supply cattle have an overall depressive affect on "THE MARKET". Your example shows a temporary depressive affect ON ONE MARKET, within the market.

You can't argue that. In order for your example to have any validity, the same thing would have to be occuring at every packing house at the same time since no feeder is forced to sell to only one packer.

You can't argue that and neither could the plaintiffs.


Rod: "I'll type this slow: It doesn't matter about all the other factors, it doesn't change the fact that there was a depressive effect, no matter how big or how small, it was still there. As long as one packer dropped their bids twice, as in my example, there was a depressive effect on the cash market."

Here's four points that you can't argue that blow your theory completely out of the water:

1. In order for formula cattle to have an OVERALL DEPRESSIVE EFFECT on "THE MARKET", all the packers would have to be lowering their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market AT THE SAME TIME?

Can you prove that? No you can't!


2. You can't prove that a certain packer dropped his cash price due to his formula purchases UNLESS YOU ISOLATE EVERY FACTOR PLAYING ON THE MARKET AT THAT TIME.

Can you effectively argue that? No you can't!


3. In a case where you have a single packer dropping his price in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market, the formula market seller came out better. Since the formula market seller is also part of the overall market, how can you say that this action ("one person's gain being another person's loss") has a NET DEPRESSIVE EFFECT ON "THE" MARKET when the formula sale is just as much a part of "THE" market as the cash sale.


4. Feeders selling in the cash market, which is where your concerns lie, are not forced to sell at any particular time.


Go ahead Rod, step up to the plate and effectively argue any one of these points that is contrary to your "THEORY" then tell me again how I am losing the debate. LOL!


Rod: "What a load of crap. They know when their OWN contracts are coming due, not the other 1000 contracts out there. Those other contracts are the ones affecting their cash basis pricing."

I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about not knowing when THEIR contracts are coming due, not other feeder's contracts. Simple misunderstanding.

Moot point anyway because nobody is forced to sell to just one packer in the cash market. For this point to have validity, all the forward contracts for all the packers would have to be coming due at the same time.

Can you prove that? Of course not!


Rod: "Not in this area. Most deliveries are two weeks after, and the cash basis is in the week of delivery. It makes no difference if its one week or two weeks. It could be 1 day and 2 days. And yes I've sold fats."

When I have sold fat cattle on the formula, they are sold one week and delivered the next with the base price being a weekly weighted average of this week's cash market.

Let's clarify what you meant by "I have sold fats", ok?

Have you sold fats TO A MAJOR PACKER ON THE FORMULA?

Have you sold fats to TO A MAJOR PACKER ON THE CASH MARKET?

Have you sold fats TO A MAJOR PACKER THROUGH A FORWARD CONTRACT?

Fattening a handful of calves and selling them to a local locker plant doesn't count. Not saying that's what you did so answer the above questions please.


Rod: "NOT IF THEY'VE SIGNED THE CONTRACT A WEEK OR TWO AGO!"

The guy who signed a contract a week or two ago is not the point of your concern. The point of your concern is how that person's sale affected the cash market. You're arguing both sides of the equation now.

The guy you are supposedly concerned about is the feeder who sells in the cash market. HE/SHE IS NOT FORCED TO SELL!

Man, you're really drifting now.


Address my four points above Rod! Show us again, how you are winning the debate. LOL!



~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Bullsh*t! Just because the judges never addressed certain conclusions reached by the jury doesn't mean the judges supported those conclusions. WHAT A LEAP!

Horseshit. The judges were reviewing the ENTIRE case, and ALL findings.

~SH~ said:
Futures are a guess of what that market is going to be and many times they are so far off the base by the time the cash market comes around that they are not even close. What the hell do you think causes "LIMIT UP" and "LIMIT DOWN" movements at times? EMOTION! A perfect example is a bse positive cow and how that might affect the market. EMOTION! How the hell do you measure emotion?

Again your ignorance shows through. Futures are not a "guess" but a consideration of all factors that influence cattle prices, including things that simply cannot be predicted such as environmental conditions (drought raises cost of feed, therefore feeder animal prices go down) or a surprise BSE animal. If the futures price is way off, its because of one of the unpredictable factors, not because of emotion.

~SH~ said:
Then how could you or anyone else credit formula cattle pricing as having a depressive EFFECT on the cash market without measuring all the factors playing on the market???

Ah, I see you change the topic again trying to backpedal. I have stated numerous times throughout this entire debate "Cash Basis Forward Contracts" and now you're trying to enlarge it. Stick to the topic at hand. And numerous reputable schools and economists have done just that very thing.

~SH~ said:
That's a forward contract, not formula pricing.

I grow weary of this politicians style of debate. I've been talking about CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS throughout the entire debate. You're losing the debate so you change the topic, just like usual. Stick to the topic SH.

~SH~ said:
In that case, I don't believe you because nobody delivers their cattle 2 months after they sell them on a formula contract. You're confusing forward contracts with formula pricing. You don't even know the difference.

Again, I repeat, and say this very slowly to yourself so it finally sinks in. I am talking about, and have been talking about entirely, CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS!

~SH~ said:
1. In order for formula cattle to have an OVERALL DEPRESSIVE EFFECT on "THE MARKET", all the packers would have to be lowering their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market AT THE SAME TIME?

I did it with my example SH. The example that you still can't poke a hole in.

~SH~ said:
2. You can't prove that a certain packer dropped his cash price due to his formula purchases UNLESS YOU ISOLATE EVERY FACTOR PLAYING ON THE MARKET AT THAT TIME.

I adressed and defeated this point already. There is no point in repeating it in the hopes that I'll forget.

~SH~ said:
3. In a case where you have a single packer dropping his price in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market, the formula market seller came out better. Since the formula market seller is also part of the overall market, how can you say that this action ("one person's gain being another person's loss") has a NET DEPRESSIVE EFFECT ON "THE" MARKET when the formula sale is just as much a part of "THE" market as the cash sale.

And what about the other 50 guys sending stock the next day? Hmmmmm? Are they not part of the market and received lower prices by the double lower bid since the packer knew they were going to get cattle not only on the day he shipped and the next day as well. Its an uneven playing field. Packers shouldn't be allowed to know when they will be recieving animals since the producers don't know when everyone else is going to ship. You can't argue that point.

~SH~ said:
Moot point anyway because nobody is forced to sell to just one packer in the cash market. For this point to have validity, all the forward contracts for all the packers would have to be coming due at the same time.

I was talking about the contract holders being forced to sell at a lower price because they had no idea that other contracts would come in before theirs. Thats not a moot point, but a valid point.

~SH~ said:
Have you sold fats TO A MAJOR PACKER ON THE FORMULA?

Have you sold fats to TO A MAJOR PACKER ON THE CASH MARKET?

Have you sold fats TO A MAJOR PACKER THROUGH A FORWARD CONTRACT?

Yes to all three SH.

~SH~ said:
The guy you are supposedly concerned about is the feeder who sells in the cash market. HE/SHE IS NOT FORCED TO SELL!

Man, you're really drifting now.

I'm not drifting at all, you're the one trying to change the topics. If a contract is delivered on a day, and has the result of lowering the cash market, it also LOWERS THE VALUE OF TOMORROWS CASH BASIS CONTRACTS. This is not a difficult concept.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
SH, why are you always on the packer side of the arguements?

And the losing side, too! Rod's ripping him a new one AGAIN and not only doesn't he have the sense to back off, he thinks he's winning! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you ever seen the Monty Python skit with the two knights sword fighting? One gets his arm cut off but wants to continue fighting because "it's only a scratch". The other knight then cuts his other arm off and he still wants to fight, claiming "it's only a flesh wound".... That reminds me of SH so much, he just doesn't know when he's licked.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh look, the two mindless little cheerleaders have shown up to pledge their support for Rod. How sweet! Neither can contribute anything of substance to any debate so they just provide moral support to whoever happens to be arguing opposite me typical of their lemming ways.

With Sandsnake and "Lying King" in your corner Rod, your failure is assured. They can relate to empty arguments!


Rod: "The judges were reviewing the ENTIRE case, and ALL findings."

NO SH*T SHERLOCK! Is that some new revelation for you?

That doesn't mean those judges agreed with the jury's findings. Obviously they didn't or Judge Strom would not have turned over the verdict.

Back your position here Rod instead of your relentless empty statements based on how you want things to be.

SHOW ME WHERE THE JUDGES AGREED WITH THE JURY'S "SUPPOSED" POSITION THAT CAPTIVE SUPPLIES HAD AN OVERALL DEPRESSIVE AFFECT ON "THE MARKET".

BRING ME THE WORDING FROM THE JUDGE'S RULING ROD!


You'll duck and run with another empty statement to avoid having to back your positoin just like every good blamer usually does.


Rod: "Futures are not a "guess" but a consideration of all factors that influence cattle prices, including things that simply cannot be predicted such as environmental conditions (drought raises cost of feed, therefore feeder animal prices go down) or a surprise BSE animal. If the futures price is way off, its because of one of the unpredictable factors, not because of emotion."

Futures are a GUESS of how market conditions will affect the market. Where do you think the term "SPECULATOR" comes from? LOL!

I swear, you are so desperate at this point you'll try to split hairs between "GUESS" (speculators) and "CONSIDERATION". How pathetic!

If emotion was not involved there would be no corrections in the market due to an over reaction.

Let me guess, I'll bet your next spin will be to assume that I think emotion is the only factor playing on the market. That would be par for your desperate course.


Rod: "Ah, I see you change the topic again trying to backpedal. I have stated numerous times throughout this entire debate "Cash Basis Forward Contracts" and now you're trying to enlarge it. Stick to the topic at hand. And numerous reputable schools and economists have done just that very thing."

What do you think I have to backpeddle from Rod? You haven't made a legitimate argument yet to back any position you have taken on this issue so why would I change the topic? You have quite an imagination. Show me where I changed the topic and support your cheap talk.

You can't make a decent showing and let your arguments speak for themselves, so you try to speak for your arguments. LOL! THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT YOUR CONFIDENCE LEVEL Rod.

You talk about CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS then you talk about contracts 2 months in advance. Your too ignorant to know the difference between a futures contract, which is based off the futures and can be made 2 months prior to delivery and a formula contract that you call a cash basis forward contract which uses a weekly weighted average base price, derived from the cash market, the week prior to delivery. VERY FEW CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS are made 2 months in advance.

You "enlarged" the discussion to include FUTURES FORWARD CONTRACTS when you mentioned these agreements being made 2 months in advance of delivery.

Don't blame me for your ignorance.


Rod: "I've been talking about CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS throughout the entire debate."

WRONG! When you mentioned 2 months in advance of delivery, you switched to futures forward contracts because very few cash basis contracts are made 2 months in advance of delivery. You may have thought you were talking about CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS the entire time but that's because you simply didn't know any better than to think cash basis forward contracts were made 2 months in advance of delivery.

PROVE ME WRONG ON THAT POINT WITH MORE THAN AN EMPTY STATEMENT!

BRING ME THE PROOF OF THE NUMBER OF CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS BEING MADE 2 MONTHS IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY. BRING IT!

You'll divert!


Rod: " I am talking about, and have been talking about entirely, CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS!"

Not when you mention two months in advance of delivery. BACK YOUR POSITION WITH PROOF CHEAP TALKER!


ROD MISDIRECTING POINT #1 BECAUSE HE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST IT: "I did it with my example SH. The example that you still can't poke a hole in."

Your example was for a single packer dropping his price in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market. NOBODY IS DENYING THAT. What the hell does that have to do with a depressive effect on "THE MARKET" meaning "THE ENTIRE MARKET" meaning EVERY PACKERS MARKET WHO IS BUYING CATTLE???

Nothing!

Go right back and answer the question again Rod, your example only applies to one packer, not "THE MARKET".

PROVE TO ME THAT ALL PACKERS DROP THEIR CASH PRICE SIMULTANEOUSLY BECAUSE ONE PACKER DROPPED THEIR CASH PRICE.

You are so damn defeated here that you feel no option but to create an "ILLUSION" that your example addressed "THE WHOLE MARKET". Your example addresses "ONE MARKET" within "THE MARKET"

You got nothing here Rod!


Rod: "I adressed and defeated this point already. There is no point in repeating it in the hopes that I'll forget."

BULLSH*T!

Your example never disclosed WHY the packer dropped his cash price. You assume it was because he had enough cattle procured through formula cattle procurements. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! This packer could have dropped his cash price upon word of lower boxed beef prices. You can't possibly know what factor led to a drop in the cash prices without isolating all the factors.

Another missle lobbed into a medical facility.

HOW DO YOU PROVE WHY A PACKER DROPPED HIS CASH PRICE?

Answer the question Rod! Quit diverting!

In your example, HOW DO YOU PROVE WHY THIS PACKER DROPPED HIS CASH PRICE???

You can't!

STRIKE TWO!

Now, to avoid Rod's inevitable spin and deception, I did not say that a packer's formula purchases do not occassionally lead to the primary reason THAT PACKER drops it's cash price. I'm asking how you would know which factor contributed to the drop in cash prices?


Rod: "And what about the other 50 guys sending stock the next day? Hmmmmm? Are they not part of the market and received lower prices by the double lower bid since the packer knew they were going to get cattle not only on the day he shipped and the next day as well. Its an uneven playing field. Packers shouldn't be allowed to know when they will be recieving animals since the producers don't know when everyone else is going to ship. You can't argue that point."

THOSE FEEDERS DID NOT HAVE TO SELL TO THE SINGLE PACKER THAT DROPPED HIS CASH PRICE! EVERY FEEDER HAS MULTIPLE MARKETING OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM! That's the point that absolutely buries your empty argument.

You can't argue that Rod!

STRIKE THREE!

Packers shouldn't be allowed to know when they will be receiving animals you say????

BWAHAHAHAHA!

HOW THE HELL CAN THEY SCHEDULE SLAUGHTER IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WILL GET THE CATTLE??

WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS STATEMENT!

I can and did argue that point. The point that buries your point is that nobody is forced to sell to the packer that drops his cash price due to formula purchases.

NEXT!


Rod: " I was talking about the contract holders being forced to sell at a lower price because they had no idea that other contracts would come in before theirs. Thats not a moot point, but a valid point."

NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL AT A LOWER PRICE!

IT'S NOT A VALID POINT WHEN THEY HAVE OTHER PACKERS TO SELL TO THAT HAVEN'T PROCURED THEIR NEEDS THROUGH FORMULA PURCHASES.

You got nothing here Rod and you're claiming victory like a comedian. You packer blamers are all the same. Too arrogant to admit when you are clearly defeated and two ignorant to fully understand the issues you are debating. All you are doing here is repeating the popular packer blamer rhetoric that nobody stops to reason out. That's why you can't see the bigger picture of the fact that nobody is forced to sell to just one packer.


Rod: "If a contract is delivered on a day, and has the result of lowering the cash market, it also LOWERS THE VALUE OF TOMORROWS CASH BASIS CONTRACTS."

A SINGLE PACKER'S ACTIONS DOES NOT DICTATE THE ENTIRE MARKET. Tyson only has 32% of the market.

Where's your proof that the other 68% dropped their cash price due to formula purchases. It's non existant because you cannot touch that point.

You've successfully diverted that fact with every point you've made.

You're arguing with yourself at this point.

Unless you can bring me the proof that every packer dropped their cash price simultaneously based on their CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS, you got nothing.

Meanwhile your empty headed cheerleaders keep waving their pom poms and licking your boots. LOL!

If that's all you got, quit wasting my time and yours. You were finished before you started.


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
SHOW ME WHERE THE JUDGES AGREED WITH THE JURY'S "SUPPOSED" POSITION THAT CAPTIVE SUPPLIES HAD AN OVERALL DEPRESSIVE AFFECT ON "THE MARKET".


SH, either you're a crook or stupid. The judges reviewed the ENTIRE case, and only overturned ONE, ONE! finding. Not both. And there were two separate findings in the case. You're wrong, and you know you're wrong but still you continue to bluster. I'm done with this point, unless you can show me specifics where there weren't two findings. Otherwise, all you have is bluster.

~SH~ said:
Futures are a GUESS of how market conditions will affect the market. Where do you think the term "SPECULATOR" comes from? LOL!

The term speculator certainly doesn't come from the word guessing. Egads. When someone speculates they are making an informed prediction of a commodities price in the future based on the factors which influence that price. A guess is a prediction with absolutely no or little supporting evidence.

~SH~ said:
If emotion was not involved there would be no corrections in the market due to an over reaction.

Over reations in the marketplace are sometimes caused by innaccurate media reports causing uninformed speculators to overcompensate to minimize losses (or maximize profits). I suppose you could call it emotion, but it happens for those reasons so rarely that its not even worth mentioning. Generally corrections in the marketplace are due to errors in the initial forecasts caused by errors in the forecasts of the factors influencing that commodities price.

Lets see if I can give you an example that you can comprehend: When determining a futures price for feeder cattle, one factor that must be considered is the cost of feed, specifically, in Western Canada, barley. We have little or no corn substitute. If the crop forecast is for bumper crops, feeder cattle prices go up since the cost of barley will be low. If a hailstorm rolls in and knocks out 40% of the barley crop, obviously the feeder futures price will need to be corrected since barley is now going to be much higher priced than it was before. No emotion involved. NONE. This is where 99.9% of the corrections in futures prices comes from.

~SH~ said:
You talk about CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS then you talk about contracts 2 months in advance.

A forward contract is a forward contract, whether delivery is specified for 1 day, 1 week, or 1 year into the future. Quit diverting. It makes no difference what the terminology is as long as the grid basis is the cash price for the week of delivery and delivery is sometime in the FUTURE.

~SH~ said:
VERY FEW CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS are made 2 months in advance.

Nice diversion. Now you've switched to two months as a lame way to pick a hole in an arguement. Let me try to thump this into your brain, AGAIN: It makes no difference what the terminology is as long as the grid basis is the cash price for the week of delivery and delivery is sometime in the FUTURE.

~SH~ said:
Your example was for a single packer dropping his price in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market. NOBODY IS DENYING THAT. What the hell does that have to do with a depressive effect on "THE MARKET" meaning "THE ENTIRE MARKET" meaning EVERY PACKERS MARKET WHO IS BUYING CATTLE???

Are really so dense as to realize that multiple packers don't sign contracts with their producers? Does only one packer in ALL THE US use cash basis forward? Just one? Give your head a shake. At least 3 of our packers use these market destroying contracts. My example uses one packer for simplicity. It could have just as easily used ALL packers, or a certain portion. Obviously, the more packers using cash basis forward contracts, the worse it is for the market.

~SH~ said:
HOW DO YOU PROVE WHY A PACKER DROPPED HIS CASH PRICE?

Let me see if I can get this through your thick skull: Economists CAN isolate factors that influence the price of a commodity. They do it everyday, all day long, in tens of thousands of schools, companies and government organizations. Just because you don't know how its done doesn't mean it can't be. Quit asking for proof that it can be done, because its a fundamental tennant of ECONOMICS. If you are unable to comprehend that factors can be split out, then you have absolutely no understanding of economics at all, and as such, you should shut the hell up when a discussion of economics is pursued. You have nothing of value to offer, since you lack the basic understanding of how it works.

So once again, I'm going to ask you HOW cash basis forward contracts HELP the market? HOW? Give me proof. Hell, give me a well thought out example of HOW they help. Quit blustering and start proving things, or just shut the hell up.

~SH~ said:
I'm asking how you would know which factor contributed to the drop in cash prices?

BECAUSE THESE FACTORS HAVE BEEN ISOLATED AND VALUED BY HUNDREDS OF ECONOMISTS THE WORLD OVER!!!! My god man, how do you think Agman arrives at his predictions? Or do you think he just mindlessly guesses about them? Answer the question! I've asked it before and you diverted because you know the answer is what I've been saying all along, yet you're not man enough to admit that you're wrong.

~SH~ said:
THOSE FEEDERS DID NOT HAVE TO SELL TO THE SINGLE PACKER THAT DROPPED HIS CASH PRICE! EVERY FEEDER HAS MULTIPLE MARKETING OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM! That's the point that absolutely buries your empty argument.

Bullshit. THEY SIGNED CONTRACTS! They are forced to deliver. Hence the term CAPTIVE. Oie.

~SH~ said:
I can and did argue that point. The point that buries your point is that nobody is forced to sell to the packer that drops his cash price due to formula purchases.

No you didn't. You never address the CONTRACTED producers who are FORCED INTO SELLING AT THE LOWER PRICE BECAUSE THEY HAD NO IDEA OF HOW MANY CATTLE WOULD BE DELIVERED BEFORE THEM!!!!

~SH~ said:
NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL AT A LOWER PRICE!

If you sign a contract stating you will deliver your animals to the packer into the agreed upon grid, you are. Whats the point of the contract then?

SH, until you actually respond directly to each and every point in this post, I'm done. You constantly divert, spin, change topics, demand proof without actually giving any of your own to back your own views, and are flat out wrong so much that you're not worth my time. You debate the points without resorting to politicians answers, offer real proof, from economic theory, and I'll continue. Until then, its nothing but bluster and I've got better things to do with my time.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Excellent job diverting the issue Rod.

You simply cannot address the fact that in order for "THE MARKET" to be affected by one packer's actions, all the packers would have to simultaneously drop their cash price to reflect their formula purchases.

You've diverted that point, which absolutely buries your position, in every one of your responses. Then you arrogantly claim victory in obvious defeat. Hahaha! What a joke you are!


PROVE TO ME THAT ALL PACKERS DROP THEIR CASH PRICE SIMULTANEOUSLY BECAUSE ONE PACKER DROPPED THEIR CASH PRICE.

Until you can address this point with proof, you got nothing.


Rod: "The judges reviewed the ENTIRE case, and only overturned ONE, ONE! finding. Not both. And there were two separate findings in the case."

Oh, I see, so in your fantasy world, if the Judge doesn't overturn each and every point thrown out by the prosecution, then he agrees with their findings huh? LOL! What an imagination you have. This is just the type of spin that you accuse others of.

The entire case was based on whether or not Tyson dropping their price in the cash market, to reflect their purchases in the formula market, was market manipulation and a violation of the PSA.

You point was that the judge agreed with the jury's finding that captive supplies had an overall depressive affect on the market. I asked for proof and your proof is that the judge never overturned this "SUPPOSED" finding. Hahaha!

ahhhhhh.........ok?

That's real proof Rod!


Rod: "When someone speculates they are making an informed prediction of a commodities price in the future based on the factors which influence that price. A guess is a prediction with absolutely no or little supporting evidence."

Rod: "Over reations in the marketplace are sometimes caused by innaccurate media reports causing uninformed speculators to overcompensate to minimize losses (or maximize profits)."

Rod: "Generally corrections in the marketplace are due to errors in the initial forecasts caused by errors in the forecasts of the factors influencing that commodities price."

ROTFLMAO!

Hahahaha!

The difference between "speculation" and a "guess" is that speculators are making an informed "PREDICTION" of a commodities price based on the factors which affect the price of that commodity which are sometimes based on errors in the forecasts of the factors influencing that commodities price. LOL!

Glad we cleared that up.


Rod: "A forward contract is a forward contract, whether delivery is specified for 1 day, 1 week, or 1 year into the future. Quit diverting. It makes no difference what the terminology is as long as the grid basis is the cash price for the week of delivery and delivery is sometime in the FUTURE."

Your position is that cash basis forward contracts create an overall depressive affect on the market. That is your position. You claimed that some of these contracts are made 2 months in advance of delivery. That is false. When a contract is signed 2 months in advance of delivery, that is a FUTURES BASED CONTRACT, not a cash based contract. Why the hell would anyone sell cattle based on a cash market that was 2 months away?

You don't know what you're talking about again.

Why don't you just admit that you combined futures contracts with cash basis contracts? Per this debate, a forward contract is not a forward contract because CASH BASIS FORWARD CONTRACTS are based on the cash market and delivered a week later. FUTURES BASED FORWARD CONTRACTS are based on the futures market and can be delivered 2 months after the contract is signed.

You are the one diverting the issue here. If not, provide me proof of a "CASH BASIS" forward contract where cattle are delivered 2 months in advance.

You can't admit it when you are clearly wrong like most blamers. What a blamer wants to believe is far more important to them than the facts.


Rod: "Does only one packer in ALL THE US use cash basis forward? Just one? Give your head a shake. At least 3 of our packers use these market destroying contracts. My example uses one packer for simplicity. It could have just as easily used ALL packers, or a certain portion. Obviously, the more packers using cash basis forward contracts, the worse it is for the market."

Unlike you, I am well aware of what marketing options are available. The issue here is not whether multiple packers use these various marketing arrangements, the issue is whether all the packers drop their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market SIMULTANEOUSLY. If they don't, then they cannot affect "THE MARKET".

Again, do you have any proof that the 4 major packers are dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market SIMULTANEOUSLY? If not, then you have nothing to defend your position, AS EXPECTED!

Another example of your spin jobs is spinning my request for proof of isolation of market factors into an assumption that I don't know that market factors can be isolated. You accuse me of doing exactly what it is that you do best. Nobody spins, twists, and diverts more than you you deceptive @$&%[email protected]%!


Rod: "Economists CAN isolate factors that influence the price of a commodity. They do it everyday, all day long, in tens of thousands of schools, companies and government organizations. Just because you don't know how its done doesn't mean it can't be. Quit asking for proof that it can be done, because its a fundamental tennant of ECONOMICS."

Blah, blah, blah! Another spin job!

The issue is not whether or not IT CAN BE DONE (whether market factors can be isolated), the issue here is WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DONE (market factors were isolated).

AGAIN,

Did the Pickett plaintiffs isolate all the factors that were pulling on the market at the time that Tyson dropped their cash price to reflect their formula purchases??

1. YES
2. NO
3. I DON'T KNOW


Quit blustering and start proving things, or just shut the hell up.


Rod: "So once again, I'm going to ask you HOW cash basis forward contracts HELP the market? HOW? Give me proof. Hell, give me a well thought out example of HOW they help."

Cash basis forward contracts help the market by giving producers more marketing options. Most cash basis forward contracts are tied to grid formulas which allow producers to be paid based on the quality merits of their cattle instead of a socialized system of marketing which gives an average price paying too much for the poor cattle and too little for the quality cattle. The type of market that socialists like you are advocating.

Any market is best served with multiple options and no feeders need arrogant blamers like you saving them from these marketing alternatives based on conspiracy theories that you cannot prove.


Rod: "My god man, how do you think Agman arrives at his predictions?"

By isolating all the factors playing on the market. The issue here was never CAN THIS BE DONE, the issue here was always WAS THIS DONE.

Again, the same type of spin job that you accuse me of BUT CANNOT PROVE.

Now answer the question Rod...

Did the Pickett plaintiffs isolate all the factors that were pulling on the market at the time that Tyson dropped their cash price to reflect their formula purchases??

1. YES
2. NO
3. I DON'T KNOW


Quit blustering and start proving things, or just shut the hell up.


Rod: "BS. THEY SIGNED CONTRACTS! They are forced to deliver. Hence the term CAPTIVE. Oie."

YOU ARE 100% WRONG HERE! Every one of those feeders that sold cattle under a cash basis formula forward contract had the option to sell to numerous packers in the cash market as opposed to selling in the formula market.

You don't have a clue Rod!

BRING ME THE PROOF THAT THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS HAD SIGNED CONTRACTS TO DELIVER CASH BASIS FORMULA FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE. BRING IT!!!!


Rod: "You never address the CONTRACTED producers who are FORCED INTO SELLING AT THE LOWER PRICE BECAUSE THEY HAD NO IDEA OF HOW MANY CATTLE WOULD BE DELIVERED BEFORE THEM!!!!"

THOSE PRODUCERS KNEW WHEN THEY AGREED TO DELIVER CASH BASIS FORMULA FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE THAT THEIR BASE PRICE WOULD BE BASED ON THE WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE CASH PRICE FROM THE WEEK PRIOR. THEY KNEW THAT AND THEY AGREED TO SELL THAT WAY AND THEY KNEW THEY COULD SELL IN THE CASH MARKET AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

Nobody needs you packer blamers to save feeders from their marketing decisions. A feeder knows when they agree to sell under a formula marketing arrangement contract how their base price will be derived and they also know that the base price may be higher or lower than this weeks cash price.


Rod: "If you sign a contract stating you will deliver your animals to the packer into the agreed upon grid, you are. Whats the point of the contract then?"

THE FACT REMAINS, THEY COULD HAVE SOLD IN THE CASH MARKET IF THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FORMULA MARKET ARRANGEMENT. NOBODY HAS A GUN TO ANYONE'S HEAD FORCING THEM TO SELL UNDER A CASH BASIS FORMULA FORWARD CONTRACT.


Rod: "SH, until you actually respond directly to each and every point in this post, I'm done. You constantly divert, spin, change topics, demand proof without actually giving any of your own to back your own views, and are flat out wrong so much that you're not worth my time."

Blah, blah, blah! Talk is so cheap!

I've responded directly to each and every PERCEIVED POINT that you THOUGHT YOU HAD.

On this issue, as usual, you were done before you started. Until you can prove that every packer drops his price in the cash market to reflect his purchases in the formula market AT THE SAME DAMN TIME, you got nothing, and neither did the Pickett packer blamers. That's why they lost and that's why you lost this debate as well.

You claim diversion, spin, changing topics, etc. etc. because you cheap talkers always find it easier to make unsupported allegations then to back this cheap talk with actual examples of diversion, spin, changing topics, etc. etc.

All the posts are still there. I diverted nothing. Your stupid example is absolutely shattered by the fact that nobody is forced to sell to just one packer under just one marketing arrangement. Your stupid example is absolutely shattered by the fact that nobody isolated every market factor to determine whether cash prices were falling independent of formula purchases. Your stupid example is absolutely shattered by the absence of proof that all the packers dropped their cash prices simultaneously based on formula purchases.

You were the one who clearly diverted each and every one of those points. I can understand why you believe you have better things to do. If I was as empty handed as you in this debate, I'd find better things to do too.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Rod, do yourself a favor and and lock your gun and liquor cabinets and have your wife hide the keys from you. Count to 10, and if that doesn't quell the urge to beat your head against the wall, count to 100. Be comforted that we all feel your pain.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
AH: Did the Pickett plaintiffs isolate all the factors that were pulling on the market at the time that Tyson dropped their cash price to reflect their formula purchases??

I asked agman for the degree to which the "determinates of demand" for cattle by Schroeder that he had a hand in thinking through affected the price offered in the market.

Of course the silence was deafening because the way the determinates were calculated had to do with long term factors and the calculations in the Pickett case were short term. In other words, the market was going down anyway--the argument was that the manipulation pushed it further and depressed it more than a non manipulated market, and hence the damage to the market.

Agman has not refuted this analysis nor has he provided evidence that the demand determinates in Schroeder's paper were the short term causative factors of market depression.

The plaintiffs did prove their case to the jury in a civil case where the standard of proof is not the one you describe, SH. There is no requirement in civil cases to prove what you ask and rarely is it proven even in criminal cases where the standard is higher. And yet these decisions are honored.

The 11th circuit caved into the rule of gold over the rule of law.

They are a disgrace to our country's justice system, en banc and all.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Rod, do yourself a favor and and lock your gun and liquor cabinets and have your wife hide the keys from you. Count to 10, and if that doesn't quell the urge to beat your head against the wall, count to 100. Be comforted that we all feel your pain.

I'm done with it now, Sandhusker. I grow weary of watching him change the topic everytime he falls behind in the debate or watching him shift his position (didja happen to notice that futures are GUESSES while his good buddy Agman isolates factors that influence the market and he then makes informed decisions on what the prices will be? :roll: )

On an important note, the poll shows an overwhelming majority of producers want some form of a captive supply act. Its now up to producers to actually inform their elected representatives of this. Don't be a silent majority and watch as large corporations walk away with your profits. Call your MP, MLA, Senator, Governor (or whoever) and keep calling until you see results.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Rod, "Don't be a silent majority and watch as large corporations walk away with your profits. Call your MP, MLA, Senator, Governor (or whoever) and keep calling until you see results. "

Exactly. I've talked to my Senators and Rep. and they've all made the comment that they appreciate the input and rely on it to make decisons.
 

Latest posts

Top