Dr. Taylor draws a picture for SH and Agman

[Sandhusker]

SH, "I guess that makes you a chickenshit since you have called me a liar before with nothing to back it."

Just using your own definitions. You don't like it when you get shown to be a hipocrite do you?

 

[Econ101]

I guess that makes you a chickenshit since you have called me a liar before with nothing to back it.

That shoe certainly doesn't fit me since I have backed it and will back it once again.........

Mike Callicrate said ibp had contractual arrangements with other packers. That was proven to be a lie in front of hundreds of cattlemen in Pierre, SD. I have that lie on tape. Bob Peterson offered $1000 to anyone who could provide evidence to back Mike's allegation. No takers. Callicrate immediately started back peddling once caught.

Mike Callicrate said that packers and retailers were making $400 per head profits off the backs of U.S. producers. That was a lie. He now knows what the margins are in the retail beef business but he has been down the packer blaming road for so long he can't be honest with himself at this point.

Mike Callicrate was caught in a lie stating that ibp stepped out of the cash market for an extended period of time. This was proven to be a lie with ibp's actual cattle procurement records. Mike was caught red handed in that lie.

Mike Callicrate said that he would answer my questions on this forum if I revealed my identity. I did, he didn't. Another lie.

Mike Callicrate stated that ibp dismissed jurors because they were black, that was a lie.

Mike Callicrate lied under oath in Pickett.

The guy can not tell the truth but packer blamers like you hold him in high esteem because he tells you what you want to believe.

Go ahead and defend him boys, I would expect nothing less from those who lack integrity. It's not like the truth matters to those who desperately need someone or something to blame.

SH--,

What did Mike C. lie about under oath? At this point I am not defending him, I just want to clear up what made you say he perjured himself.

You have brought up a lot of other stuff in your answer but you still have avoided my question. Stop dancing around with the answer. Please bring it out. Stop the chicken shuffle.

I want to go back to some of your other points you make in this post but first let us get one thing cleared up at a time. Again, your crediblity is at stake. What did Mike C. lie about under oath?

WHAT DID MIKE C. LIE ABOUT UNDER OATH? WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE ADMONISHEMENT JUDGE STROM GAVE THE JURY ABOUT MIKE C.???

 

[Mike]

Congressman Tom Lantos, whose subcommittee conducted the meatpacking inquiry, called IBP "one of the most irresponsible and reckless corporations in America." A Labor Department official called the company's behavior "the worst example of underreporting injuries and illnesses to workers ever encountered in OSHA's sixteen-year history." Nevertheless, Robert L. Peterson was never charged with perjury for his misleading testimony before Congress. Investigators argued that it would be difficult to prove "conclusively" that Peterson had "willfully" lied. In 1987 IBP was fined $2.6 million by OSHA for underreporting injuries and later fined an additional $3.1 million for the high rate of cumulative trauma injuries at the Dakota City plant. After the company introduced a new safety program there, the fines were reduced to $975,000-a sum that might have appeared large at the time, yet represented about one one-hundredth of a percent of IBP's annual revenues.
p185

SH wrote:

Mike Callicrate said ibp had contractual arrangements with other packers. That was proven to be a lie in front of hundreds of cattlemen in Pierre, SD. I have that lie on tape. Bob Peterson offered $1000 to anyone who could provide evidence to back Mike's allegation.

Looks as though Peterson and Callicrate have been down the same road.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "You obviously think a lot more of Tim than I do."

I do!

I have a lot of respect for the whole Schiefelbein family and the quality of the Gelbveih/Angus cattle they raise. I appreciate Tim's willingness to negotiate acceptable grid pricing systems like Angus Gene Net that allows feeders to "bid the grid" when they are plagued with market manipulation conspiracy theories.

Tim Schiefelbein is one of the brightest minds in this industry.

I honestly don't care what you think of him. Your packer blaming bias screams and that packer blaming mentality is one of the biggest cancers in this industry.

To summarize, formula pricing is not necessarily grid pricing, and grid pricing does not necessarily involve formula pricing. Formula pricing usually refers to the method of finding the base price in grid pricing systems. Formula pricing relies on prices discovered for transactions external to the ones involving the formula. The base price in grid pricing may be established by a formula but may also be negotiated between feeders and packers.

I don't have any problems with that definition. In fact, I like it.

If Swift's formulas revolve around a "plant average" or "USDA weekly weighted average" base price (defined as "formula" by you), then naturally formula/grid would be considered one in the same by Swift.

That's just common sense.

Somewhere, someone redefined it, which in this case, I believe it adds clarity to the issue.

To your packer blaming assertion that Tim lied, how can Tim lie by suggesting "formula" and "grid pricing" is one in the same WHEN HE WAS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE GELBVEIH ALLIANCE GRID which was one of the very first pricing grids out there???

Tim originated the Gelbveih alliance grid before these economists redefined "formula pricing"

Of these methods, all involve formula pricing except where base prices are established by negotiation. Thus, grid pricing is not necessarily similar to formula pricing. Formulas have one thing in common; all are based on some external price.

Within that phrase, you can plainly see why grid pricing and formula pricing would be considered one in the same by many within this industry. MOST GRIDS INVOLVE FORMULA PRICING.

That doesn't make Tim wrong and you and these economists right, it just means each defined it differently.

I'm going to go with your definition because it adds clarity.

Which bodes the question, who has the right to define it? The originator of one of the very first grid pricing formulas or economists after the fact?

I sincerely thank you for posting this and will keep this definition in mind from here on out because I believe it adds clarity to the issue.

Again, thank you for posting this!


To give FURTHER credit where credit is due, I talked to a friend of mine last night that recently sold cattle on the Angus Gene Net grid (Swift) and he confirmed what you have stated in that the Angus Gene Net grid does NOW require a Monday committment. That was news to me.

When I sold cattle on the "formula grid pricing", which was 3 - 8 years ago, DURING THE PICKETT ERA, a Monday committment was not required for the formulas I sold on.

With that said, assuming Randy is correct in that ibp has the same "Monday committment" than Randy's statement would make more sense but it's still a far cry from proving market manipulation because Randy had other marketing alternatives available to him and dropping your price as your needs are filled is not market manipulation. If a packer needs the cattle, they are going to have to pay for them.

Assuming the "Monday committment" was a requirement for selling on ibp's formula grid pricing, that would bother me a little too but my response would have been, "I guess I'll sell to someone who doesn't have a bunch of formula cattle committed that are waiting on a cash price to be established."

Obviously the ibp buyer didn't need the cattle or he would have paid the price.

The bottom line is that Randy Stevenson had other numerous marketing options available to him and ibp dropping their price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation.

In fairness to Randy, I wouldn't like the idea of having my cash cattle carry the formula cattle base price that had already been purchased.

Now that you have perked my curiousity in "formula pricing" I am going to do a little checking and find out how many other grids now require a Monday morning committment to pricing.

I thank you for finally presenting an argument with MORE validity than normal. LOL!

I expect you to give me the same objectivity that I have given you. I didn't Sandhusker this by diverting and not giving you the credit you were due. I played it straight knowing how the sharks will have a feeding frenzy so I expect the same in return. Fair enough?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

That doesn't make Tim wrong and you and these economists right, it just means each defined it differently.

I'm going to go with your definition because it adds clarity.

Which bodes the question, who has the right to define it? The originator of one of the very first grid pricing formulas or economists after the fact?

I sincerely thank you for posting this and will keep this definition in mind from here on out because I believe it adds clarity to the issue.

Again, thank you for posting this!


To give FURTHER credit where credit is due, I talked to a friend of mine last night that recently sold cattle on the Angus Gene Net grid (Swift) and he confirmed what you have stated in that the Angus Gene Net grid does NOW require a Monday committment. That was news to me.

BY SH.

SH, to the economists, the definition of formula and grid had little to do with the arguments of the case, they were just words describing different types of marketing in the cattle business. The term "captive supplies", which may included subsets of the two definitions or the whole set of the definition was the issue. All your esoteric arguments over definitions are just diverticuli but I am glad to see that you will correct yourself when confronted with reality.

I am still wanting to know what Mike C. lied to under oath in the Pickett trial that the judge admonished him for. Please inform us as you made the allegation. It has always been my position to look at the evidence presented in the trial that was presented to the jury and see if the jury or Judge Strom had a problem. You have made the allegation about Mike C. and since you have an obvious dislike for Mike, I would not like your interpretation or Judge Strom's interpretation, but I want to know the actual perjury you accuse him of. In the U.S., the interpretation of evidence belongs to the jury. If a judge or appellate court disagrees with this interpretation, then they have the burden of proof in their decision. They may not offer "no scintilla" of evidence to overturn a jury. They must offer facts that can stand up to judicial review.

WHAT DID MIKE C. LIE UNDER OATH ABOUT IN THE PICKETT CASE?

If you can not back up your allegations, then I would like a retraction similar to the one offered above. Please answer my question. Did Mike lie about having to go to the bathroom when he really did not? What was the lie? Ask Agman if you don't have the answer. He is the self proclaimed expert on the trial record.

 

[Mike]

Econ, Here is what another U.S. District Court Judge thought about Mike C.'s credibility: Judge Charles B. Kornmann..................

"¶38] Defendant National Beef challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as a class representative, citing questions as to credibility. I am very concerned about what happened in the trial before Judge Lyle Strom in Alabama. Judge Strom is a very mild mannered and fair judge. I have a great deal of respect for him. He would be very hesitant and careful before concluding that a witness had testified untruthfully. He did so conclude with regard to Mr. Callicrate. He also instructed the jury accordingly, a very unusual step for a judge to take without charges of perjury. Again, Judge Strom would not have done that had he not felt strongly that such instruction was appropriate. I am thus very concerned about Mr. Callicrate and I would examine very carefully any testimony he might offer. I also realize that Mr. Callicrate steadfastly maintains that some of his testimony before Judge Strom was simply a mistake and not perjury. I was not there to hear the testimony. Apparently, judging by the size of the verdict, the jury members were not troubled by the testimony. Having said all this, I will not deny Mr. Callicrate status as a class representative on this basis. I have never had a problem controlling lawyers and parties appearing in my court and I will manage this lawsuit as I do other actions. I also have confidence in the abilities of counsel for plaintiffs to control their clients. I believe they will not permit any witness, whether a client or not, to advance claims without checking carefully to be sure that there is a proper foundation for such testimony and claims.

[¶39] National Beef also attacks Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative based upon his crusade against the defendant packers. Mr. Callicrate is certainly hostile to packers. He has made some rather outlandish statements about packers. That said, there is no question that Callicrate will vigorously litigate the class' claims. The fact that National Beef dedicates ten pages in its brief attacking Mr. Callicrate's representative status may suggest either that there is no other legitimate reason to deny class certification or that National Beef does not wish to litigate against an experienced and vigorous litigator. I will not disqualify Mr. Callicrate on the basis urged.

[¶40] Excel challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative, calling him "a one-man litigation machine" and claiming that he "has an uneasy relationship with the truth." I will not deny Mr. Callicrate the status of a class representative.

[¶41] National Beef has filed a supplemental memorandum (Doc. 129) seeking to disqualify Mr. Callicrate. National Beef's claim is that Mr. Callicrate was an investor in Ranch Foods Direct LLC which entity purchased fed cattle and thus "took advantage" of the USDA errors. This claim is without legal merit. First, Ranch Foods Direct LLC does not seek to represent any class. It is not a plaintiff. It is a separate entity from Mr. Callicrate. Second, even if Mr. Callicrate was the sole investor in the limited liability company, it would be totally immaterial whether such entity profited from USDA errors. As I have already observed, if producers who sold fed cattle "too cheap" to Ranch Foods wish to pursue litigation, they can do so. None of this has anything to do with plaintiffs vis a vis defendants.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ., you are wasting your time.

If you refuse to present the evidence that proved the market manipulation allegation in Pickett vs. ibp, I will not conduct the research to answer your question regarding Mike Callicrate lying under oath.

That information has already been presented, look it up.

It's that simple.

Econ. 101: ".....I am glad to see that you will correct yourself when confronted with reality."

I have no problem acknowledging the facts but I have nothing to correct. I have sold cattle on grids during the Pickett era that did not require Monday committment and definitions of formula and grid pricing vary.

OCM and I each have a better understanding of the other's position but no proof of market manipulation exists.

What the hell would you know about reality? You are so naive that you think this week's cash market should be reflective of last week's formula pricing with no consideration to normal supply and demand factors.

Your ignorance is not even worth responding to but I do for entertainment reasons.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH,

Is the post by regular Mike the basis for you calling Mike C. a perjurer? From what I read, there was no indication of that. This seemed like a person who wished to litigate the issues vigorously. It looks like the packer lawyers gave Judge Strom a lot of "junk" to read just so Mike C. would not be in the class and to discredit a potential witness before the trial. It did not work. Why are you still doing it?

If this is all you are basing your claims on you need to have your own vocabulary reserved just for the words you want to use the way you want to use them.

WHAT DID MIKE C. LIE ABOUT UNDER OATH AND WHAT DID JUDGE STROM REFERENCE TO MIKE C.'S TESTIMONY? WHY DID YOU CALL HIM A PERJURER IN THE PICKETT CASE?

 

[Anonymous]

Econ., you are wasting your time.

If you refuse to present the evidence that proved the market manipulation allegation in Pickett vs. ibp, I will not conduct the research to answer your question regarding Mike Callicrate lying under oath.

That information has already been presented, look it up.

It's that simple.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Econ., you are wasting your time.

If you refuse to present the evidence that proved the market manipulation allegation in Pickett vs. ibp, I will not conduct the research to answer your question regarding Mike Callicrate lying under oath.

That information has already been presented, look it up.

It's that simple.



~SH~

You just make up things, don't you? What was Mike lying about? You made the allegation and I am calling your hand on it. If you get the packers to release their OLD data that Taylor had through discovery, I could run the analysis and tell you if there was hanky panky going on. The jurors believed it and I have seen nothing from Judge Strom or the appellate court that is more than a scintilla of an argument against his expertise. What exactly did Mike lie about? Just say it in your own words, paraphrase if you will. What did he lie about?

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "You just make up things, don't you?"

Yeh, that must be it.

Judge Strom must have made it up too when he instructed the jurors to disregard Mike's testimony.

You made the allegation that ibp manipulated markets and I am calling your hand on it.

Where is your proof?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Econ. 101: "You just make up things, don't you?"

Yeh, that must be it.

Judge Strom must have made it up too when he instructed the jurors to disregard Mike's testimony.

You made the allegation that ibp manipulated markets and I am calling your hand on it.

Where is your proof?



~SH~

What did he lie about?

 

[Anonymous]

Where is your proof?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

You made the allegation of perjury, not I. Where is your proof?

 

[Jason]

Econ., you are wasting your time.



~SH~

Scott I have to correct you slightly on this one. Econ is wasting everyone's time.

He twisted in a circle and then claimed victory when I showed him where he agreed with basic economic facts then went 180 degrees oposite to claim Pickett was right.

 

[Econ101]

Econ., you are wasting your time.



~SH~

Scott I have to correct you slightly on this one. Econ is wasting everyone's time.

He twisted in a circle and then claimed victory when I showed him where he agreed with basic economic facts then went 180 degrees oposite to claim Pickett was right.

Say what Jason? Where? Please do tell.

In fact you, Jason are the one who claimed that two other buyers is all a seller needs in the fat cattle business. You made that argument, not I. Canadians have two other buyers for their cattle other than the U.S. so by your reasoning, you are getting a fair price for your cattle now. It just shows how ridiculous your and SH's arguments are and I don't agree with them. Neither did the jury.

I hope you get your operation reversed.

 

[agman]

Marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices down. This is a very basic Econ 101 showing captive supply causes lower prices, and not merely coincidental. Consider this simple arithmetic using an IBP (now Tyson) cattle buyer statement to OCM Vice President and cattle feeder Randy Stevenson in 2002:

"… an IBP cattle buyer … looked at high quality cattle we had on our show list for sale. The market was about $66/cwt in the cash market, based on live weight. (He) was very complimentary of our cattle's quality. He said his hands were tied and he could not offer more for the cattle, despite their above average quality. (He) said 'In the old days I would have been able to offer $67.50 for these cattle, but now paying more would screw up 20,000 formula cattle.' It was completely clear to me that (the buyer) was telling me paying a higher price for out cattle would influence prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, before the transaction involving our cattle occurred. We lost money in this deal because IBP would not allow its buyer to engage in competitive bidding."

Suppose that the base price for the 20,000 formula contract cattle was the "top-of-the-market" price. We know such contracts exist. Also suppose that another packer – maybe a very small but competitive packer – had already established the weekly top-of-the-market price at $66.00. If the Tyson buyer pays Randy an additional $1.50/cwt ($18/head) for his pen of 1,000 high quality cattle, then the "additional cost" is the extra $18,000 for Randy's cattle, plus an extra $360,000 on the 20,000 head of formula cattle. Paying Randy an extra buck fifty on 1,000 head would have cost Tyson an extra $378,000. Offering $67.50 for Randy's 1,000 high quality cattle in a market with captive supply is the equivalent of offering $117.00/cwt in a cash market without captive supply – both increase Tyson's cattle costs $378,000.

Captive supply contracts provide packers committed cattle so they are not as hungry to increase bids to fill out their plant capacity, and also create extreme incentives to underbid, costing Randy $18,000 in this illustration and gaining Tyson $378,000. In the jargon of economics, marginal cost of slaughter cattle is higher to the buyer because of the marketing agreements tied to cash price, thus causing cash price to be lower than it would without such captive arrangements. Buyers get it. Independent sellers get it. Why some pundits don't "get it" remains a mystery. CRT


Cause and Effect - Problem with Base Price Tied to Cash Price: "In the old days I would have been able to offer you $67.50 for these cattle (on a $66 market), but now paying more would screw up 20,000 formula cattle." Statement made by an IBP cattle buyer to Randy Stevenson, Sept. 17, 2002

___________________

Illustration of the Problem: Base Price Tied to Cash Price

Suppose that the base price for the 20,000 head of formula cattle was the top-of-the-market price
Suppose that the top-of-the-market price had already been established at $66 by another packer
If the buyer pays Randy an additional $1.50/cwt for his pen of 100 high quality cattle
- Then the "additional cost" is NOT just the extra $1,800 for Randy's cattle
- But an extra $360,000 for the 20,000 head of formula cattle
- Paying Randy an extra $1.50 on only 100 head would have cost IBP an extra $361,800
___________________

Illustration of the Problem: Base Price Tied to Cash Price

If IBP had paid Randy $67.50/cwt in a cash market without captive cattle, the total cost to
IBP would have been $81,000.
But because of the captive cattle, the cost to IBP for Randy's cattle (at $67.50) would have
been $361,800.
- Cost of Randy's cattle to IBP would have been $301.50/cwt, not $67.50/cwt
Effect: Softens bids, causes lower cash prices

There is nothing to suggest a lower bid would not have occurred if they owned those same cattle in the cash market. Total supply dictates the price trend indpendent of so called "captive supply".

 

[agman]

Econ, Here is what another U.S. District Court Judge thought about Mike C.'s credibility: Judge Charles B. Kornmann..................

"¶38] Defendant National Beef challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as a class representative, citing questions as to credibility. I am very concerned about what happened in the trial before Judge Lyle Strom in Alabama. Judge Strom is a very mild mannered and fair judge. I have a great deal of respect for him. He would be very hesitant and careful before concluding that a witness had testified untruthfully. He did so conclude with regard to Mr. Callicrate. He also instructed the jury accordingly, a very unusual step for a judge to take without charges of perjury. Again, Judge Strom would not have done that had he not felt strongly that such instruction was appropriate. I am thus very concerned about Mr. Callicrate and I would examine very carefully any testimony he might offer. I also realize that Mr. Callicrate steadfastly maintains that some of his testimony before Judge Strom was simply a mistake and not perjury. I was not there to hear the testimony. Apparently, judging by the size of the verdict, the jury members were not troubled by the testimony. Having said all this, I will not deny Mr. Callicrate status as a class representative on this basis. I have never had a problem controlling lawyers and parties appearing in my court and I will manage this lawsuit as I do other actions. I also have confidence in the abilities of counsel for plaintiffs to control their clients. I believe they will not permit any witness, whether a client or not, to advance claims without checking carefully to be sure that there is a proper foundation for such testimony and claims.

[¶39] National Beef also attacks Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative based upon his crusade against the defendant packers. Mr. Callicrate is certainly hostile to packers. He has made some rather outlandish statements about packers. That said, there is no question that Callicrate will vigorously litigate the class' claims. The fact that National Beef dedicates ten pages in its brief attacking Mr. Callicrate's representative status may suggest either that there is no other legitimate reason to deny class certification or that National Beef does not wish to litigate against an experienced and vigorous litigator. I will not disqualify Mr. Callicrate on the basis urged.

[¶40] Excel challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative, calling him "a one-man litigation machine" and claiming that he "has an uneasy relationship with the truth." I will not deny Mr. Callicrate the status of a class representative.

[¶41] National Beef has filed a supplemental memorandum (Doc. 129) seeking to disqualify Mr. Callicrate. National Beef's claim is that Mr. Callicrate was an investor in Ranch Foods Direct LLC which entity purchased fed cattle and thus "took advantage" of the USDA errors. This claim is without legal merit. First, Ranch Foods Direct LLC does not seek to represent any class. It is not a plaintiff. It is a separate entity from Mr. Callicrate. Second, even if Mr. Callicrate was the sole investor in the limited liability company, it would be totally immaterial whether such entity profited from USDA errors. As I have already observed, if producers who sold fed cattle "too cheap" to Ranch Foods wish to pursue litigation, they can do so. None of this has anything to do with plaintiffs vis a vis defendants.

Is it not covenient that you present two different cases. On differs vastly from the other. My reference is to Pickett and the current ongoing litigation in South Dakota from which the aformentiond is copied.


That total joke of a lawsuit is going down in flames big time. One more group of losers going down.

 

[agman]

You made the allegation of perjury, not I. Where is your proof?

Perhaps if you would read the testimaony instead of trying to convince youself of your brilliance you would answer your own question. By your own admission you have not read the testimony so what makes you think you know anything other than heresay per this case?

 

[agman]

Econ101...[WHAT DID MIKE C. LIE UNDER OATH ABOUT IN THE PICKETT CASE?

If you can not back up your allegations, then I would like a retraction similar to the one offered above. Please answer my question. Did Mike lie about having to go to the bathroom when he really did not? What was the lie? Ask Agman if you don't have the answer. He is the self proclaimed expert on the trial record.[/quote]

Response....Perhaps you would not ask such a stupid question if you read the testimony. No, you just prefer to make a statement without any factual support then accuse the other person of the same.

I don't consider myself an expert on the trail record although it is very apparent that having access to all the testimony puts me miles ahead of you. As I have previously stated, you are as phony as they come. In cattleman's term "you are all hat and no cattle".

BTW, in a previous section you quote me as saying Dr Azzam showed that captive supply lowered prices. Is that all I said on more than one occasion or is there much more to Dr Azzam'z statement that you conveniently overlooked or have you just made a blatant and calculated lie to support your bias? Which is it?