Dr. Taylor draws a picture for SH and Agman

[Econ101]

SH,

You simplify and recharacterize so that you can win arguments that were never made.

SH--

Did you prove that live cattle prices IN THE U.S. do not track with boxed beef prices on a weekly basis?

This may be the case or may not be the case. It has nothing to do with the argument Pickett made. The spread between the live cattle prices and boxed beef prices was never the question. The spread between captive supply and the cash market was the question. This was only an excuse by you. It was proven wrong in the Canadian case. This is a non sequitur. Diverticuli.

SH--

You are so ignorant of this industry that you didn't even realize that USDA graders grade the cattle and not the packers.

I never made the statement you insinuate, I was talking about the side bar discussion as reported on page 4 of 10 of http://www.agweb.com/news_printer.asp?articleID=108254 as reported by Steve Cornett 5/9/2004. Please stop misquoting me.

SH--

You are so ignorant of this industry that you actually thought last weeks cash price and this weeks cash price should be the same.

Please do not misquote me again on this one as it shows your complete lack of comprehension of the arguments. I said there should not be a statistically significant difference in price between the cash and the captive supply cattle for the same quality or value. When I say statistically significant, I allow for the same type of market anomolies I discussed before. I would even allow for extra value that formula or grid pricing could bring to the equation. If there is extra value for formula or grid, it would have shown up during the time period where cash was higher too. It did not as you point out.

Pricing of formula cattle on a previous week's cash price instead of having price discovery on those cattle too, thins the cash market and allows for market manipulation of the cash market. Market power is leveraged by the amount of cattle in captive supply. That is pretty easy to see.

Captive supply cattle can never make cattle markets move up. The more captive supply there is, the more leverage market manipulators have in influencing the cash market. Thus, the price signals of real markets can be altered. This is called market failure.

Definitions:

Market failure- means that prices fail to provide the proper signals to consumers and producer, so the market does not operate efficiently.

Market power- The ability to profitably affect price. Refers to either monopsony or monopoly power.


Note that market power says "affect" it does not mean control. This is another one of your tactics; change the argument to control so if you can prove that absolute contol did not occur. Diverticuli.

It is a wonder that with so much hot air you don't float off. Is there a string tied to you? I bet it is being held by the packers.

 

[agman]

Kindergarten,

What is your proof of market manipulation to support your position?

Nothing short of proof will support your position.

What is your proof?

BTW, the asterisks are automatic. The computer will read "SH" followed by "it" as a cuss word. I have seen that happen many times. The computer reads that as sh*t.

Comprende'?


~SH~

Glad to know you know yourself.

The proof was in the discovery data provided by IBP. The 12 jurors believed it and that is what should matter.

You probably think there was never a man on the moon.

I would not be able to explain the mathematics to you because you can not even answer a SIMPLE math problem. Did you graduate HS?

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

There was no proof. What don't you understand about that phrase. If there was vailid eveidence judge Strom would not have discarded the jury verdict.

Instead of talking to Taylor as you claim you should see the testimony and the cross exam. He got shredded - period.

Why does the law have a provision for the judge to overturn a jury verdict if it is clear that the jurors did not understand the testimony provided?

 

[Mike]

aaagman wrote:

Why does the law have a provision for the judge to overturn a jury verdict if it is clear that the jurors did not understand the testimony provided?

Did Judge Strom ask the jurors if they understood the testimony, or did he just take it upon himself to assume that they didn't understand it?

How is it "CLEAR" that the jurors didn't understand the testimony? It was clear to me that they "DID" understand the testimony. :???:

Your bias is so evident, I think it impossible for you to see the truth here.

The jurors are P.O'd about this agman, the truth will be known...........

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten,

What is your proof of market manipulation to support your position?

Nothing short of proof will support your position.

What is your proof?

BTW, the asterisks are automatic. The computer will read "SH" followed by "it" as a cuss word. I have seen that happen many times. The computer reads that as sh*t.

Comprende'?


~SH~

Glad to know you know yourself.

The proof was in the discovery data provided by IBP. The 12 jurors believed it and that is what should matter.

You probably think there was never a man on the moon.

I would not be able to explain the mathematics to you because you can not even answer a SIMPLE math problem. Did you graduate HS?

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

There was no proof. What don't you understand about that phrase. If there was vailid eveidence judge Strom would not have discarded the jury verdict.

Instead of talking to Taylor as you claim you should see the testimony and the cross exam. He got shredded - period.

Why does the law have a provision for the judge to overturn a jury verdict if it is clear that the jurors did not understand the testimony provided?

If there was no proof there should never have been the charade of a trial. IBP tried to make that happen and they could not.

The jury was to be the judge of whether or not Taylor was shredded on cross exam, not anyone else.

What proof was there that the jury did not understand the testimony provided? Get ready to prove how you got pi.

I do have one question, Agman. I ran across this quote from an article on the web. It sounds a lot like you. I am not accusing you of anything but here is the quote:

"Given the severity of the hurricane, the agricultural losses could have been much greater," Johanns said. "With that said, there is a long road ahead for many of our producers who face infrastructure and long-term losses not accounted for in this assessment. USDA is committed to supporting producers throughout long and short term recovery."

The colloquialisms are interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "You simplify and recharacterize so that you can win arguments that were never made."

Oh bullsh*t!

That is so much easier to say than to prove isn't it? Just like most of your baseless packer allegations.

That's precisely why I usually respond to direct quotes knowing that deceptive individuals like yourself will try to deny what they have stated previously when confronted with the facts.

Kindergarten: "The spread between the live cattle prices and boxed beef prices was never the question. The spread between captive supply and the cash market was the question."

The spread between the formula price and the cash market is affected by the spread between this weeks boxed beef prices and last week's boxed beef prices. If you weren't so ignorant you would understand that.

SH (previous): "You are so ignorant of this industry that you didn't even realize that USDA graders grade the cattle and not the packers."

Kindergarten (in response): "I never made the statement you insinuate, I was talking about the side bar discussion as reported on page 4 of 10 of http://www.agweb.com/news_printer.asp?articleID=108254 as reported by Steve Cornett 5/9/2004. Please stop misquoting me."

You should know better than to try denying what you have stated previously Kindergarten. You can get away with that deception other places but not here.

Kindergarten: "Was anyone outside of packers allowed into slaughter floor to verify that this was the case? How do cattlemen know that they are being paid based on yield/grade (which translates into value in price per lb.) if they do not have access to the slaughter floors?"

You are so ignorant of this issue that you didn't even realize USDA graders are grading these cattle and a higher quality grade and Yield grade is in the best interest of both the packer and the feeder.

More ignorance on your part.

Kindergarten: "Please do not misquote me again on this one as it shows your complete lack of comprehension of the arguments."

There you go again, denying your previous position. I don't need to requote you on this as everyone has read it repeatedly. You have stated that any difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation which is total bullsh*t because this week's cash price will only be the same as this week's formula price, WHICH IS BASED ON LAST WEEKS CASH PRICE, if there was no change in normal supply and demand factors from this week to last week.

Without having sorted out the normal supply and demand variables, your argument of a difference in cash price and formula price as being proof of market manipulation is absolutely flawed, like most of your worthless arguments.

Kindergarten: "I said there should not be a statistically significant difference in price between the cash and the captive supply cattle for the same quality or value."

Another ignorant statement because value is not determined until the carcass is graded.

Kindergarten: "When I say statistically significant, I allow for the same type of market anomolies I discussed before. I would even allow for extra value that formula or grid pricing could bring to the equation. If there is extra value for formula or grid, it would have shown up during the time period where cash was higher too."

Until you actually break out all the normal day to day supply and demand factors that affect price, there is no way in hell you can make an objective comparison between this week's formula price and this week's cash price. You are a fool to sugget otherwise.

Kindergarten: "Pricing of formula cattle on a previous week's cash price instead of having price discovery on those cattle too, thins the cash market and allows for market manipulation of the cash market."

Bullsh*t!

1. If that was the case the captive supply price would always be higher than the cash price and that is absolutely not the case.

2. Feeders have numerous marketing options available to them making the market manipulation allegation worthless.

You are still trying to defend the indefensible. You make an incorrect statement and I correct it with absolute, undisputable evidence (times when the cash market is higher than the formula market) yet you desperately cling to your "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES".

You couldn't be more wrong on that!

Kindergarten: "Market power is leveraged by the amount of cattle in captive supply."

Only if all the packers had the same level of captive supply within the same week WHICH THEY DON'T and lowering your price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation.

Your argument is empty!

Kindergarten: "Captive supply cattle can never make cattle markets move up. The more captive supply there is, the more leverage market manipulators have in influencing the cash market. Thus, the price signals of real markets can be altered. This is called market failure.

Definitions:

Market failure- means that prices fail to provide the proper signals to consumers and producer, so the market does not operate efficiently.

Market power- The ability to profitably affect price. Refers to either monopsony or monopoly power."

Dropping your price to reflect having a portion of your needs met will never be market manipulation.

Having numerous marketing alternatives available to you with numerous packers makes the market manipulation conspiracy theory absolutely worthless.

Kindergarten: "It is a wonder that with so much hot air you don't float off. Is there a string tied to you? I bet it is being held by the packers."

Talk is so cheap with you packer blamers. You haven't contradicted a single thing I have posted yet with facts to the contrary. All you can do is keep staggering back into the bar to take another beating on your relentless unsupported "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES".

I told you my only bias if truthful information. Unlike you and your packer blaming cohorts, I am not driven by a need to blame someone else for my failures.

YOU STILL GOT NOTHING!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "What proof was there that the jury did not understand the testimony provided?"

Their verdict was proof of that. How could they reach the conclusion that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. That was part of Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors. He tried to guide them into making the right decision but they still couldn't get it. They couldn't even tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures. They couldn't understand that this week's cash price and this week's formula price are derived from supply and demand factors for seperate weeks. They were just like you in that aspect. They couldn't understand that lowering your cash price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation. They were just like you in that aspect too. They couldn't understand that the plaintiffs had many other market options available to them. They couldn't understand the definition of "MARKET MANIPULATION". They couldn't understand that Taylor's theories were just that, "THEORIES".

An easier question is, what proof can you bring to suggest that the jurors made the correct decision?

You keep ignoring that fundamental question like the plague.


~SH~

 

[Mike]

They couldn't even tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures.

Did anyone ask?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes they were asked!

Why would Judge Strom note that they couldn't tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures if nobody had even asked?

That makes a lot of sense Mike!

What are you going to pull out of your hat next?

You claim to want to know both sides of this issue but your packer blaming bias screams.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Having a legitimate reason has NOTHING to do with whether or not a crime was committed. Judge Strom detoured the trial with that requirement right there.

 

[Mike]

Yes they were asked!

Why would Judge Strom note that they couldn't tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures if nobody had even asked?

That makes a lot of sense Mike!

What are you going to pull out of your hat next?

You claim to want to know both sides of this issue but your packer blaming bias screams.

~SH~

Well, why did Judge Strom say in his opinion that it would be "impermissable for the Court to speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount to be the correct calculation of damages"?

Also" The Court recognizes that the jury was never asked to quantify damages suffered solely by class members."

You might be the one pulling crap out of your hat. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "What proof was there that the jury did not understand the testimony provided?"

Their verdict was proof of that. How could they reach the conclusion that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. That was part of Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors. He tried to guide them into making the right decision but they still couldn't get it. They couldn't even tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures. They couldn't understand that this week's cash price and this week's formula price are derived from supply and demand factors for seperate weeks. They were just like you in that aspect. They couldn't understand that lowering your cash price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation. They were just like you in that aspect too. They couldn't understand that the plaintiffs had many other market options available to them. They couldn't understand the definition of "MARKET MANIPULATION". They couldn't understand that Taylor's theories were just that, "THEORIES".

An easier question is, what proof can you bring to suggest that the jurors made the correct decision?

You keep ignoring that fundamental question like the plague.


~SH~

From what you are saying it sounds a lot like the judge was trying to get the verdict he wanted.

As far as proof, it was the evidence presented at the trial that the jury was to judge. They did. It was unanimous.

Have you figured out how to calculate pi? You can not even get the basic math right.

SH, if you want the proof, go get it from Agman. He is the self proclaimed expert of the court trial.

On the damages, I would say the jury was being nice to Tyson/IBP.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "On the damages, I would say the jury was being nice to Tyson/IBP."

You would because you're just that ignorant!

Those damages, had they been awarded, would have come at the expense of other producers if Tyson's beef packing plants would have even remained operable. Had they closed the plaintiffs would have realized the full extent of their ignorance.


~SH~

 

[agman]

Kindergarten: "What proof was there that the jury did not understand the testimony provided?"

Their verdict was proof of that. How could they reach the conclusion that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. That was part of Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors. He tried to guide them into making the right decision but they still couldn't get it. They couldn't even tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures. They couldn't understand that this week's cash price and this week's formula price are derived from supply and demand factors for seperate weeks. They were just like you in that aspect. They couldn't understand that lowering your cash price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation. They were just like you in that aspect too. They couldn't understand that the plaintiffs had many other market options available to them. They couldn't understand the definition of "MARKET MANIPULATION". They couldn't understand that Taylor's theories were just that, "THEORIES".

An easier question is, what proof can you bring to suggest that the jurors made the correct decision?

You keep ignoring that fundamental question like the plague.


~SH~

From what you are saying it sounds a lot like the judge was trying to get the verdict he wanted.

As far as proof, it was the evidence presented at the trial that the jury was to judge. They did. It was unanimous.

Have you figured out how to calculate pi? You can not even get the basic math right.

SH, if you want the proof, go get it from Agman. He is the self proclaimed expert of the court trial.

On the damages, I would say the jury was being nice to Tyson/IBP.

I am not a self proclaimed expert on the court trail but I was involved and do have access to all the transcripts. The mere fact that I have read all the testimony including the cross exam, particularly that of Dr Taylor, puts me miles ahead of your understanding of the facts or lack thereof that were presented at trial.

You have presented exactly what the plaintiffs presented - unsubstantiated claims that got shredded by factual data presented by the defendants. The one difference in your claims is that they are always linked to some back room deal. When you have nothing to offer then that is your recourse which is born out of paranoia and ignorance of the all the facts presented.

Tell all of us, what kinds of back room deal occurred with Judge Cebull since he copied verbatim his opinion, including spelling errors, from the plaintiffs brief. Have your so called friends or contacts at the Justice Department looked into that situation-if not, why not? You, being the espoused crusader of the Justice system, should be all over that phony situation.

Why have you failed to answer my question regarding the legality of Judge Strom overturning the jury verdict? Did he just make up that law or was the existing law changed also just to accomadate this case?!!!

I really got a laugh out of your claimed discovery of your phone tap. Yes, I am certain you looked him right in the eyes. Who was it, the DISH man at the neighbors house? Given your MO if an illegal tap was actually occurring I am certain you would have taken legal action and filed your case in Alabama!! Give the world a break from your line of fantasies.

 

[Sandhusker]

Please explain this, Agman; If the plaintiff's expert witness' testimony is shredded, why would a jury vote unanimous for the plaintiff? :shock: Who do you expect to believe that?

Maybe I should ask what your definitin of "shredded" is.

 

[Murgen]

 

[Econ101]

Their verdict was proof of that. How could they reach the conclusion that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. That was part of Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors. He tried to guide them into making the right decision but they still couldn't get it. They couldn't even tell anyone how they had derived their damage figures. They couldn't understand that this week's cash price and this week's formula price are derived from supply and demand factors for separate weeks. They were just like you in that aspect. They couldn't understand that lowering your cash price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation. They were just like you in that aspect too. They couldn't understand that the plaintiffs had many other market options available to them. They couldn't understand the definition of "MARKET MANIPULATION". They couldn't understand that Taylor's theories were just that, "THEORIES".

An easier question is, what proof can you bring to suggest that the jurors made the correct decision?

You keep ignoring that fundamental question like the plague.


~SH~

From what you are saying it sounds a lot like the judge was trying to get the verdict he wanted.

As far as proof, it was the evidence presented at the trial that the jury was to judge. They did. It was unanimous.

Have you figured out how to calculate pi? You can not even get the basic math right.

SH, if you want the proof, go get it from Agman. He is the self proclaimed expert of the court trial.

On the damages, I would say the jury was being nice to Tyson/IBP.

I am not a self proclaimed expert on the court trail but I was involved and do have access to all the transcripts. The mere fact that I have read all the testimony including the cross exam, particularly that of Dr Taylor, puts me miles ahead of your understanding of the facts or lack thereof that were presented at trial.

You have presented exactly what the plaintiffs presented - unsubstantiated claims that got shredded by factual data presented by the defendants. The one difference in your claims is that they are always linked to some back room deal. When you have nothing to offer then that is your recourse which is born out of paranoia and ignorance of the all the facts presented.

Tell all of us, what kinds of back room deal occurred with Judge Cebull since he copied verbatim his opinion, including spelling errors, from the plaintiffs brief. Have your so called friends or contacts at the Justice Department looked into that situation-if not, why not? You, being the espoused crusader of the Justice system, should be all over that phony situation.

Why have you failed to answer my question regarding the legality of Judge Strom overturning the jury verdict? Did he just make up that law or was the existing law changed also just to accommodate this case?!!!

I really got a laugh out of your claimed discovery of your phone tap. Yes, I am certain you looked him right in the eyes. Who was it, the DISH man at the neighbors house? Given your MO if an illegal tap was actually occurring I am certain you would have taken legal action and filed your case in Alabama!! Give the world a break from your line of fantasies.

Agman, I have not read Cebull's brief. I have not even looked into that case. If Cebull thought that the plaintiff's arguments were good enough to put into his brief with spelling errors and all then he obviously wasn't worried about being "caught" putting them in.

An interesting question on the border closing, and it is one that you and SH bring up continually, is how long did the USDA keep the border closed because of the first case of BSE compared to R-Calf. Why did they close the border and why do they change their stance on its reopening? As I understand it, R-Calf's position (I really don't know and this is pure speculation on my part) is if you closed the border for BSE reasons and not using BSE just as an excuse to close the border, why is it opened now? Can and does the USDA close the border on orders from the packers and open them from orders from the packers? These are serious issues of possible abuse of power in our government that need to be asked and answered. R-Calf's argument (again, speculation) is that if you closed it on real BSE reasons then you must not open it on a whim, you must also use the same reasons you closed it to reopen it. Again, who kept the border closed longer, USDA or R-Calf? Who caused more harm and damage to competition and industry concentration? I think rkaiser answered that one.


Your foray into that case is another diverticuli. I am sure there are some serious issues in that case but I have not looked closely into them. Thank you for asking my opinion repeatedly on that issue though. I have stated more than a few times that I believe the credibility of this USDA on BSE are to be questioned. Quite honestly, I think that the BSE issues could have been worked out if both countries were willing to take the health threat side seriously on both sides of the border. It is that important of an issue. That will never happen when the regulatory agencies that oversee the industry are captive to industry interests.

I think that anyone can safely say that with more industry concentration, there are more problems with political and judicial meddling. It has been the history of the meat industry. Read some of that history, Agman. These battles were fought by my great grandfather in Texas. Ranchers and farmers should get a fair shake and with the system we have now, neither the Canadian or U. S. farmers are getting a fair deal. It is appalling to me that there is so much political money going from the packers to the U. S. congress and the committee members that oversee them. It is nothing more than buying votes and in the Pickett decision, buying the judiciary. Just look at former consent decrees issued by previous courts on the market power plays in this industry. It is the same thing all over again. History is repeating itself.

The current republican theory is obviously one that sides with those with money and those willing to give money, and boy is it being given by the packers. I have posted "proof" of this money more than once on this forum. Do you need it again?

As far as your fear mongering over Tyson going out of business, it is over rated. Those packing plants will not just disappear, but maybe the crooks running them will. If that happens the beef industry as a whole is better off. Then we could work on the real answers to the decline in beef consumption/marketing that Murgen offered in a previous post of an article.

Murgen, I think the issues in the beef industry will never be worked out by corrupt packers. Market signals of value will be subservient to the quest for industry concentration and profits. There will not be the strides necessary for improvement of beef consumption that are fair. After the markets do consolidate or reach a certain concentration, there will be more collusion among those remaining and less "little guys" that help keep in check the actions of the big boys. We are probably already there. Pickett showed that the big boys can crush the "little guys" so that there are no countervailing forces in the market.

I am sure that the things in the article you presented will happen, Murgen, but all of the benefits of those actions will accrue to the packers, and not the producers. That is what has happened in the poultry industry and is happening in the pork industry. Beef is going there fast. That is the issue that I want to focus on as I believe industrial structure that enslaves the producers of a "free market" country is no different than the totalitarian communist government on the other side of the big pond. They are just different tools with different names but to the same end. They create a society where the wealth that is created is concentrated in the hands of the few. They stifle freedom and liberty.

As I think about these issues, I am reminded of the barber shop that my grandfather would take me to in Winfield, Louisiana. Winfield is a small town in central Louisiana where Huey Long was from. My grandfather would take me there so I could hear stories about Huey Long and his struggle against the same forces we sit on this forum and talk about. Long understood what was happening to the people around him and tried to do something about it. His favorite political slogan was, "A chicken in every pot." Another irony in this discussion if you think about it.

What is happening to the U.S. political system is no more than a fascist move to the right.

Huey Long put it best when he said:

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised as 100% Americanism."

I am worried about producers like Jason not being given the piece of the pie he helps make. Everyone deserves their fair share. If his piece of the pie is constantly whittled away, he will not recieve the benefits of his actions, someone else will steal it from him. That is the argument I make about the producer surplus and that is one of the reasons why I am so interested in the Pickett case.
]
Call me an alarmist if you want. Some people can not see the forest for the trees. Some people only want you to see the trees.

 

[Anonymous]

More "SPECULATION", "OPINION", "THEORY", and "CONJECTURE" from Kindergarten with not one real life example to back his market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Same-O Kindergarten Economics!



~SH~

 

[Denny]

More "SPECULATION", "OPINION", "THEORY", and "CONJECTURE" from Kindergarten with not one real life example to back his market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Same-O Kindergarten Economics!



~SH~

So ~SH~ what are your calves weighing up to this year..

 

[Anonymous]

Our calves are born in April and usually average around 570 by the first week of Oct. Our herd is younger now so I'm not sure how it will affect their weights. Why do you ask?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH-- Hawker:

More "SPECULATION", "OPINION", "THEORY", and "CONJECTURE" from Kindergarten with not one real life example to back his market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Same-O Kindergarten Economics!



~SH~

It was before the trial and all the data was anylized. After the 12 came back it was no more. As I stated before, just because you feel the world is flat doesn't make it so. Our modern world is built out of reality as we see it and use it. Judgements in this country are to be made by a jury of 12. You just want it to be a jury of 1.


You are beginning to sound more and more like Franz Kafka. Can I get you an apple?

I must dismiss your characterizations: Same-O SH-- Hawker!