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

ECON101, is he peer supported?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
ECON, you have a lot of self processed knowledge, when it comes to the beef/cattle industry.

My question is? With all your knowledge, are you a published authority in this regard?

Have your papers been accepted by your economist peers?

We in this industry have seen many who have come and gone with their failed attempts at actually operating a ranch or cattle operation.

What are your credentials, that may or may not sway our opinions of what is taking place in an industry that the readers of Ranchers.net care very much about?

The true test of a person's credentials would be the acceptance and trust of their peers. Why should we believe you over say Agman, who has published many a paper and has proven his anylasis many times over?

Prove it to me, and you will prove it to many! The ones that post and argue with you are not the only ones learning and trying to decipher what you are writing! But there are many that read, but never post!

Are you a paid employee of any group, as some believe, or are you an independent economist, trying to improve the producers' outlook on the future? Here's your chance to add to your credibility.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Murgen said:
ECON, you have a lot of self processed knowledge, when it comes to the beef/cattle industry.

My question is? With all your knowledge, are you a published authority in this regard?

Have your papers been accepted by your economist peers?

We in this industry have seen many who have come and gone with their failed attempts at actually operating a ranch or cattle operation.

What are your credentials, that may or may not sway our opinions of what is taking place in an industry that the readers of Ranchers.net care very much about?

The true test of a person's credentials would be the acceptance and trust of their peers. Why should we believe you over say Agman, who has published many a paper and has proven his anylasis many times over?

Prove it to me, and you will prove it to many! The ones that post and argue with you are not the only ones learning and trying to decipher what you are writing! But there are many that read, but never post!

Are you a paid employee of any group, as some believe, or are you an independent economist, trying to improve the producers' outlook on the future? Here's your chance to add to your credibility.

I am not a paid employee of any group. The facts surrounding my circumstances would probably blow you away. One day I will reveal them. If you read my posts carefully, you can figure it out. Scarecrow will have to be told unless he is successful with the wizard of oz.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Okay, that's one of the questions answered, you are working voluntarily for some group!

What about the other questions?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Murgen said:
Okay, that's one of the questions answered, you are working voluntarily for some group!

What about the other questions?

No, I am not working with any group. Be careful of the assumptions you make.

One day I will satisfy your curiosity, Murgen. Not today.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Awhile ago you paosted that you were done with Ranchers, I was hoping on that too!

Christmas is coming, why not give me and all the other readers an early gift, show us your credentials.

If you don't have them to give, that's fine, but don't belittle producers as being not intelligent enough to understand the industry that some have been involved with all their lives. Give them a little more credit than that!

Expose yourself now, what are you waiting for, to be proven right, not sure that will ever happen!

Hell, many a person have let me know their idenity by PM, to add to their credibility, and not once have I let on who they were.

Is not the reason you're here to sway opinion and help out the producer, then why not let me know who you are and your credentials? Or will you continue to hide behind an alias, and degrade the rest of us, with your act of superiority? Sway my opinion ECON!

I'm sure I could sit down with anyone on this site and have a lively discussion: Sandhusker, OT, Tommy, Mike, SH, Agman etc. They have all let us know enough about themselves, that we know we stand. We know how we can trust eachother.

You on the other hand have not let us know anything about yourself. Not sure we can trust you.

And stating that you will tell us later, that just breeds further mistrust.

Another example of you not knowing this industry! We are an open bunch, we jump from the bull session to the coffee shop and let others into our lives! Want to join the family ECON?
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
0
Location
southwest corner of the Sandhills
Personally, I think as a general rule, someone would be very foolish to post particular information about themselves on a public board. In PMs, maybe. But not on the board that is Google-able by anyone...

And frankly, I'd be more than a bit hesitant to send my private info to someone who is somewhat hostile. Even via PM...

Just my thoughts. Of course I have no vested interest in any of this anyway. :)
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Murgen said:
Awhile ago you paosted that you were done with Ranchers, I was hoping on that too!

Christmas is coming, why not give me and all the other readers an early gift, show us your credentials.

If you don't have them to give, that's fine, but don't belittle producers as being not intelligent enough to understand the industry that some have been involved with all their lives. Give them a little more credit than that!

Expose yourself now, what are you waiting for, to be proven right, not sure that will ever happen!

Hell, many a person have let me know their idenity by PM, to add to their credibility, and not once have I let on who they were.

Is not the reason you're here to sway opinion and help out the producer, then why not let me know who you are and your credentials? Or will you continue to hide behind an alias, and degrade the rest of us, with your act of superiority? Sway my opinion ECON!

I'm sure I could sit down with anyone on this site and have a lively discussion: Sandhusker, OT, Tommy, Mike, SH, Agman etc. They have all let us know enough about themselves, that we know we stand. We know how we can trust eachother.

You on the other hand have not let us know anything about yourself. Not sure we can trust you.

And stating that you will tell us later, that just breeds further mistrust.

Another example of you not knowing this industry! We are an open bunch, we jump from the bull session to the coffee shop and let others into our lives! Want to join the family ECON?

Murgen, I am not here to belittle you. I am here to challenge you to think. Some on this board have tried to monopolize the thinking on this board. I challenge that. Stop allowing others to think for you.

The best Christmas gift I could give you is to think for yourself and stop being lazy in that respect.

Have a Merry Christmas.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
theHiredMansWife said:
Personally, I think as a general rule, someone would be very foolish to post particular information about themselves on a public board. In PMs, maybe. But not on the board that is Google-able by anyone...

And frankly, I'd be more than a bit hesitant to send my private info to someone who is somewhat hostile. Even via PM...

Just my thoughts. Of course I have no vested interest in any of this anyway. :)

I have to agree-- With the questionable psychological profiles portrayed by some on here who try to threaten, badger, belittle and dominate the board, you probably are better to remain anonymous...I guess it doesn't bother me as much because I worked for 30 years where I was physically threatened, belittled, called names, and had false insinuations & innuendo's made against me by those that could do little else while they were taking a fall-- so I'm used to it...And I prepared myself and my family to be able to handle both the mental and the physical threats.....

Murgen- If its so important to you- why don't you give us your resume!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Personally, I could care less who Conman is. It's obvious to me and a lot of others that he doesn't have a clue about this industry. Those who know what they are talking about can back their positions with supporting facts EVEN IF THOSE FACTS ARE NOT ACCEPTED or prove others wrong with contradicting facts. Any chickensh*t can make empty statements. That takes no courage at all. If Conman had any courage, he would debate Agman on the issue of supply and demand. Instead, he makes his chickensh*t little statements then runs into the corner to see if there is any mindless lemmings out there to take his side. What a pathetic little man. Conman supports a team that has never won a court case then blames that fact on a tainted legal system with no proof to back that allegation either. "FACTUALLY VOID". Conman is a total joke and insults the intelligence of anyone who understands the issues.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Personally, I could care less who Conman is. It's obvious to me and a lot of others that he doesn't have a clue about this industry. Those who know what they are talking about can back their positions with supporting facts EVEN IF THOSE FACTS ARE NOT ACCEPTED or prove others wrong with contradicting facts. Any chickensh*t can make empty statements. That takes no courage at all. If Conman had any courage, he would debate Agman on the issue of supply and demand. Instead, he makes his chickensh*t little statements then runs into the corner to see if there is any mindless lemmings out there to take his side. What a pathetic little man. Conman supports a team that has never won a court case then blames that fact on a tainted legal system with no proof to back that allegation either. "FACTUALLY VOID". Conman is a total joke and insults the intelligence of anyone who understands the issues.


~SH~

With all of the times I have shown that you have had the questions wrong, SH, you should be ashamed. The only way you can win arguments is if you incorrectly paraphrase someone and then argue with yourself. I have posted more information and websites to actual data than you have in the short time I have been on this forum. All anyone can get out of you is a request for them to call your "friend" at Tyson to verify facts. I would insult your intelligence----if you had any.

Follow the yellow brick road. Follow the yellow brick road.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "With all of the times I have shown that you have had the questions wrong, SH, you should be ashamed."

Then your mom woke you up............


Conman: "The only way you can win arguments is if you incorrectly paraphrase someone and then argue with yourself."

Of course, when your ignorance is exposed you claim that you have been taken out of context. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz! Play the victim!

1. You said, "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

2. You thought packers graded their own cattle.

3. You thought there would be "free trim" if the industry reduced the amount of fat on carcasses. You wouldn't explain your "free trim" statement knowing that your pants were already pulled down to your ankles.

4. You didn't realize that Johnanns was talking about BSE testing older cattle were prions would actually show up. You were comparing that to the testing of younger cattle where prions would not show up too ignorant to know the difference.

5. You claim to know that Pickett proved market manipulation yet you admit to never reading the proceedings and refused to present any proof to back that allegation.

6. You thought your phone was being tapped only to later find out that it was the phone company working on your phone line. LOL! That's still funny because it speaks to the heart of your conspiracy mindset.

7. You claim Judge Strom was involved in "behind closed door meetings" with Tyson yet offer no proof to back that allegation either.

8. You have repeatedly claimed market manipulation but you can't offer one stitch of proof to back that allegation either.

9. You can't comprehend the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks.

10. You continually lie about Agman and my positions.


Go ahead Conman, pick one that you believe was taken out of context and lets see if this dog will hunt.

All you can do is "CLAIM" that you were taken out of context to create the "ILLUSION" that you were taken out of context. That's just what a Conman would do.


Conman: "I have posted more information and websites to actual data than you have in the short time I have been on this forum."

Bully for you!

Most of it you don't even understand. I have posted a ton of data before you ever disgraced this forum with your presence.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "With all of the times I have shown that you have had the questions wrong, SH, you should be ashamed."

Then your mom woke you up............


Conman: "The only way you can win arguments is if you incorrectly paraphrase someone and then argue with yourself."

Of course, when your ignorance is exposed you claim that you have been taken out of context. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz! Play the victim!

1. You said, "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

2. You thought packers graded their own cattle.

3. You thought there would be "free trim" if the industry reduced the amount of fat on carcasses. You wouldn't explain your "free trim" statement knowing that your pants were already pulled down to your ankles.

4. You didn't realize that Johnanns was talking about BSE testing older cattle were prions would actually show up. You were comparing that to the testing of younger cattle where prions would not show up too ignorant to know the difference.

5. You claim to know that Pickett proved market manipulation yet you admit to never reading the proceedings and refused to present any proof to back that allegation.

6. You thought your phone was being tapped only to later find out that it was the phone company working on your phone line. LOL! That's still funny because it speaks to the heart of your conspiracy mindset.

7. You claim Judge Strom was involved in "behind closed door meetings" with Tyson yet offer no proof to back that allegation either.

8. You have repeatedly claimed market manipulation but you can't offer one stitch of proof to back that allegation either.

9. You can't comprehend the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks.

10. You continually lie about Agman and my positions.


Go ahead Conman, pick one that you believe was taken out of context and lets see if this dog will hunt.

All you can do is "CLAIM" that you were taken out of context to create the "ILLUSION" that you were taken out of context. That's just what a Conman would do.


Conman: "I have posted more information and websites to actual data than you have in the short time I have been on this forum."

Bully for you!

Most of it you don't even understand. I have posted a ton of data before you ever disgraced this forum with your presence.


~SH~

Thanks for numbering again, SH. It will make it easier to refute your points.

1. Agriculture products have had the problem of oversupply for some time. Sometimes this can be blamed on govt. subsidies. When there is too much supply of any inelastic product, the prices recieved go down. Being inelastic means that the price goes down more than an equal percentage of supply. Although Agman claims it is a shift in demand that is responsible for increased cattle prices(and it may be a true to an extent), every economist worth his salt knows that people do not eat more per day, the supplies must contract to get higher prices later. This might be a little hard for you to understand without Agman's help, SH.

2. Packers do grade cattle. Everytime they make an offer in the cash market they have to do that before making an offer. I am surprised you do not know this. As for the USDA grading, which is what we were talking about, I never said the packers are responsible for putting the USDA grade on the cattle, but sometimes I would bet you, they have enough influence over the graders to do just that. There has to be a check on these graders and everyone should have the right to see the work the graders do. I was more interested in the transparency of that grading when I made my comment than anything else. If you will go back to the thread and train up on your reading comprehension and study it real hard, you would understand this, SH.

3. I said that when cattle are bought, they are bought whole. If the trim isn't worth anything and it is a fact of a higher more desirable grading carcass, then the price paid for the animal includes the trim also. If the trim is worth nothing, then it is worth nothing. Same with the eyeballs, the lips, the penis, and all of the other things that come with the cattle. If packers can sell those items for dogfood or whatever, then good. It is already priced into the whole carcass. What do you know about the cattle industry making comments like this? You show your ineptitude every time you post.

4. I was talking about Johanns doing BSE tests on cattle that did not detect BSE. Your ability to understand what other people are trying to say is obviously limited by your bias.

5. Pickett did prove it to 12 jurors. Did you not know that?

6. In light of the new relevations by president Bush, do you really want to go there?

7. You need to try to understand what that verbage means. I have found it in texts as far back as the 1800s. I can not help your lack of knowledge. That is something you will have to solve on your own.

8. That proof was at the trial, SH. You mischaracterized so many points and elements of that debate that I can honestly say you are the idiot you profess others are.

9. Backwards pricing again, SH? It was a colluded price if more than one packer did that type of pricing. When you buy something in one week, the demand is for that week. If the price is based off of another week, then that price had nothing to do with supply and demand in the week bought. Why do you have so much problem with that concept. Could it be you know nothing about supply and demand and the cattle markets?

10. Copy catter. Imitation is the truest form of flattery and I thank you for that compliment, although I do not mischaracterize your statements as you do mine. This reply to your half witted numbering points is proof of that.

SH, you have once again proved the fool that you are. You better run down the yellow brick road. You need that brain more than ever.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1. You said, "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

Conman RE:1. Agriculture products have had the problem of oversupply for some time. Sometimes this can be blamed on govt. subsidies. When there is too much supply of any inelastic product, the prices recieved go down. Being inelastic means that the price goes down more than an equal percentage of supply. Although Agman claims it is a shift in demand that is responsible for increased cattle prices(and it may be a true to an extent), every economist worth his salt knows that people do not eat more per day, the supplies must contract to get higher prices later. This might be a little hard for you to understand without Agman's help, SH.

You are absolutely wrong!

Prices can and do go up with no change in supplies on almost a daily basis. Supply is not the only factor that determines price.

Your phoniness could not be revealed any more than it is here.


2. You thought packers graded their own cattle.

Conman RE: 2. Packers do grade cattle. Everytime they make an offer in the cash market they have to do that before making an offer. I am surprised you do not know this. As for the USDA grading, which is what we were talking about, I never said the packers are responsible for putting the USDA grade on the cattle, but sometimes I would bet you, they have enough influence over the graders to do just that. There has to be a check on these graders and everyone should have the right to see the work the graders do. I was more interested in the transparency of that grading when I made my comment than anything else. If you will go back to the thread and train up on your reading comprehension and study it real hard, you would understand this, SH.

You suggested that the packers should not be able to grade their own carcasses. That's what you said you moron quit trying to lie your way out of it. You didn't realize that USDA graders were doing the grading because you are that ignorant.


3. You thought there would be "free trim" if the industry reduced the amount of fat on carcasses.

Conman RE: 3. "I said that when cattle are bought, they are bought whole. If the trim isn't worth anything and it is a fact of a higher more desirable grading carcass, then the price paid for the animal includes the trim also. If the trim is worth nothing, then it is worth nothing. Same with the eyeballs, the lips, the penis, and all of the other things that come with the cattle. If packers can sell those items for dogfood or whatever, then good. It is already priced into the whole carcass."

You're trying to lie your way out of this one too. What you said was that if packers started paying more for higher yielding carcasses (less back fat) then they would have the trim for free. You were too damn stupid to realize that fat was what was being trimmed off in the first place. There is no reason to trim a lean carcass. Now you try to divert from your own stupidity by repeating what we told you. I've never seen anything like you before in my life. Sandbag might be deceptive but you are a compulsive liar. You cover one lie with another lie.


4. You didn't realize that Johnanns was talking about BSE testing older cattle were prions would actually show up. You were comparing that to the testing of younger cattle where prions would not show up too ignorant to know the difference.

Conman RE: 4. "I was talking about Johanns doing BSE tests on cattle that did not detect BSE. Your ability to understand what other people are trying to say is obviously limited by your bias."

Yet another lie. You didn't realize that the BSE tests that Johnanns was referring to were used on cattle over 30 months of age where prions would be revealed when you compared it to Creekstone's testing which was on younger cattle where prions would not be revealed.


5. You claim to know that Pickett proved market manipulation yet you admit to never reading the proceedings and refused to present any proof to back that allegation.

Conman RE: 5. "Pickett did prove it to 12 jurors. Did you not know that?"

As I said, you brought no proof to back your allegation. Just a constant repeat of "pickett proved it", "pickett proved it", "pickett proved it".

Pickett proved nothing and neither did you.


6. You thought your phone was being tapped only to later find out that it was the phone company working on your phone line. LOL! That's still funny because it speaks to the heart of your conspiracy mindset.

Conman RE: 6. "In light of the new relevations by president Bush, do you really want to go there?"

DIVERSION!


7. You claim Judge Strom was involved in "behind closed door meetings" with Tyson yet offer no proof to back that allegation either.

Conman RE: 7. "You need to try to understand what that verbage means. I have found it in texts as far back as the 1800s. I can not help your lack of knowledge. That is something you will have to solve on your own."

Nothing to back the allegation just as I stated!


8. You have repeatedly claimed market manipulation but you can't offer one stitch of proof to back that allegation either.

Conman RE: 8. "That proof was at the trial, SH. You mischaracterized so many points and elements of that debate that I can honestly say you are the idiot you profess others are."

Conman still has not offered one stitch of proof to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory allegation. Nothing but theories. Then he claims that I mischaracterized so many points and elements of the debate to divert from having to back his phony claim.


9. You can't comprehend the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks.

Conman RE: 9. "Backwards pricing again, SH? It was a colluded price if more than one packer did that type of pricing. When you buy something in one week, the demand is for that week. If the price is based off of another week, then that price had nothing to do with supply and demand in the week bought."

Hahaha! Conman actually repeats my arguments back to me and diverts the issue.

Notice the word "IF". Conman created the "ILLUSION OF COLLUSION" without committing to an actual claim of collusion. Total phony!

Conman completely diverted the issue of the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle delivered in the same week were priced in two seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors which totally disproves his previous theory that any difference between the price of the formula cattle and cash cattle is proof of market manipulation. Now I suppose he'll lie about that too.


10. You continually lie about Agman and my positions.

Conman RE: 10. "Copy catter. Imitation is the truest form of flattery and I thank you for that compliment, although I do not mischaracterize your statements as you do mine. This reply to your half witted numbering points is proof of that."

Copy catter? My God I don't think I have heard that since gradeschool.

To the contrary it is you that continually lies about our position and then accuses us of doing it. I prove it continually and did it again in the above responses to your diversion.


You are the biggest phony I have ever met anywhere at anytime. You are an example of why U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
1. You said, "prices can't go up unless supplies come down".

Conman RE:1. Agriculture products have had the problem of oversupply for some time. Sometimes this can be blamed on govt. subsidies. When there is too much supply of any inelastic product, the prices recieved go down. Being inelastic means that the price goes down more than an equal percentage of supply. Although Agman claims it is a shift in demand that is responsible for increased cattle prices(and it may be a true to an extent), every economist worth his salt knows that people do not eat more per day, the supplies must contract to get higher prices later. This might be a little hard for you to understand without Agman's help, SH.

You are absolutely wrong!

Prices can and do go up with no change in supplies on almost a daily basis. Supply is not the only factor that determines price.

Your phoniness could not be revealed any more than it is here.


2. You thought packers graded their own cattle.

Conman RE: 2. Packers do grade cattle. Everytime they make an offer in the cash market they have to do that before making an offer. I am surprised you do not know this. As for the USDA grading, which is what we were talking about, I never said the packers are responsible for putting the USDA grade on the cattle, but sometimes I would bet you, they have enough influence over the graders to do just that. There has to be a check on these graders and everyone should have the right to see the work the graders do. I was more interested in the transparency of that grading when I made my comment than anything else. If you will go back to the thread and train up on your reading comprehension and study it real hard, you would understand this, SH.

You suggested that the packers should not be able to grade their own carcasses. That's what you said you moron quit trying to lie your way out of it. You didn't realize that USDA graders were doing the grading because you are that ignorant.


3. You thought there would be "free trim" if the industry reduced the amount of fat on carcasses.

Conman RE: 3. "I said that when cattle are bought, they are bought whole. If the trim isn't worth anything and it is a fact of a higher more desirable grading carcass, then the price paid for the animal includes the trim also. If the trim is worth nothing, then it is worth nothing. Same with the eyeballs, the lips, the penis, and all of the other things that come with the cattle. If packers can sell those items for dogfood or whatever, then good. It is already priced into the whole carcass."

You're trying to lie your way out of this one too. What you said was that if packers started paying more for higher yielding carcasses (less back fat) then they would have the trim for free. You were too damn stupid to realize that fat was what was being trimmed off in the first place. There is no reason to trim a lean carcass. Now you try to divert from your own stupidity by repeating what we told you. I've never seen anything like you before in my life. Sandbag might be deceptive but you are a compulsive liar. You cover one lie with another lie.


4. You didn't realize that Johnanns was talking about BSE testing older cattle were prions would actually show up. You were comparing that to the testing of younger cattle where prions would not show up too ignorant to know the difference.

Conman RE: 4. "I was talking about Johanns doing BSE tests on cattle that did not detect BSE. Your ability to understand what other people are trying to say is obviously limited by your bias."

Yet another lie. You didn't realize that the BSE tests that Johnanns was referring to were used on cattle over 30 months of age where prions would be revealed when you compared it to Creekstone's testing which was on younger cattle where prions would not be revealed.


5. You claim to know that Pickett proved market manipulation yet you admit to never reading the proceedings and refused to present any proof to back that allegation.

Conman RE: 5. "Pickett did prove it to 12 jurors. Did you not know that?"

As I said, you brought no proof to back your allegation. Just a constant repeat of "pickett proved it", "pickett proved it", "pickett proved it".

Pickett proved nothing and neither did you.


6. You thought your phone was being tapped only to later find out that it was the phone company working on your phone line. LOL! That's still funny because it speaks to the heart of your conspiracy mindset.

Conman RE: 6. "In light of the new relevations by president Bush, do you really want to go there?"

DIVERSION!


7. You claim Judge Strom was involved in "behind closed door meetings" with Tyson yet offer no proof to back that allegation either.

Conman RE: 7. "You need to try to understand what that verbage means. I have found it in texts as far back as the 1800s. I can not help your lack of knowledge. That is something you will have to solve on your own."

Nothing to back the allegation just as I stated!


8. You have repeatedly claimed market manipulation but you can't offer one stitch of proof to back that allegation either.

Conman RE: 8. "That proof was at the trial, SH. You mischaracterized so many points and elements of that debate that I can honestly say you are the idiot you profess others are."

Conman still has not offered one stitch of proof to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory allegation. Nothing but theories. Then he claims that I mischaracterized so many points and elements of the debate to divert from having to back his phony claim.


9. You can't comprehend the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week were priced on seperate weeks.

Conman RE: 9. "Backwards pricing again, SH? It was a colluded price if more than one packer did that type of pricing. When you buy something in one week, the demand is for that week. If the price is based off of another week, then that price had nothing to do with supply and demand in the week bought."

Hahaha! Conman actually repeats my arguments back to me and diverts the issue.

Notice the word "IF". Conman created the "ILLUSION OF COLLUSION" without committing to an actual claim of collusion. Total phony!

Conman completely diverted the issue of the fact that formula cattle and cash cattle delivered in the same week were priced in two seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors which totally disproves his previous theory that any difference between the price of the formula cattle and cash cattle is proof of market manipulation. Now I suppose he'll lie about that too.


10. You continually lie about Agman and my positions.

Conman RE: 10. "Copy catter. Imitation is the truest form of flattery and I thank you for that compliment, although I do not mischaracterize your statements as you do mine. This reply to your half witted numbering points is proof of that."

Copy catter? My God I don't think I have heard that since gradeschool.

To the contrary it is you that continually lies about our position and then accuses us of doing it. I prove it continually and did it again in the above responses to your diversion.


You are the biggest phony I have ever met anywhere at anytime. You are an example of why U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.


~SH~

SH, you are virtually hopeless. My comment I made before about it being better for you to be hit in the head and feed your milk to a pig shows itself to be true everytime I tangle with you.

Lets do them in reverse order!!!

10. What position did I lie about that you and Agman have? Clarification would be good enough for me.

9. What it proves is that formula cattle are captive supply cattle also. The supply and demand factors that determine price are in a different week than they are procured.

8. No, it was not my job to provide that proof. The plaintiffs did it to the jury. I am satisfied they provided proof that the cash market was being discriminated against. Your little "its not discrimination if you lower your price as needs are met" line along with Mike's posting of captive supply shown to be way over the amount needed for supplying a week is pretty compelling without even hearing any testimony on whether or not the formula markets were getting premiums that were not offered in the cash market.

7. Go do some reading, SH. You will see that the phrase has been used for a long time. I am sorry you don't understand it. Maybe it has something to do with your education. That is your problem to solve, not mine. I see you are putting all your hope in the wizard. Go find your answer or continue to argue with yourself. It does not matter to me.

6. So not providing an independent source of verification is a bad thing, eh, SH? We will see how this one plays out.

5. You deny that Pickett convinced 12 unrelated people? Do you deny that the jury agreed with Pickett? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the judicial system in the U.S. instead of your little fantasy world.

4. How do you know what I realize? You have been mistaken on that one time and time again. You have absolutely no idea that the test that Japan wanted for BSE could have been changed as newer and better tests becam available. Do you deny that probablity?

3. SH, there is still a tradeoff on most cattle in the cattle market between yield and quality grade. If the packers want higher grading cattle, then they may have to trim some of that fat away. They get a higher price for that higher grading meat at the store, so the trim value is just part of the deal. If they can sell that trim by mixing it with something else, then good. If they can not, then the amount they pay for the carcass is the value they can get out of it, and trim doesn't matter. To say that domestic producers benefit from importing lean whatever to mix with this trim is a joke. I would like to see their "trim premium" check when this is done. That would be an absolute defense to your erroneous position.

2. I said that the grading process needs to be transparent. You are the one who jumped to conclusions. If the formula market is based on premiums that relate to the quality and yield grade, this is a necessity for transparent markets.

1. I did not say this was the case all of the time. I will say that decreases in the supply will increase the prices, all other things held constant. Especially in inelastic products. You just don't know enough about economics to talk about it. That is probably why there are course prerequistites before advancing. I am beginning to see more and more the value in that policy. In supply and demand equilibrium analysis there are probably a lot of things you will not be able to understand. Post my whole quote, SH, instead of just part of it, unless you want to continue to argue with yourself. In that case, leave me out of the discussion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
10. What position did I lie about that you and Agman have? Clarification would be good enough for me.

As an example (paraphrasing) you claimed that our position was that packers would always have to manipulate markets if they periodically manipulated markets when we asked why they only manipulate markets at certain times. You took our question and spinned it into your own lie.


9. What it proves is that formula cattle are captive supply cattle also. The supply and demand factors that determine price are in a different week than they are procured.

You are still diverting from you initial claim that a difference in the formula price and cash price is proof of market manipulation which you were wrong about.

Formula cattle are not captive supply cattle because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.


8. No, it was not my job to provide that proof. The plaintiffs did it to the jury. I am satisfied they provided proof that the cash market was being discriminated against. Your little "its not discrimination if you lower your price as needs are met" line along with Mike's posting of captive supply shown to be way over the amount needed for supplying a week is pretty compelling without even hearing any testimony on whether or not the formula markets were getting premiums that were not offered in the cash market.

You still offer no proof of market manipulation.

If you can make the claim of market manipulation, you should be able to back the allegation. You can't and you know it. It is a fact that dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation nor is buying more cattle in a week than you can slaughter in week. Both situations are agreed upon by both parties.


7. Go do some reading, SH. You will see that the phrase has been used for a long time. I am sorry you don't understand it. Maybe it has something to do with your education. That is your problem to solve, not mine. I see you are putting all your hope in the wizard. Go find your answer or continue to argue with yourself. It does not matter to me.

Still no proof of these "supposed" behind closed door meetings. Just another baseless allegation.


6. So not providing an independent source of verification is a bad thing, eh, SH? We will see how this one plays out.

Where did that come from? The issue was phone tapping. Do you take pride in your deception?


5. You deny that Pickett convinced 12 unrelated people? Do you deny that the jury agreed with Pickett? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the judicial system in the U.S. instead of your little fantasy world.

Pickett convinced the jury that normal supply and demand relations of dropping your prices as your needs are met is not market manipulation. Judge Strom knew the jury was wrong and the 11th circuit court upheld his decision.

As I originally stated, you claim to know that the jury's decision was correct without ever having read the court testimony.


4. How do you know what I realize? You have been mistaken on that one time and time again. You have absolutely no idea that the test that Japan wanted for BSE could have been changed as newer and better tests becam available. Do you deny that probablity?

Your diverting again. You drew a comparison between Johann's statement and my statement regarding Creekstone's tests. You didn't know enough about the issue to know that these two situations were not comparable due to the age of the cattle.


3. SH, there is still a tradeoff on most cattle in the cattle market between yield and quality grade. If the packers want higher grading cattle, then they may have to trim some of that fat away. They get a higher price for that higher grading meat at the store, so the trim value is just part of the deal. If they can sell that trim by mixing it with something else, then good. If they can not, then the amount they pay for the carcass is the value they can get out of it, and trim doesn't matter. To say that domestic producers benefit from importing lean whatever to mix with this trim is a joke. I would like to see their "trim premium" check when this is done. That would be an absolute defense to your erroneous position.

Nice diversion in trying to teach me what I have already taught you then diverting to the imported trim debate.

You thought packers trimmed lean carcasses. That's how ignorant you are. You were wrong and proven ignorant but too arrogant to admit it.


2. I said that the grading process needs to be transparent. You are the one who jumped to conclusions. If the formula market is based on premiums that relate to the quality and yield grade, this is a necessity for transparent markets.

You thought packers graded their own cattle. Quit lying and quit changing your story.


1. I did not say this was the case all of the time. I will say that decreases in the supply will increase the prices, all other things held constant. Especially in inelastic products. You just don't know enough about economics to talk about it. That is probably why there are course prerequistites before advancing. I am beginning to see more and more the value in that policy. In supply and demand equilibrium analysis there are probably a lot of things you will not be able to understand. Post my whole quote, SH, instead of just part of it, unless you want to continue to argue with yourself. In that case, leave me out of the discussion.

Conman you can't dance around your ignorance forever. You said that "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down". Those are your exact words. Knowing enough about you to know that you would later try to deny saying this, I asked you if you said it. You said yes. Now you are backpeddling. You are nothing but a phony. Most everyone has you figured out. I am surprised you are still here after being corrected so many times.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
10. What position did I lie about that you and Agman have? Clarification would be good enough for me.

As an example (paraphrasing) you claimed that our position was that packers would always have to manipulate markets if they periodically manipulated markets when we asked why they only manipulate markets at certain times. You took our question and spinned it into your own lie.

Sure sounded like the point you were trying to make. Do you want to poll it?


9. What it proves is that formula cattle are captive supply cattle also. The supply and demand factors that determine price are in a different week than they are procured.

You are still diverting from you initial claim that a difference in the formula price and cash price is proof of market manipulation which you were wrong about.

Formula cattle are not captive supply cattle because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

The 14 day prior to slaughter definition does not encapsolate all the effects of captive supply on the supply/demand in a given week. I don't agree with that definition because it allows supply and demand characteristics of a different week to influence a current week as you have continuously pointed out with formula cattle. There can be some difference in prices paid in the cash market and the forumula market. There can be differences based on real quality, although Tyson refused to provide the evidence requested in discovery of what was being offered in the cash vs. the formula as to quality (the jury probably caught this one and it went to Tyson's credibility). There can be differences paid base on time. There was no difference in time. For example, in week A, cattle were procured and paid by the formula and by the cash market. The formula price was a price that was the last week's cash price. If all of the packers buying cattle used this as a base price, then by discriminating against the cash market in one week, the formula price became a lid on prices. By using captive supply, they could then force down the demand in the cash market for that week. If they did this, then they were discriminating against the cash market and it led to the next week's lower lid on prices.




8. No, it was not my job to provide that proof. The plaintiffs did it to the jury. I am satisfied they provided proof that the cash market was being discriminated against. Your little "its not discrimination if you lower your price as needs are met" line along with Mike's posting of captive supply shown to be way over the amount needed for supplying a week is pretty compelling without even hearing any testimony on whether or not the formula markets were getting premiums that were not offered in the cash market.

You still offer no proof of market manipulation. Pickett did. I was not involved in the case. I don't have that proof because I was not involved. You have no proof that they did not. I would assume that they pointed out that the cash market was being discriminated against and used examples. The AMS was not collecting data then and they haven't done a good job of it lately according to the recent GAO report. Just because they were not collecting data (which the economists at GIPSA should have been collecting based on the complaints, but fraudulently were not) does not mean that discrimination did not occur. That was what was testified to in the the trial that the jury beleived.

If you can make the claim of market manipulation, you should be able to back the allegation. You can't and you know it. It is a fact that dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation nor is buying more cattle in a week than you can slaughter in week. Both situations are agreed upon by both parties.

Pickett backed it with eye witnesses. I was not one of them. You don't even know what market manipulation is, and your definition is not in the PSA of 1921 whereas Pickett's was.

7. Go do some reading, SH. You will see that the phrase has been used for a long time. I am sorry you don't understand it. Maybe it has something to do with your education. That is your problem to solve, not mine. I see you are putting all your hope in the wizard. Go find your answer or continue to argue with yourself. It does not matter to me.

Still no proof of these "supposed" behind closed door meetings. Just another baseless allegation.

You still don't get it, do you SH? You probably never will. Keep going down the yellow brick road.

6. So not providing an independent source of verification is a bad thing, eh, SH? We will see how this one plays out.

Where did that come from? The issue was phone tapping. Do you take pride in your deception?

Listen to the news. One day you might be on it.


5. You deny that Pickett convinced 12 unrelated people? Do you deny that the jury agreed with Pickett? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the judicial system in the U.S. instead of your little fantasy world.

Pickett convinced the jury that normal supply and demand relations of dropping your prices as your needs are met is not market manipulation. Judge Strom knew the jury was wrong and the 11th circuit court upheld his decision.

As I originally stated, you claim to know that the jury's decision was correct without ever having read the court testimony.

You call them "normal" but then again, you have your own definition for a lot of things. I read the briefs. It was easy enough to see there.


4. How do you know what I realize? You have been mistaken on that one time and time again. You have absolutely no idea that the test that Japan wanted for BSE could have been changed as newer and better tests becam available. Do you deny that probablity?

Your diverting again. You drew a comparison between Johann's statement and my statement regarding Creekstone's tests. You didn't know enough about the issue to know that these two situations were not comparable due to the age of the cattle.

You absolutely don't know what I know. I could take your opinion of what I know and two cents, and give my kids some money to throw in the wishing well. It doesn't matter to me what you declare I know or don't. Go argue with yourself.

3. SH, there is still a tradeoff on most cattle in the cattle market between yield and quality grade. If the packers want higher grading cattle, then they may have to trim some of that fat away. They get a higher price for that higher grading meat at the store, so the trim value is just part of the deal. If they can sell that trim by mixing it with something else, then good. If they can not, then the amount they pay for the carcass is the value they can get out of it, and trim doesn't matter. To say that domestic producers benefit from importing lean whatever to mix with this trim is a joke. I would like to see their "trim premium" check when this is done. That would be an absolute defense to your erroneous position.

Nice diversion in trying to teach me what I have already taught you then diverting to the imported trim debate.

You thought packers trimmed lean carcasses. That's how ignorant you are. You were wrong and proven ignorant but too arrogant to admit it.

As I said before, you don't have a clue what I thought. You can only guess so you can have an argument with yourself. You win. I will let you win every argument you have with yourself, just don't attribute a win like that to a loss from me.

2. I said that the grading process needs to be transparent. You are the one who jumped to conclusions. If the formula market is based on premiums that relate to the quality and yield grade, this is a necessity for transparent markets.

You thought packers graded their own cattle. Quit lying and quit changing your story.

Boy, you keep getting in trouble with what you think I know. Did anyone ever tell you that you would make a bad mind reader?

1. I did not say this was the case all of the time. I will say that decreases in the supply will increase the prices, all other things held constant. Especially in inelastic products. You just don't know enough about economics to talk about it. That is probably why there are course prerequistites before advancing. I am beginning to see more and more the value in that policy. In supply and demand equilibrium analysis there are probably a lot of things you will not be able to understand. Post my whole quote, SH, instead of just part of it, unless you want to continue to argue with yourself. In that case, leave me out of the discussion.

Conman you can't dance around your ignorance forever. You said that "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down". Those are your exact words. Knowing enough about you to know that you would later try to deny saying this, I asked you if you said it. You said yes. Now you are backpeddling. You are nothing but a phony. Most everyone has you figured out. I am surprised you are still here after being corrected so many times.

Yes, those were my exact words. Now let me give you a little exercise. Do you see all of the words in bold on this post? They are all your exact words. Put together they say:

SH is a phony Conman.

These are words you said yourself, SH. Exact quotes from you!!


~SH~[/b]

Now why don't you stop playing all your pathetic little juvinile games?

Follow the yellow brick road. Follow the yellow brick road.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Sure sounded like the point you were trying to make."

I'll take that as your admission to lying about our position.


Conman: "The 14 day prior to slaughter definition does not encapsolate all the effects of captive supply on the supply/demand in a given week."

What a phony statement!


Conman: "I don't agree with that definition because it allows supply and demand characteristics of a different week to influence a current week as you have continuously pointed out with formula cattle."

You don't agree with that definition because you don't know any better.


Conman: "There can be some difference in prices paid in the cash market and the forumula market."

That directly contradicts your previous statement suggesting a difference between the formula price and the cash price was proof of market manipulation. A liar simply cannot keep his stories straight.


Conman: "There can be differences based on real quality, although Tyson refused to provide the evidence requested in discovery of what was being offered in the cash vs. the formula as to quality (the jury probably caught this one and it went to Tyson's credibility)."

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You just can't comprehend that can you?

Conman: "There can be differences paid base on time. There was no difference in time. For example, in week A, cattle were procured and paid by the formula and by the cash market. The formula price was a price that was the last week's cash price."

Formula and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week are priced on seperate weeks. You just can't comprehend that either can you?


Conman: "If all of the packers buying cattle used this as a base price, then by discriminating against the cash market in one week, the formula price became a lid on prices. By using captive supply, they could then force down the demand in the cash market for that week. If they did this, then they were discriminating against the cash market and it led to the next week's lower lid on prices."

First all the packers don't have a consistant source of formula cattle unless they have willing sellers.

Second, dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation.

You blamers lost in court, get over it!


Conman: "I was not involved in the case. I don't have that proof because I was not involved."

Exactly! So there is no way you could know whether proof of market manipulation was provided or not. Obviously it wasn't or Judge Strom would not have ruled the way he did nor had his verdict upheld by the 11th circuit.


Conman: "Pickett backed it with eye witnesses. I was not one of them. You don't even know what market manipulation is, and your definition is not in the PSA of 1921 whereas Pickett's was."

Eyewitnesses??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Packer blamers that want to believe that the markets are being manipulated so they can leach more money out of the packing industry.

Judge Strom stated that there was no violation of the PSA and the 11th circuit upheld his decision.


Conman: "Now why don't you stop playing all your pathetic little juvinile games?"

Followed by:

Conman: "Follow the yellow brick road. Follow the yellow brick road."

Is that what you call "juvenile games"?


I know you hate being exposed for being such a phony Conman but someone has to introduce you to yourself.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Sure sounded like the point you were trying to make."

I'll take that as your admission to lying about our position.

No, you need to clarify your position if it is not what it sounds.


Conman: "The 14 day prior to slaughter definition does not encapsolate all the effects of captive supply on the supply/demand in a given week."

What a phony statement!

You are the one that continually says that the formula cattle's price is determined by supply and demand in a week different than it is acquired.


Conman: "I don't agree with that definition because it allows supply and demand characteristics of a different week to influence a current week as you have continuously pointed out with formula cattle."

You don't agree with that definition because you don't know any better.

There you go again, telling me what I know and don't know. Haven't you been burned enough with that kind of statement?


Conman: "There can be some difference in prices paid in the cash market and the forumula market."

That directly contradicts your previous statement suggesting a difference between the formula price and the cash price was proof of market manipulation. A liar simply cannot keep his stories straight.

Differences in what is offered in the cash market and the formula market for the same quality characteristics IS market manipulation. Subjective differences in offerings due to Agman's flimsy "shift in demand" is another example of market manipulation. Everything is dependent on the specifics. I am sorry you do not understand that. Go ask the wizard for your brain.

Conman: "There can be differences based on real quality, although Tyson refused to provide the evidence requested in discovery of what was being offered in the cash vs. the formula as to quality (the jury probably caught this one and it went to Tyson's credibility)."

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You just can't comprehend that can you?

The prima facia case was brought and not refuted. Eye witness accounts are evidence. The jury saw through this ploy and Tyson lost.

Conman: "There can be differences paid base on time. There was no difference in time. For example, in week A, cattle were procured and paid by the formula and by the cash market. The formula price was a price that was the last week's cash price."

Formula and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week are priced on seperate weeks. You just can't comprehend that either can you?

Read and comprehend the above. You might want to see the wizard before trying.


Conman: "If all of the packers buying cattle used this as a base price, then by discriminating against the cash market in one week, the formula price became a lid on prices. By using captive supply, they could then force down the demand in the cash market for that week. If they did this, then they were discriminating against the cash market and it led to the next week's lower lid on prices."

First all the packers don't have a consistant source of formula cattle unless they have willing sellers.

Second, dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula market is not market manipulation.

You blamers lost in court, get over it!

The case is not over. The 11th circuit does need to be rebuked for making up requirements AFTER the trials are over. This is legislating from the bench pure and simple.


Conman: "I was not involved in the case. I don't have that proof because I was not involved."

Exactly! So there is no way you could know whether proof of market manipulation was provided or not. Obviously it wasn't or Judge Strom would not have ruled the way he did nor had his verdict upheld by the 11th circuit.

Only the jury could be in a position to make that determination. They did. I believe them. You don't.

Conman: "Pickett backed it with eye witnesses. I was not one of them. You don't even know what market manipulation is, and your definition is not in the PSA of 1921 whereas Pickett's was."

Eyewitnesses??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Packer blamers that want to believe that the markets are being manipulated so they can leach more money out of the packing industry.

Judge Strom stated that there was no violation of the PSA and the 11th circuit upheld his decision.

Strom was overstepping his judicial powers. 11th circuit has its own problems. 11th circuit proved they do not know the economic concepts behind the operative part of the PSA, Section 202, with their comments on the Robinson Packman Act. They cited themselves from the London case to justify their erroneous position. The standard they set up in the London case was an example of judicial activism; the standard was set up AFTER both of the cases were already over and additions to the enumerated prohibitions of Section 202.

Conman: "Now why don't you stop playing all your pathetic little juvinile games?"

Followed by:

Conman: "Follow the yellow brick road. Follow the yellow brick road."

Is that what you call "juvenile games"?


I know you hate being exposed for being such a phony Conman but someone has to introduce you to yourself.


~SH~

SH, I thank you for any dispersionary statements you have about me. I will put them on my resume`.
 

Latest posts

Top