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.