• 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 vs. Agman

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
View user's profile Send private message
agman
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1072
Location: Denver, CO

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Econ101 wrote:
Oh, Agman, I reallydo like to get you riled up.

"
You are truly hilarious. You might want to explain your "one pertinent" example once again so as not to confuse yourself or readers!! Your comment "Consumers wanted a smaller portion when they bought the product." Is that not reflective of a consumer preference? Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control. You will likely call that packer price manipulation; everything else is according to your space-cadet world. Did you really think you were on-up on me?!!! "

In the instance I was referring to, the size of the fat steers was the change, not the consumer preference. Only you could turn it into a change in demand by consumers. It was only after the muscle seperation and subsequent portion conrol on the part of the packers that the situation was rectified. You must have consumer demand changes on the brain, Agman. It wasn't rocket science, as you allude to, that maximized the value out of the cattle, Agman, it was a change in the way the packers operated in relation to their own changes they encouraged in the industry through their own price signals.

"There are other reasons that heifers might bring a price equal to or even exceeding steers. Packers are limited to the size of carcasses they can handle and the size of primal that can fit in a box. Do you know the carcass size break-boneless versus bone-in?!! Also, when the industry is very "current' heifers will tend to outgrade steers. "

That could also be because the packers discriminated against the cash market, Agman. Again, a packer controlled situation.

"I don't come up with excuses as you claim-facts suffice for me. You did not know the level nor trend in per capita supply yet you professed to know all bout beef demand. Per capita supply is the "x" (independent)variable used to analyze demand. "Y" representing "price" is the dependent variable. Explain again all your alleged knowledge regarding demand and how prices are manipulated when you did not even know what the "x" or supply variable was? Teach all of us how you derived at your bogus conclusion master teacher. I am anxiously awaiting your explanation or should I cay another meaningless dissertation. "

Thank you for providing your own numbers that supported my assertions on the supply shift, Agman. That was real courteous. It was like pulling teeth to get it from you, however. I had to ask a lot of times with a few challenges in there.

"You blame others and myself for reading comprehension; that is a total joke. You twist your position so much and your positions are so misguided and goofy no one can comprehend what you say from one post to the next. "

Read every word slowly next time. Does "everyone" just include your packer backers?

"Are you going to explain to all readers which part of the cattle cycle packers manipulate prices? Or do you now deny you made that goofy comment? Can you once again explain your comment that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down." Can you identify for readers those periods when your position was ever supported by actual results in the market? You cannot even decipher the 01-03 period correctly. I can't wait to hear this one!! Can you explain how you shifted from saying packer manipulate cattle price to they don't have to manipulate cattle prices they just manipulate the competing meats? How did that happen before Tyson purchased IBP? According to you "packers manipulate the cattle cycle world wide"-only in your mind hero. Since weather is a dominant determinant of the length of the cattle cycle do they also manipulate the weather world wide? No dissertations are necessary from you. No one believes you anyway. Do actually believe the garbage you post? "

I think I got the O1-03 period correct and your own numbers proved it. I have always maintained that by discriminating against the cash market there is a movement along the supply curve downward. It takes time, but the decreased supply will eventually make the prices go back up (sure you could have some changes of other things; I am not ruling them out). Don't go too far out there on the weather thing. That is another argument to be had between your own ears, not with me. I never said the statement, "packer manipulate cattle price to they don't have to manipulate cattle prices they just manipulate the competing meats?". That is your rendition of what I said, which is wrong. I said that when they manipulate the supply of cattle down by discriminating against the cash market, they benefit by having the substitutes gain in either market share or price. In the years 2001 to 2003 that we were looking at, it was both. Do you not agree?

Agman, do you deny that you have multiple effects on price when all of the meats are decreased in supply at one time, or do you continue to attribute all increases over Schroder's "demand index" values of substitution to shifts in demand? Of course you can probably figure out where the next logical step is, Agman. There can be no collusion with Tyson and themselves over beef and poultry substitution and cross elasticities. Maybe the IBP buyout was a smart move for Tyson after all. I assume you want to use Schroeder's "demand index" to explain it as a demand shift instead of a multiple effect from the substitutes.

"What is your GIPSA reference? This is the first I have heard of it. Please post the initial reference or have you just diverted once again? Are those strange voices talking to you again? It must be difficult for a self-anointed intellectual like you to be so confused? You lose arguments with yourself. You certainly have no chance of winning against me or for that matter anyone with a basic understanding of economic analysis or the beef industry. Better luck next time."

If I get the time, I will go look up the reference. I might not want to go through that much effort for you, however. Do you find either one of the two I mentioned, Waterfield and McBride, as one of your compatriots? Do you know either one of them?

"In the instance I was referring to, the size of the fat steers was the change, not the consumer preference. Only you could turn it into a change in demand by consumers."

1. Where did I say it was a consumer demand change? I was very specific in saying that it was a change in demand at the producer level resulting in higher prices for the same quantity of heifers. That action was induced by a long standing trend by retailers to meet consumers who desire smaller protioned cuts. Who has the comprehension problem Conman? Please point out where I said it was a change in connsumer demand as you claim. Here is my statement verbatim. "Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control." Are you not aware that demand can and is measured by me at various levels, not just the consumer level. That false claim of yours was quickly put to rest by my exact quote. You are just to easy..Next.

2. What the 01-03 data proved is that supply was a factor in the higher price but improved consumer demand was also a factor independent of the supply change. The demand increase during that period measured exactly $4.62/cwt. Why do you conveniently dismiss that? What about the other periods I mentioned when supply of beef and competing meats increased simultaneously and the price of beef still advanced? What is tath called? You won't go there since it blows your phony theory, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down", all to hell. Once again your phony position just got crushed by facts which I provided as you do not have the analytical ability to do the research yourself. Next....

"Agman, do you deny that you have multiple effects on price when all of the meats are decreased in supply at one time, or do you continue to attribute all increases over Schroder's "demand index" values of substitution to shifts in demand?

3. Where did I ever say that you would not have multiple effets on price when ALL of the meats are decreased in supply at one time? Post that claim of yours for all readers to see. A fool like you might make such a statement but not me. Schroeder's analysis provied an insight into various price elasticities which are real. Are they constant, NO. He held them constant only for the purpose of analysis. That is a common methodology used in analysis. I would suggest even Dr Taylor is smart enough to know that; unfortunatley you are not. Are you having a reading comprehension problem again Conman? Next....

4. "There can be no collusion with Tyson and themselves over beef and poultry substitution and cross elasticities." Are you now admitting that IBP could not and did not manipulate cattle prices during the 1994-1999 period before Tyson owned IBP? Look at your quote again which I posted. Next...

"Read every word slowly next time. Does "everyone" just include your packer backers?"

5. I don't see packer bashers supporting your position. They are noticeably absent from this discussion. They are not so foolish as to support your failed and goofy comments, even they know better you have mastered the twist and unsupported allegations or outright lies. You can tell all of us which it is-outright lies or completely unsupported allegations. Next....

"Do you find either one of the two I mentioned, Waterfield and McBride, as one of your compatriots? Do you know either one of them?"

6. I have never heard of either one, am I supposed to. Are they your hair dressers perhaps? I have to go now. You have been bloodied up enough for one evening. Better luck next time champ!!!
[/quote]


Sorry about the delay, Agman. I tried to copy this over to Word to correct spelling mistakes and such and ended up rewriting your quotes (which I do not want to do, even by mistake) and then losing it all on the computer. I have numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to reply point by point. Here is the reply:

1. What really happened in this scenario had nothing to do with demand changes, except those required by changes all within the packer's control. The portion size was getting bigger because the price signals the packers were sending to the fat cattle market. The cattle were getting bigger and cutting the meat the same way yielded a bigger piece of meat than what the consumers wanted. The packers solved this problem at first by bidding up the heifers since they yielded the cut closer to the correct portion size. This, however, was only a temporary solution since bidding up lower yielding heifers was inefficient from an over all value stance. The problem was eventually solved by seperation of the muscles a and a closer attention to what the consumer wanted all along---the right size portion. In this scenario, you claimed it was a change in demand. I guess you could call it that, but that does not tell "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey puts it. Do the management practices by the packers, independent of changes in what consumers want, affect the producer side of the market? Absolutely. It is undeniable. This totally blows the argument that SH (and you) tout that everything is in the consumer's control when it comes changes in demand at the producer level.

I am sorry I had to "trick" it out of you, Agman.

2. First of all, I would like to thank you again for validating my statement on supply being the major factor. I see you are still trying to caveat my statement of "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". I said that statement as it pertained to a specific set of circumstances, which you have continuously changed to meet the requirements of your argument.

I will have to ask you a few questions on your claimed 4.62 cwt since you did not show your work. Did you count the cross elasticities of the substitutes in that number? Shifts in demand are very different from changes in quantity demanded, as Schroeder correctly pointed out in his article. Many of the people on this board will not know the difference and that is why I question the resultant conclusions of your comments. You have let way too many of SH's comments that suit your needs slip by. Changes in the supply and hence price of the major substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, taken together are more than the calculations that Schroeder had in his article. His article, which you claimed to be a contributing source, did not count the cross elasticities of the major substitutes for protein on the plate. My comment merely points this out. since the major substitutes did contract in supply and were a major part of your "demand shift", you can not honestly attribute the 4.62 cwt to a shift in demand (again, I don't know how you did your calculations so I don't know how you came up with your numbers to be able to correct them). As Schroeter correctly pointed out, the demand curve has the assumption that every thing else remains constant. Using a calculated set of numbers from the "demand index" without calculating the value of the cross elasticities incorrectly attributes the calculation all to a "shift in demand".

3. Your common methodology has some problems that Taylor's numbers calclations do not. I would really like the answer to the question posed in #2 before I address this issue to be more accurate, but I will take a stab in the dark at it anyway. The "demand" index in the article and the resultant calculations for the substitution effect of each of the substitutes is subject to some underlying assumptions. Although I will not go into all of them in great detail on this post, some of them can have major impacts on the resultant calculations to determine whether there was and to what degree there was a shift in demand. The multiplying effect of the substitution calculations when the substitutes have a coordinated supply shift is one of them and probably the most major. Another one could be the time period the different calculations were made. Since the substitution numbers in the article did not have the multiple effects of coordinated supply depression of the major meats, the time period plays a critical factor. Remember that in all of these calculations, the time period plays an important role because the identical time period holds all other things constant for a calculated value for that time period(in this case the time period is the "demand index" period, not a period where supply suppression was orchestrated).

Yes, Taylor does know all of this. I am glad you give him some credit, here, Agman. In the calculations that Taylor made, as I understand them (and I have not reviewed them completely, but was told by him directly but very quickly in a phone convesation) the time period for the calculations that were made to tell the value of market manipulation, were the same or as close to the same as possible. Your calculations are not. Did you even use any of the calculated values in Schroeder's article that you had so much input on, Agman? Did you calculate the increase in demand due to increases in income? That number would have to be subtracted from the 4.62 number you calculated as would the multiple effects of the substitition supply control to determine if there was a shift in the demand curve. Taylor's numbers would need no adjustment because of income since the time period for the calculations were so short, for example. Maybe your use of "common methodology" should be scrutinized more carefully. Did you "test" your theory? There could be some serious Daubert isssues here, Agman. Again, you did not show your work so it is really hard to tell.

4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson.

I really don't know the answers to these questions, but they are probably inconsequential to the question of liability as I stated above.

5. Unlike you, Agman, I can think on my own. I don't consult with Sandhusker, OCM, Robert Mac, or anyone else to come up with my observations. They might have some good input, which has occurred on this board by them, but I am not "teamed up" with them as you seem to be with SH and some of the other ones.

This forum is a discussion forum and should not be a propaganda forum as your packer backer team has tried to turn it into. Name calling and all the other stuff is just junk as is "prove it" and other diversionary tactics.

6. If you don't know who Waterfield and McBride are (I am most certainly sure you do know who they are) then you know less about this industry than I thought.

For your information, the closest I get to a hairdresser, besides an occaisional visit from my wonderful aunt who was a hair dresser, is my wife.

As far as blood on the floor, I have a funny little story on that. My mom was cutting my dad's hair while talking to us. My dad doesn't have that much hair to clip off anyway but my mom always gives him his haircut. She was just snipping away. She accidentially cut a little piece of his ear off and it fell on the floor.

Now I know in the pig business that they mark the pigs by clipping their ears sometimes. I think my mom took it a little to far. Don't you?

As far as blood on the floor, Agman, I think it was your ear that was clipped, not mine. That blood on the floor was definitely yours. My wife is the only one with the potential of clipping my ears. She has not made them bleed yet, but she has boxed them a few times.

Have a good day.


________________[/quote]
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
View user's profile Send private message
agman
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1072
Location: Denver, CO

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Econ101 wrote:
Oh, Agman, I reallydo like to get you riled up.

"
You are truly hilarious. You might want to explain your "one pertinent" example once again so as not to confuse yourself or readers!! Your comment "Consumers wanted a smaller portion when they bought the product." Is that not reflective of a consumer preference? Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control. You will likely call that packer price manipulation; everything else is according to your space-cadet world. Did you really think you were on-up on me?!!! "

In the instance I was referring to, the size of the fat steers was the change, not the consumer preference. Only you could turn it into a change in demand by consumers. It was only after the muscle seperation and subsequent portion conrol on the part of the packers that the situation was rectified. You must have consumer demand changes on the brain, Agman. It wasn't rocket science, as you allude to, that maximized the value out of the cattle, Agman, it was a change in the way the packers operated in relation to their own changes they encouraged in the industry through their own price signals.

"There are other reasons that heifers might bring a price equal to or even exceeding steers. Packers are limited to the size of carcasses they can handle and the size of primal that can fit in a box. Do you know the carcass size break-boneless versus bone-in?!! Also, when the industry is very "current' heifers will tend to outgrade steers. "

That could also be because the packers discriminated against the cash market, Agman. Again, a packer controlled situation.

"I don't come up with excuses as you claim-facts suffice for me. You did not know the level nor trend in per capita supply yet you professed to know all bout beef demand. Per capita supply is the "x" (independent)variable used to analyze demand. "Y" representing "price" is the dependent variable. Explain again all your alleged knowledge regarding demand and how prices are manipulated when you did not even know what the "x" or supply variable was? Teach all of us how you derived at your bogus conclusion master teacher. I am anxiously awaiting your explanation or should I cay another meaningless dissertation. "

Thank you for providing your own numbers that supported my assertions on the supply shift, Agman. That was real courteous. It was like pulling teeth to get it from you, however. I had to ask a lot of times with a few challenges in there.

"You blame others and myself for reading comprehension; that is a total joke. You twist your position so much and your positions are so misguided and goofy no one can comprehend what you say from one post to the next. "

Read every word slowly next time. Does "everyone" just include your packer backers?

"Are you going to explain to all readers which part of the cattle cycle packers manipulate prices? Or do you now deny you made that goofy comment? Can you once again explain your comment that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down." Can you identify for readers those periods when your position was ever supported by actual results in the market? You cannot even decipher the 01-03 period correctly. I can't wait to hear this one!! Can you explain how you shifted from saying packer manipulate cattle price to they don't have to manipulate cattle prices they just manipulate the competing meats? How did that happen before Tyson purchased IBP? According to you "packers manipulate the cattle cycle world wide"-only in your mind hero. Since weather is a dominant determinant of the length of the cattle cycle do they also manipulate the weather world wide? No dissertations are necessary from you. No one believes you anyway. Do actually believe the garbage you post? "

I think I got the O1-03 period correct and your own numbers proved it. I have always maintained that by discriminating against the cash market there is a movement along the supply curve downward. It takes time, but the decreased supply will eventually make the prices go back up (sure you could have some changes of other things; I am not ruling them out). Don't go too far out there on the weather thing. That is another argument to be had between your own ears, not with me. I never said the statement, "packer manipulate cattle price to they don't have to manipulate cattle prices they just manipulate the competing meats?". That is your rendition of what I said, which is wrong. I said that when they manipulate the supply of cattle down by discriminating against the cash market, they benefit by having the substitutes gain in either market share or price. In the years 2001 to 2003 that we were looking at, it was both. Do you not agree?

Agman, do you deny that you have multiple effects on price when all of the meats are decreased in supply at one time, or do you continue to attribute all increases over Schroder's "demand index" values of substitution to shifts in demand? Of course you can probably figure out where the next logical step is, Agman. There can be no collusion with Tyson and themselves over beef and poultry substitution and cross elasticities. Maybe the IBP buyout was a smart move for Tyson after all. I assume you want to use Schroeder's "demand index" to explain it as a demand shift instead of a multiple effect from the substitutes.

"What is your GIPSA reference? This is the first I have heard of it. Please post the initial reference or have you just diverted once again? Are those strange voices talking to you again? It must be difficult for a self-anointed intellectual like you to be so confused? You lose arguments with yourself. You certainly have no chance of winning against me or for that matter anyone with a basic understanding of economic analysis or the beef industry. Better luck next time."

If I get the time, I will go look up the reference. I might not want to go through that much effort for you, however. Do you find either one of the two I mentioned, Waterfield and McBride, as one of your compatriots? Do you know either one of them?

"In the instance I was referring to, the size of the fat steers was the change, not the consumer preference. Only you could turn it into a change in demand by consumers."

1. Where did I say it was a consumer demand change? I was very specific in saying that it was a change in demand at the producer level resulting in higher prices for the same quantity of heifers. That action was induced by a long standing trend by retailers to meet consumers who desire smaller protioned cuts. Who has the comprehension problem Conman? Please point out where I said it was a change in connsumer demand as you claim. Here is my statement verbatim. "Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control." Are you not aware that demand can and is measured by me at various levels, not just the consumer level. That false claim of yours was quickly put to rest by my exact quote. You are just to easy..Next.

2. What the 01-03 data proved is that supply was a factor in the higher price but improved consumer demand was also a factor independent of the supply change. The demand increase during that period measured exactly $4.62/cwt. Why do you conveniently dismiss that? What about the other periods I mentioned when supply of beef and competing meats increased simultaneously and the price of beef still advanced? What is tath called? You won't go there since it blows your phony theory, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down", all to hell. Once again your phony position just got crushed by facts which I provided as you do not have the analytical ability to do the research yourself. Next....

"Agman, do you deny that you have multiple effects on price when all of the meats are decreased in supply at one time, or do you continue to attribute all increases over Schroder's "demand index" values of substitution to shifts in demand?

3. Where did I ever say that you would not have multiple effets on price when ALL of the meats are decreased in supply at one time? Post that claim of yours for all readers to see. A fool like you might make such a statement but not me. Schroeder's analysis provied an insight into various price elasticities which are real. Are they constant, NO. He held them constant only for the purpose of analysis. That is a common methodology used in analysis. I would suggest even Dr Taylor is smart enough to know that; unfortunatley you are not. Are you having a reading comprehension problem again Conman? Next....

4. "There can be no collusion with Tyson and themselves over beef and poultry substitution and cross elasticities." Are you now admitting that IBP could not and did not manipulate cattle prices during the 1994-1999 period before Tyson owned IBP? Look at your quote again which I posted. Next...

"Read every word slowly next time. Does "everyone" just include your packer backers?"

5. I don't see packer bashers supporting your position. They are noticeably absent from this discussion. They are not so foolish as to support your failed and goofy comments, even they know better you have mastered the twist and unsupported allegations or outright lies. You can tell all of us which it is-outright lies or completely unsupported allegations. Next....

"Do you find either one of the two I mentioned, Waterfield and McBride, as one of your compatriots? Do you know either one of them?"

6. I have never heard of either one, am I supposed to. Are they your hair dressers perhaps? I have to go now. You have been bloodied up enough for one evening. Better luck next time champ!!!


Sorry about the delay, Agman. I tried to copy this over to Word to correct spelling mistakes and such and ended up rewriting your quotes (which I do not want to do, even by mistake) and then losing it all on the computer. I have numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to reply point by point. Here is the reply:

1. What really happened in this scenario had nothing to do with demand changes, except those required by changes all within the packer's control. The portion size was getting bigger because the price signals the packers were sending to the fat cattle market. The cattle were getting bigger and cutting the meat the same way yielded a bigger piece of meat than what the consumers wanted. The packers solved this problem at first by bidding up the heifers since they yielded the cut closer to the correct portion size. This, however, was only a temporary solution since bidding up lower yielding heifers was inefficient from an over all value stance. The problem was eventually solved by seperation of the muscles a and a closer attention to what the consumer wanted all along---the right size portion. In this scenario, you claimed it was a change in demand. I guess you could call it that, but that does not tell "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey puts it. Do the management practices by the packers, independent of changes in what consumers want, affect the producer side of the market? Absolutely. It is undeniable. This totally blows the argument that SH (and you) tout that everything is in the consumer's control when it comes changes in demand at the producer level.

I am sorry I had to "trick" it out of you, Agman.

2. First of all, I would like to thank you again for validating my statement on supply being the major factor. I see you are still trying to caveat my statement of "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". I said that statement as it pertained to a specific set of circumstances, which you have continuously changed to meet the requirements of your argument.

I will have to ask you a few questions on your claimed 4.62 cwt since you did not show your work. Did you count the cross elasticities of the substitutes in that number? Shifts in demand are very different from changes in quantity demanded, as Schroeder correctly pointed out in his article. Many of the people on this board will not know the difference and that is why I question the resultant conclusions of your comments. You have let way too many of SH's comments that suit your needs slip by. Changes in the supply and hence price of the major substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, taken together are more than the calculations that Schroeder had in his article. His article, which you claimed to be a contributing source, did not count the cross elasticities of the major substitutes for protein on the plate. My comment merely points this out. since the major substitutes did contract in supply and were a major part of your "demand shift", you can not honestly attribute the 4.62 cwt to a shift in demand (again, I don't know how you did your calculations so I don't know how you came up with your numbers to be able to correct them). As Schroeter correctly pointed out, the demand curve has the assumption that every thing else remains constant. Using a calculated set of numbers from the "demand index" without calculating the value of the cross elasticities incorrectly attributes the calculation all to a "shift in demand".

3. Your common methodology has some problems that Taylor's numbers calclations do not. I would really like the answer to the question posed in #2 before I address this issue to be more accurate, but I will take a stab in the dark at it anyway. The "demand" index in the article and the resultant calculations for the substitution effect of each of the substitutes is subject to some underlying assumptions. Although I will not go into all of them in great detail on this post, some of them can have major impacts on the resultant calculations to determine whether there was and to what degree there was a shift in demand. The multiplying effect of the substitution calculations when the substitutes have a coordinated supply shift is one of them and probably the most major. Another one could be the time period the different calculations were made. Since the substitution numbers in the article did not have the multiple effects of coordinated supply depression of the major meats, the time period plays a critical factor. Remember that in all of these calculations, the time period plays an important role because the identical time period holds all other things constant for a calculated value for that time period(in this case the time period is the "demand index" period, not a period where supply suppression was orchestrated).

Yes, Taylor does know all of this. I am glad you give him some credit, here, Agman. In the calculations that Taylor made, as I understand them (and I have not reviewed them completely, but was told by him directly but very quickly in a phone convesation) the time period for the calculations that were made to tell the value of market manipulation, were the same or as close to the same as possible. Your calculations are not. Did you even use any of the calculated values in Schroeder's article that you had so much input on, Agman? Did you calculate the increase in demand due to increases in income? That number would have to be subtracted from the 4.62 number you calculated as would the multiple effects of the substitition supply control to determine if there was a shift in the demand curve. Taylor's numbers would need no adjustment because of income since the time period for the calculations were so short, for example. Maybe your use of "common methodology" should be scrutinized more carefully. Did you "test" your theory? There could be some serious Daubert isssues here, Agman. Again, you did not show your work so it is really hard to tell.

4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson.

I really don't know the answers to these questions, but they are probably inconsequential to the question of liability as I stated above.

5. Unlike you, Agman, I can think on my own. I don't consult with Sandhusker, OCM, Robert Mac, or anyone else to come up with my observations. They might have some good input, which has occurred on this board by them, but I am not "teamed up" with them as you seem to be with SH and some of the other ones.

This forum is a discussion forum and should not be a propaganda forum as your packer backer team has tried to turn it into. Name calling and all the other stuff is just junk as is "prove it" and other diversionary tactics.

6. If you don't know who Waterfield and McBride are (I am most certainly sure you do know who they are) then you know less about this industry than I thought.

For your information, the closest I get to a hairdresser, besides an occaisional visit from my wonderful aunt who was a hair dresser, is my wife.

As far as blood on the floor, I have a funny little story on that. My mom was cutting my dad's hair while talking to us. My dad doesn't have that much hair to clip off anyway but my mom always gives him his haircut. She was just snipping away. She accidentially cut a little piece of his ear off and it fell on the floor.

Now I know in the pig business that they mark the pigs by clipping their ears sometimes. I think my mom took it a little to far. Don't you?

As far as blood on the floor, Agman, I think it was your ear that was clipped, not mine. That blood on the floor was definitely yours. My wife is the only one with the potential of clipping my ears. She has not made them bleed yet, but she has boxed them a few times.

Have a good day.


________________[/quote][/quote]

Your response #1 demonstrates your total ignorance of supply/demand analysis. I said quite specifically that demand for heifers increased, for you to suggest otherwise is just another lie from you. Once again here is my previous post. Please point out where I said it was a change in consumer demand as you claim. Here is my statement verbatim. "Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control." The key word is "producer" level. I see your reading comprehension deficit is on display again. You did not trick me, you just fooled yourself again!!! You are way too easy.

In your point # 2 you again post a blatant lie. Please post where I ever stated I had any input in the Schroeder study you cite. Please make the post fool. You can't, I know so you just stated another blatant lie. I encouraged the development of the Demand Index in 1999 for which I provided a complete chronology. What do you have, nothing once again but a bunch of meaningless verbiage.

Your ignorance is truly astounding. The fact that a $4.62/cwt upward shift in demand in the 01-03 period occurred is indisputable. What factors combined to cause the change in demand is a debatable issue. The latter is over your head though. You seem to confuse the two due to your ignorance of supply/demand analysis. You have done no independent research per this matter yet you claim to know all the answers. Such arrogance is due to your ignorance, not knowledge. This quote from you is just laughable "Did you calculate the increase in demand due to increases in income?" Well, you have been trying to convince readers there was no increase in demand. Now you want to know if I calculated the impact of income on the demand change. Is income not a factor that influences demand? You are one confused person who is making a failed attempt to show some level of intelligence. Are there too many strange voices talking to you again?

Your response #3 is wasted verbiage. My response to your comment was for the period 01-03. Where did I ever state that it was the same period analyzed by Dr Taylor or what ever you meant to say? Why would you ask if I tested my theory when you did not demand the same for Dr Taylor in the Pickett case when he said under oath he did not test any of his six theories? Have you read the testimony yet - NO?

How do you know whether supply suppression was or was not orchestrated during the 01-03 period? As I stated, declining supply accounted for $6.80/cwt of the $11.42/cwt price advance during the 01-03 period. Improved demand accounted for the balance of the price advance or $4.62/cwt. You are keen to use your manipulation accusations for your own convenience; how credible is that? Who would believe you anyway?

To suggest that income changes were irrelevant or not necessary in Taylor's analysis is simply bogus. While the time-frames may differ the impact over time has a direct bearing on the ultimate price level. To suggest otherwise again displays for all to see your lack of competence per supply/demand analysis.

Your comment #4 is just another case of wasted verbiage.

Your comment #5 "This forum is a discussion forum and should not be a propaganda forum as your packer backer team has tried to turn it into. "

Propaganda from the Conman who has yet to post any evidence to support even one of his endless stream of accusations. You are a total fraud and if anyone remaining had any doubts about your total lack of credibility you erased that question mark by your aforementioned comment #5. Do actually think all readers on this forum have overlooked your endless unsupported allegations, twists and turns? You are the fool.

Response to #6. If I knew or read their works I would have stated such. Unlike yourself, I don't make fallacious comments.

Finally, I have noticed some posts requesting your identity. I suggest that is totally irrelevant as it will not make you any more intelligent or your accusations more credible. Your lack of knowledge, intelligence and bias is displayed with virtually every post you make. Have you stopped the bleeding yet? You remind me of the barracks lawyer (those who served know what I am talking about) in the military. You think you know it all but when the truth is revealed you know absolutely nothing of relevance.

You don't get me riled up, I am just not going to stand by and tolerate your stream of unsupported accusations and lies. You do provide me with a really good laugh and for that I thank you.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman:
Your response #1 demonstrates your total ignorance of supply/demand analysis. I said quite specifically that demand for heifers increased, for you to suggest otherwise is just another lie from you. Once again here is my previous post. Please point out where I said it was a change in consumer demand as you claim. Here is my statement verbatim. "Did packers then not pay more for the SAME quantity of heifer beef supplied? What is that called master teacher?!!! I would call that a demand shift at the producer price level which was encouraged by a consumer preference for portion size control." The key word is "producer" level. I see your reading comprehension deficit is on display again. You did not trick me, you just fooled yourself again!!! You are way too easy.

Oh, I know what you were saying, Agman. This illustrates the point that the packers have great control over demand at the producer level. It is not just pass through consumer demand of a value added margin player. Thank you for helping illustrate the point. It would have been much easier for you to say this fact than the exercise we just went through. It would have been much easier for you to correct SH when he started spouting this nonsense.

Agman:
Your ignorance is truly astounding. The fact that a $4.62/cwt upward shift in demand in the 01-03 period occurred is indisputable. What factors combined to cause the change in demand is a debatable issue. The latter is over your head though. You seem to confuse the two due to your ignorance of supply/demand analysis. You have done no independent research per this matter yet you claim to know all the answers. Such arrogance is due to your ignorance, not knowledge. This quote from you is just laughable "Did you calculate the increase in demand due to increases in income?" Well, you have been trying to convince readers there was no increase in demand. Now you want to know if I calculated the impact of income on the demand change. Is income not a factor that influences demand? You are one confused person who is making a failed attempt to show some level of intelligence. Are there too many strange voices talking to you again?

In Taylor's calculations, none of these factors had any influence. Are you going to say that in the short time spans that were calculated there was ANY influence of any of these factors? Your calculations are so much more misleading and have so many more assumptions than Taylor's. I really don't know how you could compare the accuracy of your calculations to Taylor's. You must be smart enough to know this. It leads me to some viable conclusions about your bias. "Trust the expert" (our expert) scam. The jury did not buy it and neither do I.



Agman:
Your response #3 is wasted verbiage. My response to your comment was for the period 01-03. Where did I ever state that it was the same period analyzed by Dr Taylor or what ever you meant to say? Why would you ask if I tested my theory when you did not demand the same for Dr Taylor in the Pickett case when he said under oath he did not test any of his six theories? Have you read the testimony yet - NO?

The sum of the time periods tested was not the issue here, Agman. Nor does your time period have to be the same to compare your methodology to Taylor's. It is the validity of the individual calculations and the conclusions that can be drawn from these calculations that is the question. Your calculations are so far inferior to the conclusions you draw than Taylor's that they are laughable. The fact is that the underlying assumptions to all your calculations are integrally more unreliable than the methodology Taylor used. If you are so smart about the calculations, why don't you share where Taylor went wrong? You have the court testimony, as you have claimed before. Show us where he went wrong in his calculations. Don't quote anyone else, just show us. A little peer review might do you good.

Agman:

How do you know whether supply suppression was or was not orchestrated during the 01-03 period? As I stated, declining supply accounted for $6.80/cwt of the $11.42/cwt price advance during the 01-03 period. Improved demand accounted for the balance of the price advance or $4.62/cwt. You are keen to use your manipulation accusations for your own convenience; how credible is that? Who would believe you anyway?

To suggest that income changes were irrelevant or not necessary in Taylor's analysis is simply bogus. While the time-frames may differ the impact over time has a direct bearing on the ultimate price level. To suggest otherwise again displays for all to see your lack of competence per supply/demand analysis.
Income changes over a short period of time are materially irrelevant. Over long periods of time they are relevant. This is a fact. I am sure you could pull some kind of argument that people buy more beef when they get their paycheck or something like that, but it would only be a diversion. Tell me, Agman, did the income go up during the years Pickett claimed a discrimination against the cash market? I can't hear your answer, Agman. Did the income go up during the time period of the discrimination that was shown by Taylor's calculations?

Agman:
Your comment #4 is just another case of wasted verbiage.
You brought up the issue, Agman. You asked the question.

As the song goes, "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give you the answer that you want me to." I think this pertains to your comments as well. Can you refute any of it?

Agman"
Your comment #5 "This forum is a discussion forum and should not be a propaganda forum as your packer backer team has tried to turn it into. "

Propaganda from the Conman who has yet to post any evidence to support even one of his endless stream of accusations. You are a total fraud and if anyone remaining had any doubts about your total lack of credibility you erased that question mark by your aforementioned comment #5. Do actually think all readers on this forum have overlooked your endless unsupported allegations, twists and turns? You are the fool.
Without taking them out of context, which "endless unsupported allegations" are you talking about? I would be glad to discuss any of them with you to see where your understanding is lacking.

Agman:
Response to #6. If I knew or read their works I would have stated such. Unlike yourself, I don't make fallacious comments.
JoAnn Waterfield was the acting deputy administrator of the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards administration. She was also the OGC attorney who lost the same issue case within the GIPSA administrative procedure as the Pickett case under Jim Baker, head of GIPSA under Bill Clinton. Due to her incompetence or her corruption, she is no longer in that position, Agman. McBride is one of the three committee persons with JoAnn who approved some of the bogus GIPSA funded studies by outside sources (Tomislav Vukina, for instance). These studies were meant to "answer" some of the questions brought up as rebuttal for GIPSA not understanding their regulatory job or the issues in the meats industry. These studies were meant to do what you and SH do on this board---divert, mislead, and put accountablity on someone else. It is used to hide the corruption in GIPSA and the USDA.

You know so little about the economic issues in the Pickett case and the major players of the issues in the beef industry's regulatory agency that you are the joke, Agman (which leads to the last comment). I would not have to continue to point this out if you did not continue the joke, Agman. Again, as I stated before, you have been marked. They don't call it a bloody head for nothing.

I am very glad I can humor you.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,053
Reaction score
131
Location
Big Muddy valley
ECON wrote
"Oh, I know what you were saying, Agman. This illustrates the point that the packers have great control over demand at the producer level. It is not just pass through consumer demand of a value added margin player. Thank you for helping illustrate the point. It would have been much easier for you to say this fact than the exercise we just went through. It would have been much easier for you to correct SH when he started spouting this nonsense."



Of coarse Packers control the demand as they are our customers just as the consumer controls their demand. As producers we "control" the supply just as packers "control' the supply to consumers.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
ECON wrote
"Oh, I know what you were saying, Agman. This illustrates the point that the packers have great control over demand at the producer level. It is not just pass through consumer demand of a value added margin player. Thank you for helping illustrate the point. It would have been much easier for you to say this fact than the exercise we just went through. It would have been much easier for you to correct SH when he started spouting this nonsense."



Of coarse Packers control the demand as they are our customers just as the consumer controls their demand. As producers we "control" the supply just as packers "control' the supply to consumers.

Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy. Agman knows it is not necessarily true, I merely pointed it out with a real life example, BMR. Packers control so much more of producer demand than packer backers lead on, both on purpose and incidentally.

Is that all you picked up from the sparring, BMR?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,053
Reaction score
131
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
ECON wrote
"Oh, I know what you were saying, Agman. This illustrates the point that the packers have great control over demand at the producer level. It is not just pass through consumer demand of a value added margin player. Thank you for helping illustrate the point. It would have been much easier for you to say this fact than the exercise we just went through. It would have been much easier for you to correct SH when he started spouting this nonsense."



Of coarse Packers control the demand as they are our customers just as the consumer controls their demand. As producers we "control" the supply just as packers "control' the supply to consumers.

Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy. Agman knows it is not necessarily true, I merely pointed it out with a real life example, BMR. Packers control so much more of producer demand than packer backers lead on, both on purpose and incidentally.

Is that all you picked up from the sparring, BMR?



I didn't want to overwhelm you. :cowboy:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
ECON wrote
"Oh, I know what you were saying, Agman. This illustrates the point that the packers have great control over demand at the producer level. It is not just pass through consumer demand of a value added margin player. Thank you for helping illustrate the point. It would have been much easier for you to say this fact than the exercise we just went through. It would have been much easier for you to correct SH when he started spouting this nonsense."



Of coarse Packers control the demand as they are our customers just as the consumer controls their demand. As producers we "control" the supply just as packers "control' the supply to consumers.

Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy. Agman knows it is not necessarily true, I merely pointed it out with a real life example, BMR. Packers control so much more of producer demand than packer backers lead on, both on purpose and incidentally.

Is that all you picked up from the sparring, BMR?



I didn't want to overwhelm you. :cowboy:

No worry there. Its my kids that have worn that path already.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy. Agman knows it is not necessarily true, I merely pointed it out with a real life example, BMR. Packers control so much more of producer demand than packer backers lead on, both on purpose and incidentally.

Is that all you picked up from the sparring, BMR?



I didn't want to overwhelm you. :cowboy:

No worry there. Its my kids that have worn that path already.

Your response is quite contradictory as usual. Did packers create the heavyweight steers or was the increased price paid on heifers a packer response to consumer preference for smaller cuts?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
I didn't want to overwhelm you. :cowboy:

No worry there. Its my kids that have worn that path already.

Your response is quite contradictory as usual. Did packers create the heavyweight steers or was the increased price paid on heifers a packer response to consumer preference for smaller cuts?

I guess I would answer by saying that God created the steers, Agman. The steers, the heifers, and you and I. What are you doing up so late?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy."

I see you got caught spreading more lies again.

Packer demand is based on consumer demand. If the packer doesn't sell it, they smell it. How stupid can you be?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Packer demand is different than consumer demand. Packers do not always send price signals from consumers to producers. They have a lot of play in there. SH's boxed beef argument represents this fallacy."

I see you got caught spreading more lies again.

Packer demand is based on consumer demand. If the packer doesn't sell it, they smell it. How stupid can you be?


~SH~

So you have trouble seeing truth in evidence, I see, SH. Good diversion from the facts presented. Shows your character.

I kinda missed ya on the board.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "So you have trouble seeing truth in evidence, I see, SH."

What truth? What evidence? You've never supported a position with evidence since you disgraced this forum with your presence. You are nothing but a phony and you stand alone.


Conman: "Good diversion from the facts presented."

You'd be the one to know about diversion. You didn't contradict anything agman stated with opposing facts. You are the king of cheap talk.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I was hoping SH's recent absence from this board was due to him attending a workshop on debating as an adult, reading comprehension, or just plain civility. Guess I was just hoping for too much.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was hoping during my absence that you would actually find some form of factual information to back your position for once. Guess I was asking for too much from an "illusionist".


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
I was hoping during my absence that you would actually find some form of factual information to back your position for once. Guess I was asking for too much from an "illusionist".


~SH~

If you don't like the show, SH, you can leave anytime. Might get lonely without you though. You are kind of like a wart, in the way most of the time but sorely missed when burned off.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, are you stuck on the cause of the heavy weight steers?

Sh, he does not need your help (or at least I hope not).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "If you don't like the show, SH, you can leave anytime."

Hahaha! Listen to you! I was here long before you and I'll be here long after readers get tired of your lying deceptive ways.


Conman: "Sh, he does not need your help (or at least I hope not)."

Agman would be smart to not even respond to your stupidity.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "If you don't like the show, SH, you can leave anytime."

Hahaha! Listen to you! I was here long before you and I'll be here long after readers get tired of your lying deceptive ways.


Conman: "Sh, he does not need your help (or at least I hope not)."

Agman would be smart to not even respond to your stupidity.


~SH~

Yes, some warts are hard to remove.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Careful there, SH, it looks like Econ 101 might lose her temper and attack you even more than in the past!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Careful there, SH, it looks like Econ 101 might lose her temper and attack you even more than in the past!

MRJ

My dear queen, I stoop to the level of those I am talking to so they can understand. Temper is what you do when making a good sword. I would much rather all discussions be substantive but in the case of some, you have to communicate on their level.
 

Latest posts

Top