View user's profile Send private message
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
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?
[/quote]"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.