Enough of the 3 dollar an 88 cent joke already

[Econ101]

At the risk of getting blasted. At 3.88 a head profit the packer owns these cattle what a week? Multiply 3.88 times fifty two and you get a dang nice return on investment. If I could own cattle for one week and make 3.88 a head on them it would be a no-brainer. I have owned cattle a heck of a lot longer and made less on them.

Exactly. It's called the time value of money. A money figure alone means nothing if you can't put a time frame on it as well.

Spoken like a true banker. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Tell us all how $3.88 has allowed these giants of the industry to not only survive but to thrive."

VOLUME AND TURN OVER!

What they lack on a per head basis they make it up on volume.

If you don't like the $3.88 per head figure, use the $26 high reported for Tyson during the Pickett era of packer profitability.

Either way, $26 per head is a hell of a long ways from the $400 per head lies stated by Mike Callicrate.

Randy: "Closing two plants while expanding ten doesn't count."

What 10 plants are expanding Randy?

Name them or make another stupid remark to divert having to back your empty statement.

Observe the dance.............

Randy: "Come now Scott, wipe of your brown nose for a momnet and tell us how this economic model of yours works."

I just did!

There's no such thing as truth with you is there? It's either packer defense or packer blame. It just can't be what the facts support can it?

Until you can present some hard data to prove these figures incorrect, you got nothing.

Randy: "Is the $3.88 a percentage of the price Tyson pays producers or gets from the retailer. Your choice. Now show us the percentage of profit. And then tell us how any business in the world could survive months let alone years of this absolutly ridiculous number."

Neither! The $3.88 per head FOR THE 90's FOR THE 5 MAJOR PACKERS, was what packers made as profit on a per head basis after taxes. The profitability figures are reported to GIPSA, Agman calculated the per head profit figures from their slaughter numbers.

Tyson figures their profits as what they received for beef and beef by products minus what they paid for the cattle - minus their slaughter costs.

What does your reasearch show Randy?? WHAT RESEARCH????? LOL!



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Keep ranting SH, can't argue with you for two reasons.

You hurt my feelings.

You sound so good to Tam and Jason that they think that they too are smart like you.

I kinda like you, and want to be a gopher trapper when I grow up. I figure if I kinda stay your freind, you will show me which poop to follow some day so that I can be a good gopher trapper too.

 

[agman]

rkaiser, your point is well taken. I only used the number so I could use a packer backer number in the arguments instead of fighting over details. They still argued over their own number!!!!! Same with the $26.00 per head they quote.

If you have data to refute the numbers quoted for the specified time periods for the company and/or companies involeved then produce the numbers. Your continued claims that you know better but never provide any hard evidence is getting really old. Maybe you and RK can work on this project together. Neither of you can support your position with any factual data.

The $26 per head is from subpoenaed records from Tyson that the plaintiffs provided at trail. By your own admission you never read the transcripts of trail but again you claim to know more than the plaintiffs calculated number. Your comment implies the plaintiffs purposely understated Tyson's profits for the defined period. What purpose would that serve. You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

 

[Econ101]

rkaiser, your point is well taken. I only used the number so I could use a packer backer number in the arguments instead of fighting over details. They still argued over their own number!!!!! Same with the $26.00 per head they quote.

If you have data to refute the numbers quoted for the specified time periods for the company and/or companies involeved then produce the numbers. Your continued claims that you know better but never provide any hard evidence is getting really old. Maybe you and RK can work on this project together. Neither of you can support your position with any factual data.

The $26 per head is from subpoenaed records from Tyson that the plaintiffs provided at trail. By your own admission you never read the transcripts of trail but again you claim to know more than the plaintiffs calculated number. Your comment implies the plaintiffs purposely understated Tyson's profits for the defined period. What purpose would that serve. You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

Agman, I don't trust your math and I don't trust Tyson's math. There is no implying there. I am stating it.

If I want to use the number you or others came up with to continue with the points and not argue whether or not you were correct, I will. I can sidestep some of the issues you bring up because they may be immaterial to the conclusions. I still do not have to agree that everything you say is correct. It is funny that you would argue with your own numbers that I use just be able to say:

You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

 

[agman]

rkaiser, your point is well taken. I only used the number so I could use a packer backer number in the arguments instead of fighting over details. They still argued over their own number!!!!! Same with the $26.00 per head they quote.

If you have data to refute the numbers quoted for the specified time periods for the company and/or companies involeved then produce the numbers. Your continued claims that you know better but never provide any hard evidence is getting really old. Maybe you and RK can work on this project together. Neither of you can support your position with any factual data.

The $26 per head is from subpoenaed records from Tyson that the plaintiffs provided at trail. By your own admission you never read the transcripts of trail but again you claim to know more than the plaintiffs calculated number. Your comment implies the plaintiffs purposely understated Tyson's profits for the defined period. What purpose would that serve. You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

Agman, I don't trust your math and I don't trust Tyson's math. There is no implying there. I am stating it.

If I want to use the number you or others came up with to continue with the points and not argue whether or not you were correct, I will. I can sidestep some of the issues you bring up because they may be immaterial to the conclusions. I still do not have to agree that everything you say is correct. It is funny that you would argue with your own numbers that I use just be able to say:

You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

If you don't trust my math or that of the plaintiff's attorneys who examined Tyson's books then provide your own. Prove everyone wrong instead of just making another totally foolish charge. You don't have to rush your answer as no reader on this forum with a pea for a brain trusts you will or can ever support your accusations. Better yet, submit your findings and your complaint with the SEC!! Your comments are shallow and baseless as usual. "IF" you had any real knowledge you would not always appear so foolish.

 

[Econ101]

If you have data to refute the numbers quoted for the specified time periods for the company and/or companies involeved then produce the numbers. Your continued claims that you know better but never provide any hard evidence is getting really old. Maybe you and RK can work on this project together. Neither of you can support your position with any factual data.

The $26 per head is from subpoenaed records from Tyson that the plaintiffs provided at trail. By your own admission you never read the transcripts of trail but again you claim to know more than the plaintiffs calculated number. Your comment implies the plaintiffs purposely understated Tyson's profits for the defined period. What purpose would that serve. You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

Agman, I don't trust your math and I don't trust Tyson's math. There is no implying there. I am stating it.

If I want to use the number you or others came up with to continue with the points and not argue whether or not you were correct, I will. I can sidestep some of the issues you bring up because they may be immaterial to the conclusions. I still do not have to agree that everything you say is correct. It is funny that you would argue with your own numbers that I use just be able to say:

You constantly trap yourself in your own ignorance and willingness to assume things you know nothing about-par for you.

If you don't trust my math or that of the plaintiff's attorneys who examined Tyson's books then provide your own. Prove everyone wrong instead of just making another totally foolish charge. You don't have to rush your answer as no reader on this forum with a pea for a brain trusts you will or can ever support your accusations. Better yet, submit your findings and your complaint with the SEC!! Your comments are shallow and baseless as usual. "IF" you had any real knowledge you would not always appear so foolish.

You must be scared of your own math not to present it, Agman.

Have you convinced the judge to release the trial transcripts so we can all take a look instead of trusting you? We already know that your reading comprehension and reasoning abilty is sub par. You already have all the readers who have a pea for a brain in your camp. You can keep them there.

Why should I argue with such useful numbers? Agman, I will argue the numbers I want to argue, not the ones you want me to. It is funny how you want me to go into the minutia of arguing your own numbers. Can you say "I dare you to" again?