agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman:"For the record to blow your phony "tight supply" claim and that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down". The price advance measured at the producer level fom 2001-2003 was $11.42/cwt. $6.80/cwt of that gain was a supply function while $4.62/cwt was strictly attributable to improved demand. From 1999-2002 the shift was a function of improved demand as both beef supplies increased while total meat supplies also increased and prices advanced. Do you know what happened in 2004? Another one of your phony claims, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" just got shot down the tube genius. You are an economic and analytical illerate. "
Agman, I see you are admitting with your own numbers (which I am certainly not certifying) that the reduction in supplies had a greater ($6.80/cwt of that gain was a supply function) effect on the price increase than "demand" (4.62/cwt was strictly attributable to improved demand). Your validation of my arguments with your own numbers is still appreciated, however. If the supply had gone up more than any "shift up in demand" there would not have been "tight" supplies and prices would not have gone up. Do you deny this statement?
The misuse of my quote on "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" could be forgiven by your hacker SH but not by you. Incompetence can be forgiven, sometimes, but corruption can not.
Agman:"Provide evidence that Schroeder's work or data was manipulated as you claim space-cadet. You made the claim, now provide the proof or will you just provide another meaningless dissertation before you get your next Valium. You also made claims about what I said and once again you provide no proof-again par for you Conman. Now you want others to find support for your claims. Another total copout on your part. Who do you really think you are fooling other than your own misguided ego? "
I am sure Schroeder's work and data showed exactly what he calculted
for that time period. It has little relevance outside that time period. The substitution numbers for pork and poultry for the recent time period are pertinent examples of that. Are time periods and lessons from them taken out of context? That was probably the purpose. Did you validate the substitution numbers for poultry and pork for the recent time period as I have challenged you? Did you test the theory? The proof of my arguments is showing up in the earnings of Tyson. Where is yours? In this paragraph, your tell is really showing.
Agman:"You are in so far over your head on these subjects all you can resort to is one lie, twist and fabrication after another. That is all you have provided since you surfaced on these forums. You are a laugh a day. Pages of accusations and claims but not one fact in support. You are truly a very pathetic person hung up on your self indulged and anointed intellect. You have failed at every turn and comment. Your intellect just gets smashed by those knowledgeable about this industry. I thought you were a complete idiot. I apologize, I was wrong, you are still missing too many parts. It is hard to imagine, one-hundred million sperm and you were the fastest?!!!!"
I really wonder if you and SH are not related.
P.S. - I did not take anything you posted out of context. I can win arguments with you. I don't have to resort to making up arguements with myself to win an argument.
I am not admitting to anything except the facts measured to the penny regarding the period 01-03. Contrary to your phony theory and comment that "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" the results I provided prove otherwise. BTW, your new twist is that statement was taken out of context; another bold faced twist and lie on your part. I clearly showed that during the 01-03 period that $4.62/cwt of the $11.42/cwt gain in price was strictly a function of demand, not supply. You conveniently ignored the other periods which I cited where both beef and competing meat supplies increased and the price of beef also advanced. Kinda blows your phony theory out of the saddle. I call it your phony theory since no one with even an elementary understanding of supply/demand analysis would make such a stupid statement. BTW, could you clarify for myself and other readers just when in the cattle cycle packers manipulate the markets.
You statement that I know prices are manipulate is another fantasy of yours. To the contrary I know they are not manipulated. I also know that Taylor proved nothing in the Pickett case contray to your repeated misguided claim. His research got trounced, just like you do on these forums.
You previously stated that Schroeder manipulated the data in his study to obtain predictable results for that time period. What proof do you have of manipulated data-none as usual, the voices are just talking to you again. You claim the substitution numbers today differ but provide no proof. Where is your proof-just another made up statement on your part. You want me to validate your claim since you do not have the analytical capability to do so. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
Only you can explain consumer choices and preference as supply management by packers. That claim is as phony as all your other meaningless and laughable statements. The proof in Tyson's earnings explains what-that consumers make choices and change those choice based upon perceived or real value differences? Are those many voices talking and confusing again?!! Pop another Valium or two; that should settle a few of those many voices.
Econ's comment..P.S. - I did not take anything you posted out of context. I can win arguments with you. I don't have to resort to making up arguments with myself to win an argument
You are listening to the wrong voices again Econ. Nothing you have ever posted is even a challenge to myself or others who posses even a basic understanding of economics, analysis, or the beef industry. You are too easy, your constant twists only magnify that condition. You continue to fool no one but yourself. Your self-throned intellect gets crushed by real knowledge of subject matter at every twist and turn.
Since you did not show your work, Agman, I have a hard time giving you credit for it. It was nice to see the validation with your own numbers that supply was the major factor.
As I said, you did not show your work Agman. I do have a few questions about your calculations. Which part of the marketing chain did you use for your numbers? Did you mix any of those points? You sure have had a tendency to do so with your arguments against Picket. I would probably have a lot of other questions about your calculations but I want to see the assumptions you use to get your numbers, the data source and a few other quick questions.
As far as Schroeder's calculated substitution numbers, they were for a specific period of time as noted by the index base years. You still did not answer my question on whether the substitution numbers held up for the period in question, which was the main question I asked you on the demand index in the paper. Did you miss that question and answer something else you wanted to answer?
"Only you can explain consumer choices and preference as supply management by packers. That claim is as phony as all your other meaningless and laughable statements. The proof in Tyson's earnings explains what-that consumers make choices and change those choice based upon perceived or real value differences? Are those many voices talking and confusing again?!! Pop another Valium or two; that should settle a few of those many voices. "
The change in supply of poultry and the resulting change in supply of beef were things that Tyson and the other players had an influence on. Consumers were on the other side of Tysons but Tysons helped contract the supply of chicken with its plant closings and buying up of competitors. Are you saying that Tyson's was told by consumers to do this at the same time as the economic plays of Pickett were to play out on the supply? What consumers told them to discriminate against the cash market and drive the cattle prices lower? What consumers told them to close their poultry plant in Florida while buying competitors? Are you calling the management of Tyson consumers so they fit your argument?
"You statement that I know prices are manipulate is another fantasy of yours. To the contrary I know they are not manipulated. I also know that Taylor proved nothing in the Pickett case contray to your repeated misguided claim. His research got trounced, just like you do on these forums. "
You have missed the points of the Pickett case so much on this forum that you really have no crediblity on your judgement on that case. The points that SH posted in numbered form that I shot down were an illustration of this. Here is just one of them:
The assumption that Tyson had to exert market power and use marketing agreements all of the time to influence the cattle markets instead of strategically using them for certain time periods. The analysis on the whole time period could easily hide strategic use of these tools. If you do not know this you are certainly not qualified to make a judgement on the merits of the case.
All of the numbers and calculations you come up with have no relevance if you don't know what you are talking about. I know you do most of your talking through SH so you don't have back up your silly assertions you feed to him that are just totally and absolutely wrong.
The fact that you are willing to say that the judges know more about the law than the jurors when it was shown that the judges do not know the difference between "and" and "or" is another example. You just want to mislead regular people on these issues all of the time. Guess what? It does not work on me.
I have no doubt that you probably have better access to industry numbers than I. That still does not make everything you say correct. This little argument over the beef index is one example. Another is your assumption that differences in price and quantity are shifts in the demand curve. Another is your feeble attempt to discredit me on the verbage of "tight" supplies. Another is your attempt to take out of context my statement that price can not go up until supply goes down. Of course there are caveats to that statement in economics. Just like the "demand" index, the statement was for a given set of circumstances.
I am glad that you have shown with your own calculations (I still do not certify them to be correct) that the price went up more for supply shifts than even your definition of a demand shift.
As far as your claims of me taking valium, the strongest "drug" I take is Starbucks French Roast coffee. What you need is a strong dose of reality of which I am glad to oblige.
But wouldn't an increase in disposable income mean the consumer could pay more for their food? Oh, that's right, they do for my beef...I guess it's a matter of providing the right consumer with the right product...got to love those niche markets the big boys can't get into!!! :wink: How do our food prices compare to other developed countries?