For the R-CALFers

[Econ101]

The problem wasn't with all contracts. The problem had to do with contracts that had their pricing set by the cash market. Futures market cattle have a present value attached to them when the contract is made; therefore they are not a problem. Their price is a market price that goes up or down based on supply/demand, not necessarily market manipulation. In the extreme sense you can think of it as the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the market in silver except with the market structure in cattle the time period is a repeating 2 week period.

Variances between the cash price and the "captive supply" contracts adjusted for quality (SH correctly pointed out: as it relates to value in dollars) were the question. The amount of the manipulation in a sum of the two week periods was the question. This did not mean that every two week period had to follow the pattern for the pattern to be viable plaintiff argument. I will soon post "The Pickett Case: A Riddle in an Enigma". Of course Tyson's is a master of the summation formula frauds as it is where their main business lies (another pun). How do you think they were able to buy IBP? The "good" guys at GIPSA and the USDA have been castrated by the influence of Tyson on the hill. This is what is called "agency capture".

 

[agman]

The problem wasn't with all contracts. The problem had to do with contracts that had their pricing set by the cash market. Futures market cattle have a present value attached to them when the contract is made; therefore they are not a problem. Their price is a market price that goes up or down based on supply/demand, not necessarily market manipulation. In the extreme sense you can think of it as the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the market in silver except with the market structure in cattle the time period is a repeating 2 week period.

Variances between the cash price and the "captive supply" contracts adjusted for quality (SH correctly pointed out: as it relates to value in dollars) were the question. The amount of the manipulation in a sum of the two week periods was the question. This did not mean that every two week period had to follow the pattern for the pattern to be viable plaintiff argument. I will soon post "The Pickett Case: A Riddle in an Enigma". Of course Tyson's is a master of the summation formula frauds as it is where their main business lies (another pun). How do you think they were able to buy IBP? The "good" guys at GIPSA and the USDA have been castrated by the influence of Tyson on the hill. This is what is called "agency capture".

Oh, so now you want to pick and choose which weeks were manipilated? Your comments only dispaly how really out to touch you are with the actual workings in the marketplace. Text book theory won't cut.

Unless I am mistaken, the Hunt brothers, namely Bunker, and their Arab friends drove the price of silver up, not down. In the end the carrying cost of their position drove prices lower and bankrupt Bunker. The moral of the story is that no matter how big you are you are never bigger than the market. So much for manipulation theories. I use this exact example to show how difficult it is for anyone to successfully manipulate a market. The market has a paddle big enough for everyone's behind.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I hope you realize you're splitting with your buddy, SH, with this question. He doesn't think bankers should give advice."

Another lie.

I said that producers should be cautious in taking the advice of a banker. There can be a difference between a marketing decision that is good for a banker (small profit) and a marketing decision that is good for a producer (waiting on a larger profit).

Sandman: "With your views concerning giving up sovereignity to join the WTO, I "wrote that down" and you were wrong as wrong could be then. Remember "suggestions with consequences"

Negotiations in trade can have consequences but negotiations is not giving up your sovereignty to the WTO or your trading partner as you conspiracy theoriests have claimed. In order to give up your sovereignty you would not have a choice in the matter.

With your history, I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand the difference between negotiations in trade and giving up sovereignty.

This is just one more "victim mentality" spin job.

Econ 101: "The problem had to do with contracts that had their pricing set by the cash market."

That was a "PERCEIVED" problem, not a real problem. Big difference!

Econ 101: "Futures market cattle have a present value attached to them when the contract is made; therefore they are not a problem."

That's interesting that you would take a position opposite ocm because the Johnson Amendment supported by the OCM dealt with forward contracts which were based on the futures market because they were owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

You see what happens when you guys can't keep your stories straight?

Econ. 101: "The "good" guys at GIPSA and the USDA have been castrated by the influence of Tyson on the hill. This is what is called "agency capture".

I'll bet you have as much proof of that as you do to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories? NONE!




~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandman: "I hope you realize you're splitting with your buddy, SH, with this question. He doesn't think bankers should give advice."

Another lie.

I said that producers should be cautious in taking the advice of a banker. There can be a difference between a marketing decision that is good for a banker (small profit) and a marketing decision that is good for a producer (waiting on a larger profit).

Sandman: "With your views concerning giving up sovereignity to join the WTO, I "wrote that down" and you were wrong as wrong could be then. Remember "suggestions with consequences"

Negotiations in trade can have consequences but negotiations is not giving up your sovereignty to the WTO or your trading partner as you conspiracy theoriests have claimed. In order to give up your sovereignty you would not have a choice in the matter.

With your history, I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand the difference between negotiations in trade and giving up sovereignty.

This is just one more "victim mentality" spin job.

Econ 101: "The problem had to do with contracts that had their pricing set by the cash market."

That was a "PERCEIVED" problem, not a real problem. Big difference!

But proven to a jury.

Econ 101: "Futures market cattle have a present value attached to them when the contract is made; therefore they are not a problem."

That's interesting that you would take a position opposite ocm because the Johnson Amendment supported by the OCM dealt with forward contracts which were based on the futures market because they were owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

There are many variations of fraud, and I have not looked at all of them. There may be something to this one but I would have to look into the particulars; I am not dismissing it outright as you are prone to do.
You see what happens when you guys can't keep your stories straight?

Econ. 101: "The "good" guys at GIPSA and the USDA have been castrated by the influence of Tyson on the hill. This is what is called "agency capture".

I'll bet you have as much proof of that as you do to support your market manipulation conspiracy theories? NONE!

How much do they pay you for this misinformation? Your credibility is only masked by your persistence, not the other way around. Cheap whiskey.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "I hope you realize you're splitting with your buddy, SH, with this question. He doesn't think bankers should give advice."

SH, "Another lie. I said that producers should be cautious in taking the advice of a banker. There can be a difference between a marketing decision that is good for a banker (small profit) and a marketing decision that is good for a producer (waiting on a larger profit)."

I don't like being called a liar. Do you want me to post an actual post of yours and show who is the liar here? You don't know squat about banking (or a myriad of other issues, for that matter). If you don't realize bankers want their customers to make the most they can, you're a complete fool.

Sandman: "With your views concerning giving up sovereignity to join the WTO, I "wrote that down" and you were wrong as wrong could be then. Remember "suggestions with consequences"

SH, "Negotiations in trade can have consequences but negotiations is not giving up your sovereignty to the WTO or your trading partner as you conspiracy theoriests have claimed. In order to give up your sovereignty you would not have a choice in the matter. With your history, I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand the difference between negotiations in trade and giving up sovereignty. This is just one more "victim mentality" spin job."

I guess Newt Gingrich was lying when he talked about the loss of sovereignity? :roll: Why don't you have the cajones to ask Agman about it here? What's the problem, SH? Might not like what you hear? Afraid of being exposed a fool again?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I don't like being called a liar."

I never called you a liar in this post. I simply stated that you lied.

You're the only one who would know whether you lie often enough to be considered a liar.

Sandman: "Do you want me to post an actual post of yours and show who is the liar here?"

Absolutely!

Do a search on "should not give advice" and see where I stated that bankers should not give advice.

I'll state my position again, a producer should be cautious about taking the advice of SOME bankers when it comes to marketing decisions because SOME bankers will try to talk the producer into accepting a smaller profit than might be realized later.

Sandman: "You don't know squat about banking (or a myriad of other issues, for that matter)."

Keep telling yourself that Sandman. Eventually you will covince yourself just like you have brainwashed yourself with R-CULT's never ending conspiracy theories.

Sandman: "If you don't realize bankers want their customers to make the most they can, you're a complete fool."

First of all, not all bankers are the same. Some are excellent and some, like you, think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually do.

If bankers want their customers to make the most they can, why do SOME encourage producers to lock in a small profit on the CME board when a larger profit might be available later?

"Well ah, gee ah, golly ah............"

A producer needs to do his own marketing while considering the advice of the banker. Frankly, I don't put much stock in any bankers marketing advise because the bankers that have given me marketing advise didn't have any more idea where the market was heading than I did.

The bankers that I deal with do not try to give me marketing advise. They know better.

I have seen SOME producers take the advice of SOME bankers, lock in a small profit, then miss the larger profit that was just around the corner. Then the producer blamed the banker when it was his decision. Both were wrong in that case.

You can't spin what I have stated Sandman. It's black and white.

Sandman: "I guess Newt Gingrich was lying when he talked about the loss of sovereignity? Why don't you have the cajones to ask Agman about it here? What's the problem, SH? Might not like what you hear? Afraid of being exposed a fool again?"

I don't agree with Newt Gingrich that giving something to get something in a trade negotiation is giving up sovereignty. You have the choice of whether or not you are going to enter into trade negotiations.

Exposed a fool? Hahaha! You sure have quite the imagination Sandman.

I've corrected myself far more times than I have ever been corrected by the likes of you.

In contrast, you are wrong continually and never admit it. True to your arrogant ways.

If you want to ask Agman something, you can ask him.

I don't consider trade negotiations as "giving up sovereignty". That is the "SKY IS FALLING" sound byte for isolationists such as yourself.


Does the WTO "impose" trade sanctions or does the WTO "suggest" trade sanctions to individual countries to "impose"?

Care to answer that question or do you want to dance with yourself again?



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Does the WTO "impose" trade sanctions or does the WTO "suggest" trade sanctions to individual countries to "impose"? Care to answer that question or do you want to dance with yourself again?"

The WTO authorizes trade sanctions.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "The WTO authorizes trade sanctions."

"AUTHORIZATION" is not "IMPLEMENTATION".

I'll take that as your admission that the WTO does not have the authority to impose trade sanctions against any country.

There is no consequences from a WTO "recommendation" UNLESS THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY.

The WTO does not have any enforecement authority, they simply make recommendations.

Bottom line, trade sanctions are implemented by individual countries, not by the WTO.

You lose again!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this, SH. You don't get it. You don't want to get it. The only person you will believe is Agman, and you shirk my challenge to ask him here where we all can see. You would rather flap your lips and prove your ignorance instead or actually finding the truth.

 

[Murgen]

Here's a question Sandhusker? Is the US obligated to to follow the WTO's ruling on the softwood lumber dispute, or have they once again snubbed their nose at Canada, with the ruling?

It is now Canada's choice to place duties/tariffs on other goods to make up the dollar difference of what the US has already given lumber companies in duties.

All the WTO has done is to bring attention to how the US negotiates trade deals and then refuses to honor such agreements. I believe the world is watching!

 

[Sandhusker]

Here's a question Sandhusker? Is the US obligated to to follow the WTO's ruling on the softwood lumber dispute, or have they once again snubbed their nose at Canada, with the ruling?

It is now Canada's choice to place duties/tariffs on other goods to make up the dollar difference of what the US has already given lumber companies in duties.

All the WTO has done is to bring attention to how the US negotiates trade deals and then refuses to honor such agreements. I believe the world is watching!

The WTO ruled for Canada which means the US must change policy or Canada will be allowed to impose tariffs. The answer to your question is "Yes, the US is obligated to the WTO's ruling".

I don't know why this WTO deal is so hard to understand. There are pages upon pages of information on the net. You and SH need to spend an evening looking at this information at your fingertips.

 

[Murgen]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the US feels obligated to return the $$$ collected on Canadian Softwood, I'm sure not too many are holding their breath.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the US feels obligated to return the $$$ collected on Canadian Softwood, I'm sure not too many are holding their breath.

WTO Sides with USA on Lumber
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:36 AM

The World Trade Organization says the United States has complied with international laws over Canadian lumber.

The White House is calling the ruling on billions of dollars in duties a vindication, while the federal government calls it a setback.

The WTO panel ruled Monday that the U.S. adhered to international law when it issued a revised finding in late 2004 that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened its mills.

Canada claimed victory after NAFTA rules earlier this month that US duties, which now total nearly $5 billion, are illegal under US law.

 

[shorthorn]

I gotta give my view on this. How i sell my cattle is my choice. Last year i sold my spring calves at the sale barn and did fine with them. Fall calvers went to a stocker and i did fine with them. The thing is I live in america where i am free to do as i please. Where i have the options to do as i please. I am grateful to just have these options. Some of you fellers need to sit down together and have a double shot of BLACK JACK and just say what the hell was we arguing about again? lol All joking aside we as ranchers have bills to pay and its our responsability as adults to pay them the best way we see fit. No matter who where when or how we sell our cattle. We have the options so we have to take the road where we feel as adults that we can pay the most bills with and keep on ranching. I'll have a double now and leave ya alone!

 

[Bill]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the US feels obligated to return the $$$ collected on Canadian Softwood, I'm sure not too many are holding their breath.

WTO Sides with USA on Lumber
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:36 AM

The World Trade Organization says the United States has complied with international laws over Canadian lumber.

The White House is calling the ruling on billions of dollars in duties a vindication, while the federal government calls it a setback.

The WTO panel ruled Monday that the U.S. adhered to international law when it issued a revised finding in late 2004 that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened its mills.

Canada claimed victory after NAFTA rules earlier this month that US duties, which now total nearly $5 billion, are illegal under US law.

Given the devestation from Katrina it looks like a bit of Canadian lumber could have come in handy.

Oh well. :roll: