Hey you guys

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "It seems to me that just recently Section 202 of the PSA was posted and you were asked to show where it alluded to competition between packers as Judge Strom interpreted it and not the packer/producer relationship. I was laughing out loud at how you stretched the meaning to try to fit what you wanted them mean. Remember trying to explain that the parts concerning monopolies were talking with competition between packers? You never could explain how packers could have a monopoly against themselves.

"Literal Interpretation"? Didn't you mean to say "Liberal Interpretation"?"

Your suggestion that the Judges concern for competition between packers is a seperate issue from anti-competitive markets is truly laughable. Of course a packer can't have a monopoly against themselves but no monopoly exists. To suggest there is a monopoly when the largest packer only controls 32% of the market share shows that you don't even know what the term means. Preventing monopolies does guarantee competition between packers. only an idiot like you would not understand that.

You and Conman must take a lot of pride in seeing which one of you can be the most deceptive. You are both bottom feeders with your deceptive antics. Totally pathetic examples of humanity.


~SH~

I never suggested a monopoly existed, SH. Like Econ has pointed out, you're putting words in my mouth in an effort to win an arguement. Typical. You're accusing me of deception? :lol:

My suggestion is that common sense dicatates that any prohibition of monopolies is not concerned with those who may participate in a monopoly, but those that would injured by the existence of a monopoly. Monopolies are not bad because they foster anti-competition amongst the participants, they're bad because they use their power to screw people. Have you ever had any US history?

 

[Jason]

Sandbag: "It seems to me that just recently Section 202 of the PSA was posted and you were asked to show where it alluded to competition between packers as Judge Strom interpreted it and not the packer/producer relationship. I was laughing out loud at how you stretched the meaning to try to fit what you wanted them mean. Remember trying to explain that the parts concerning monopolies were talking with competition between packers? You never could explain how packers could have a monopoly against themselves.

"Literal Interpretation"? Didn't you mean to say "Liberal Interpretation"?"

Your suggestion that the Judges concern for competition between packers is a seperate issue from anti-competitive markets is truly laughable. Of course a packer can't have a monopoly against themselves but no monopoly exists. To suggest there is a monopoly when the largest packer only controls 32% of the market share shows that you don't even know what the term means. Preventing monopolies does guarantee competition between packers. only an idiot like you would not understand that.

You and Conman must take a lot of pride in seeing which one of you can be the most deceptive. You are both bottom feeders with your deceptive antics. Totally pathetic examples of humanity.


~SH~

I never suggested a monopoly existed, SH. Like Econ has pointed out, you're putting words in my mouth in an effort to win an arguement. Typical. You're accusing me of deception? :lol:

My suggestion is that common sense dicatates that any prohibition of monopolies is not concerned with those who may participate in a monopoly, but those that would injured by the existence of a monopoly. Monopolies are not bad because they foster anti-competition amongst the participants, they're bad because they use their power to screw people. Have you ever had any US history?

Sandhusker, in the interest of simplicity do you think the PSA protects producers? You have made so many statements I don't remember what you believe the PSA says. (I know what it says and what it means, just looking for a clarification).

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "It seems to me that just recently Section 202 of the PSA was posted and you were asked to show where it alluded to competition between packers as Judge Strom interpreted it and not the packer/producer relationship. I was laughing out loud at how you stretched the meaning to try to fit what you wanted them mean. Remember trying to explain that the parts concerning monopolies were talking with competition between packers? You never could explain how packers could have a monopoly against themselves.

"Literal Interpretation"? Didn't you mean to say "Liberal Interpretation"?"

Your suggestion that the Judges concern for competition between packers is a seperate issue from anti-competitive markets is truly laughable. Of course a packer can't have a monopoly against themselves but no monopoly exists. To suggest there is a monopoly when the largest packer only controls 32% of the market share shows that you don't even know what the term means. Preventing monopolies does guarantee competition between packers. only an idiot like you would not understand that.

You and Conman must take a lot of pride in seeing which one of you can be the most deceptive. You are both bottom feeders with your deceptive antics. Totally pathetic examples of humanity.


~SH~

SH, I will just let you in on a little extra words we use in economics. Jason might not like them because they scare him. He is used to 1 dollar and 2 dollar words.

In the relationship between packer and cattlemen, the packers are oligoposonists. In the relationship between the packers and the retailers who buy their products, they are oligopolists. Read those two words very carefully and see if you can understand them. There is just a little difference in the words but significant differences in the meanings.

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "Sandhusker, in the interest of simplicity do you think the PSA protects producers? You have made so many statements I don't remember what you believe the PSA says. (I know what it says and what it means, just looking for a clarification)."

If you read PSA, especially section 202, you will know what it says. I invite anybody to read it and see if they reach the same conclusion Judge Strom did.

To answer your question, Jason, I don't think PSA protects producers. I think it was intended to protect those on either side of the packers, but Strom's legislating from the bench has reworded and emasculated it.

 

[Jason]

Sandhusker you are starting to sound like Conman. Answer a question with obscurities.

The PSA clearly says packers cannot collude with each other. This is to protect the markets producers rely on.

Pickett never proved collusion, 12 jurors simply saw a big corp. and didn't understand the cattle industry. Some people have the misguided notion that all big corps are made of money and pay no tax. They use this blind jealousy to justify illegal actions against said corps.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker you are starting to sound like Conman. Answer a question with obscurities.

The PSA clearly says packers cannot collude with each other. This is to protect the markets producers rely on.

Pickett never proved collusion, 12 jurors simply saw a big corp. and didn't understand the cattle industry. Some people have the misguided notion that all big corps are made of money and pay no tax. They use this blind jealousy to justify illegal actions against said corps.

I didn't answer with obscurities. I answered and then explained myself. The PSA does say packers cannot collude with each other - but it says a hell of a lot more than that. Does the criminal have to break all the codes of the law to be guilty?

 

[Jason]

A criminal has to break a law to be guilty.

Bring some proof.

The PSA was not violated. Tyson/ IBP did not collude to lower the price paid to Pickett.

 

[Sandhusker]

A criminal has to break a law to be guilty.

Bring some proof.

The PSA was not violated. Tyson/ IBP did not collude to lower the price paid to Pickett.

There's more to the law than collusion, Jason. In fact, PSA covers a lot of ground. Why are you staking your case on only a part of it?

12 mostly college educated professional jurors heard the case. They were there for every second of testimony. The voted unamiously that proof had been provided. I'm comfortable with their decision.

 

[Jason]

I am more confident with a judge that has the guts to overturn a case and then is backed by every one of the judges there to make sure he isn't a renegade.

I suppose the juries that gave the woman millions for dumping hot coffee on herself were just being rational and prudent. After all who would expect coffee to burn you. :roll:

If you feel so strongly Pickett was overturned unjustly, take your "expertise" and your own money and see if you can get a retrial. Otherwise you lost fair and square, deal with it.

 

[Econ101]

I am more confident with a judge that has the guts to overturn a case and then is backed by every one of the judges there to make sure he isn't a renegade.

I suppose the juries that gave the woman millions for dumping hot coffee on herself were just being rational and prudent. After all who would expect coffee to burn you. :roll:

If you feel so strongly Pickett was overturned unjustly, take your "expertise" and your own money and see if you can get a retrial. Otherwise you lost fair and square, deal with it.

Jason, I don't need a foreigner to tell me about a law my grandfather's father was involved in making in the U.S. As I stated before, I would have been qualified to be on the jury in the Pickett trial and you would not have.

I could be as cavalier about the Canadain producers as you are about U.S. producers, but I know they are not all like you.

I hope you get your operation reversed.

 

[Jason]

I'll tell you the same thing as Sandhusker, take your own money and challenge the verdict. Otherwise shut up about it.

 

[Econ101]

I'll tell you the same thing as Sandhusker, take your own money and challenge the verdict. Otherwise shut up about it.

Jason, in case you haven't noticed, you are not my mother. Please do not make that mistake again.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

You're not even qualified to bring water to the jury. Jason is exactly right. If you're so damn convinced that your market manipulation conspiracy theories are valid, test them in another court. You packer blamers have lost in the last two. There's got to be an idiot judge out there somewhere for you to snowball.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

You're not even qualified to bring water to the jury. Jason is exactly right. If you're so damn convinced that your market manipulation conspiracy theories are valid, test them in another court. You packer blamers have lost in the last two. There's got to be an idiot judge out there somewhere for you to snowball.


~SH~

And as you have indicated before, SH, you are qualified to comment on Jason's derrier. I will let you have all the expertise on Jason there is, just don't share that with the rest of us, please.

 

[Jason]

Run out of "facts" so soon Conman?

If you had any valid points I'm sure the Pickett team of laywers could use the help. Your not offering them any help proves you know you haven't got anything.

 

[Sandhusker]

Run out of "facts" so soon Conman?

If you had any valid points I'm sure the Pickett team of laywers could use the help. Your not offering them any help proves you know you haven't got anything.

Why do Pickett's lawyers need help? They argued a case before 12 jurors and got a unamious decision.

 

[Jason]

Run out of "facts" so soon Conman?

If you had any valid points I'm sure the Pickett team of laywers could use the help. Your not offering them any help proves you know you haven't got anything.

Why do Pickett's lawyers need help? They argued a case before 12 jurors and got a unamious decision.

That was thrown out by not just 1 judge, but the whole circuit.

There are almost 12 on ranchers.net that would find against Tyson with no evidence, so a few more in the world isn't surprizing.

 

[Sandhusker]

Do you agree with the reason used to throw out the verdict?

 

[Jason]

I don't have the transcripts I have just watched what news reports and the information presented here.

Agman has offered enough proof that the testimony about manipulation of the markets was untested, and thus unreliable. That alone would be enough to have a mis-trial.

I would say the same thing about the "proof" Econ tries to say he has provided about market manipulation.

Saying trust me I am sure there is a back room deal and Tyson drops the price of beef to make money on chicken unless the consumer is in a generous mood and wants to pay more for beef unless there are more imports that Tyson can make more money on, unless Wal-mart tells the gov't that the USDA should sue Canada and BSE is caused by aliens that are controlled by the drug cartels, isn't convincing proof.

Normal business transactions will influence the market. If I sell off all my cheaper bulls first the likelyhood of the price on the top bulls coming down is slim. If I can't get any bulls sold, the price comes down, or is manipulated.

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't have the transcripts I have just watched what news reports and the information presented here.

Agman has offered enough proof that the testimony about manipulation of the markets was untested, and thus unreliable. That alone would be enough to have a mis-trial.

I would say the same thing about the "proof" Econ tries to say he has provided about market manipulation.

Saying trust me I am sure there is a back room deal and Tyson drops the price of beef to make money on chicken unless the consumer is in a generous mood and wants to pay more for beef unless there are more imports that Tyson can make more money on, unless Wal-mart tells the gov't that the USDA should sue Canada and BSE is caused by aliens that are controlled by the drug cartels, isn't convincing proof.

Normal business transactions will influence the market. If I sell off all my cheaper bulls first the likelyhood of the price on the top bulls coming down is slim. If I can't get any bulls sold, the price comes down, or is manipulated.

The Judge's reasons are easy to find - they were even posted on this board. You find them, read them, and then we'll talk. You don't even know what you're argueing in support of.