Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said: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?