How do you packer blamers explain this?

[RoperAB]

Why is it that every single one of these threads has to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks? I don't agree with everything that people say on here (Death to R-Calf! :wink: ), but after a healthy debate, if we still don't agree, I let it drop and simply agree to disagree. All personal attacks do is undermine your own position and force reasonable people to ignore you, and ignore the threads. I wonder how many people with valuable insites are unwilling to post them because they are afraid of someone attacking them?

Rod

I agree that the personal attacks are stupid and something I dont want any part of.
I dont know what it is about the internet? People in real life are always so polite. Well to me anyway<smile>
Haha Maybe its internet muscle?

 

[Tam]

Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.

I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

 

[Anonymous]

Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.

I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

Definitely a woman- Has to get the last word in, no matter if it means anything or not... :lol: :lol:

 

[mrj]

Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.

I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

Tam, that was a sicko analogy. It says quite a bit about Econs' character, or lack thereof, IMO. Analyzing the posts, does it seem to you that he descends to that sort of thing when he can't counter points made in his arguments? Do you suppose he thinks he is Jesus the Christ? I mean, all this mystery and saying "you will know in due time".....may be just so much silliness and pontificating unless he really has such delusions.

MRJ

 

[RobertMac]

Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.

I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

No I haven't, so have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod and Tommy do your feelings on degenerated name calling only go for certain people or the board in General. where were you when Mike said I was nuttier than a fruitcake. or Econ called me the biggest fraud in Canada. Tommy I seem to remember you agreeing with Mike when he told SH he could keep his name calling to himself and here you are backing up Rod statement Again where were you when they were doing the name calling. Both of you are kind of selective to who you correct aren't you.

Oie, I wasn't protecting or taking after anyone in particular (thats why I pulled your name off the quote), I just finally decided to say something. We had a perfectly good thread going, perhaps a little tense, that degenerated and I decided to say something.

<chuckle> Given that it spawned another page of attacks, I sorta wish I hadn't said a danged thing now

Rod

 

[Tam]

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

No I haven't, so have no idea what you are referring to.

Look around RobertMac it is not the hard to find he has used it several times today alone. and if it doesn't make you mad enough to say something I guess we know where you stand on people getting away with discrediting comments.

 

[Tam]

I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

Definitely a woman- Has to get the last word in, no matter if it means anything or not... :lol: :lol:

Read Econs analogy and let us see what knid of a man you are. OLDTIMER.

 

[Anonymous]

Have you read Econ sick analogy and is he just going to get away with it in your eyes.

Definitely a woman- Has to get the last word in, no matter if it means anything or not... :lol: :lol:

Read Econs analogy and let us see what knid of a man you are. OLDTIMER.

I don't agree with his analogy--But on the other hand I have to wonder about you- since you can't just SHUT UP and let it die - :roll:

 

[Mike]

Tam wrote:

All of you that make comments about name calling have yet to get after Econ about his sick Analogy of BMR and Myself have you.

It might not be an analogy that I would have made but it's an "Analogy" nonetheless. I don't think he accused you two of those acts either.

Did he call either of you a rapist/molester? Did he say either of you condone it?

It might be a sick "Analogy", but no one here thinks any less of you because of it.

Calm down a little. RandyK is the one who has had his name tarnished.

 

[Tam]

Definitely a woman- Has to get the last word in, no matter if it means anything or not... :lol: :lol:

Read Econs analogy and let us see what knid of a man you are. OLDTIMER.

I don't agree with his analogy--But on the other hand I have to wonder about you- since you can't just SHUT UP and let it die - :roll:

Will go after the one that the discrediting comment was made about and not the one that said it. Tells us what kind of man you are. enough said to you about your morals

 

[Anonymous]

Read Econs analogy and let us see what knid of a man you are. OLDTIMER.

I don't agree with his analogy--But on the other hand I have to wonder about you- since you can't just SHUT UP and let it die - :roll:

Will go after the one that the discrediting comment was made about and not the one that said it. Tells us what kind of man you are. enough said to you about your morals

Tam- Is Big Muddy gone? Looking for someone else to torment? :lol: Or is it another problem? :???:

Get off the broom :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "You're guessing and speculating on their profits/losses and how much money they had available for expansion."

There is no speculation when Tyson is a publicly traded company and reports their profits and losses. Do you honestly believe they lie to their potential investors by hiding their profits???

Like I said, you are so conspiracy minded that you can't even reason.

Rod: "How much money did it take them to start up their trucking concern?"

Irrelevant! What we are talking about here is what they are making or losing on beef and whether or not they are unfairly profiting at the expense of producers. A conspiracy that you cannot support with any hard proof.

Rod: "Where did that money come from? Thin air? Of course it came from the profits of another area of the business. So they did an internal transfer to support a start up venture, which makes the beef side look even worse than it is. It isn't rocket science."

Hahaha!

You are honestly so conspiracy oriented that you would actually believe they would lie to potential investors about their profits??? LOL!

You can't be serious!

Rod: "In my career I did contract work for over 100 large corporations. I saw evidence of true worker concern in about 10% of those companies. Those companies that had flex time, gyms, family days and so on. The vast majority had NOTHING and would not hesitate to lay off workers if they thought it would help their bottom line."

Whatever, that doesn't prove that Tyson has the same motive. I worked for large corporations that appreciated their workers. I have saw many corporations that should have released their workers before their ship sank but they cared more about their employees than they did about themselves. You have no proof to back your theory that Tyson does not care about their workers.

Rod: "If you believe that corporate America truly gives a damn about their employees, besides paying lip service to rhetoric, I've got a couple bridges I can sell you in the land and pink and polka dotted skies."

If you are so naive as to believe that a successful company doesn't consider their employees in business decisions, you are truly lost.

Rod: "How do you know that SH? No where in the article did it state that the new expansion wouldn't equal current capacity. If the company is reducing capacity then that means they didn't need it in the first place, and the original purchase of the plants is now suspect. Why buy excess capacity? To eliminate competition."

The obvious is that Tyson is losing money in their beef division? WHY? Two reasons, #1 there is not enough available cattle for the available slaughtering demand and #2 Tyson is having to pay too much for the cattle they are buying rather than losing more money by closing plants and laying off workers.

The reason they closed these two plants is so the slaughter capacity matched the number of available cattle. You're right, this isn't rocket science but obviously you can't understand it.

Rod: "For how long, SH? And you're illustrating ONE example. For every one example you can give, I'll fire off a dozen examples of worker abuse. You haven't been in the workplace long enough to argue the corporate mentality."

For the period of time when the border was closed. Doesn't matter how many UNRELATED examples you can give me, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEEF INDUSTRY EXAMPLES. One doesn't justify an attitude in the other.

Rod: "Really? And how do you know that?"

It's simple Rod, why else would they buy cattle if they were losing money on them? Because it's cheaper than closing plants and laying off workers, that's why.

Rod: "As are you! What you lay out for facts is simple speculation as well. None of your statements is supported by Tyson's press release."

Thank you for admitting that you are speculating. Me? I'm not! What I am saying can be backed up.

Rod: "Speculation. Maybe they are still profitable, but not as much as a consolidated plant would be."

Ridiculous!

Give me one reason why Tyson would lie about their profits TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS???

Absolutely ridiculous!

Rod: "I shouldn't have to explain this. A company only has SO MUCH MONEY. So even if they were profitable a year ago, perhaps that money was already ear marked for other expenditures. A company just can't snap its fingers one year and fix EVERYTHING."

This move was necessitated by financial losses, not efficiency reasons OR THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

You couldn't be more wrong on this.

Rod: "How is a company who owns MULTIPLE plants able to use economies of scale to operate more efficiently than a single plant of equal size?"

They are better able to regulate slaughtering schedules between plants and have more markets for their products due to the volume they sell. Ask me a difficult question.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Give it up, Rod. You notice how many of your points he didn't even catch? He doesn't want to - he never will.

Your points have been well taken and understood by those capable.

 

[RoperAB]

REPLY

Enron's bankruptcy causes aftershocks on Main Street, Wall Street and in Washington

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/enron/
The collapse of Enron, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, led to thousands of employees losing their life savings in 401(k) plans tied to the energy company's stock. Arthur Andersen, Enron's auditing firm, in on trial on charges of obstruction of justice for shredding Enron documents while on notice of a federal investigation. In Washington, Congress and the Justice Department are investigating what happened at the once high-flying Enron, whose officials have donated millions of dollars to Republicans and Democrats alike.

 

[Jason]

Roper, Enron was overstating their profits to attract new investors, not reporting losses or low profits as Tyson is being accused of.

 

[Econ101]

Enron was doing a lot of things. ONE thing they had in common with the packers is the large political donations to those on the hill through a bunch of hard (and easy) to see ways. Ken Lay was known for laying the cash down and courtin' the hill--both sides of the aisle

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod: "How much money did it take them to start up their trucking concern?"

Irrelevant! What we are talking about here is what they are making or losing on beef and whether or not they are unfairly profiting at the expense of producers. A conspiracy that you cannot support with any hard proof.

NOT irrelevant. I'm not saying that its not legal, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with internal transfers of money, but it had to come from somewhere. Since its the beef division thats coming under fire from critics, its a perfectly reasonable place to pull money from.

So, short term, the company appears to be suffering to the stock market, NOT POTENTIAL INVESTORS since they are NOT MAKING NEW SHARE OFFERINGS. It is not uncommon for a corporation to take a brief hit to their share prices while expanding into a new market.

Rod: "Where did that money come from? Thin air? Of course it came from the profits of another area of the business. So they did an internal transfer to support a start up venture, which makes the beef side look even worse than it is. It isn't rocket science."

Hahaha!

You are honestly so conspiracy oriented that you would actually believe they would lie to potential investors about their profits??? LOL!

You can't be serious!

Ok, so where did the money come from? Since they are so badly bent and busted, how are they coming up with money for new overseas purchases, new trucking divisions, and new plant expansions? All this spending comes out of the profits of their divisions. Its not breaking the law to report poorer earnings due to spending.

Rod: "As are you! What you lay out for facts is simple speculation as well. None of your statements is supported by Tyson's press release."

Thank you for admitting that you are speculating. Me? I'm not! What I am saying can be backed up.

Then please do. Show me that the two plants that closed were LOSING money.

Give me one reason why Tyson would lie about their profits TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS???

SH, you need to learn how the stock market works. If Tyson hasn't issued NEW shares to the market, the price of their shares is IRRELEVANT! If Tyson operates on secured capital from banks, they only need to worry about large drops in their share value that can downgrade their credit rating. The share price drops from lower than expected earnings are minimal, ESPECIALLY since they can show company expansion. In other words, they take a short-term hit to their share value, but long-term it boosts the share value due to potential added earnings and added assets. This is normal business functioning, not illegal at all, but you certainly can seem to see it. Virtually every company who expands reports lower than average earnings during the expansion phases.

This move was necessitated by financial losses, not efficiency reasons OR THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.

SH, since you seem to have access to their books, please prove this.

My money say you can't, because the losses in the beef division are simply amortized expenditures from company expansion. If there weren't gross profits to begin with, they could have NEVER secured the financing for the expansion, nor would the board of directors authorize them to dip into capital savings, since these funds could not be used for expansion without reporting their use to the IRS and having to be taxed on them, at least in the short-term.

Rod