How much is Tyson Lakeside making?

[agman]

That's why I am here Agman. To talk. Was it you that gave Jason the figure of $3.88 cents per head over the long term? Sounds like no profit to me.

Too bad there are talkers like me out their Agman. Just think how easy your life would be. You could simply spew your numbers and have everyone beleive that life is good. And then you could leave all of your money in trust and go out and buy a ranch with borrowed money and show us all how to make a profit ranching in your perfect world. :roll:

If you think you can dispute what I post feel free to do so. All you have done so far is make accusations against packers then expect others to disprove you while you provide no support for your accusation. If you make a statement either put or shut up. Statements without support are just useless rhetoric. You seem to have mastered that process. Have you paid your R-Calf dues lately? You sound more like a dues paying member everyday.

 

[rkaiser]

If the dipshits at Rcalf would get the protectionist crap out of their policy, I might be there.

Are you going to take up the challenge to become a rancher Agman. Your perfect packer lover world would most likely make you a millionare in five years with all of your inside knowledge. :roll:

If you think the put up or shut up thing is going to get rid of me Agman think again.

Why keep reading my useless rhetoric Agman?

Have you kissed all the packer ass you could kiss today Agman?

 

[agman]

Econ 101...Where is the diversion, Agman? Is it in your question?[/quote]

from Agman..How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful than the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

The aformentioned was the topic of discussion when your response was the funding of EIRSA and their use or misuse. Typical diversion from someone who has yet to answer one question posed to you-not even one.

 

[Econ101]

Econ 101...Where is the diversion, Agman? Is it in your question?

from Agman..How many new airlines have started up and are they not more successful than the old line airlines that are inefficient and are chocking under union influence? Provide proof for your statement regarding cattle pricing - heresay doesn't get it.

The aformentioned was the topic of discussion when your response was the funding of EIRSA and their use or misuse. Typical diversion from someone who has yet to answer one question posed to you-not even one.[/quote]

Agman, if you want to go around in life and blame everything on everyone else go ahead. There is a balance between labor/capitol/management that will continue long after both you, I, and our children are dead. You believe a company like Tyson should get thier way on all issues and that makes you biased. Companies are not meant to rule, they are meant to be organizations of people that produce goods or services for an economy. I am sorry I did not post your view you wanted in your question. You post your own view and stop ragging about mine.

The fact is that companies will do what they can get away with. When companies like Tyson are owned and controlled by families do what they do to "compete" and the only consideration is corporate profits, we allow ourselves to become enslaved by those considerations. Tyson has been hipocritical in the moves it makes with arguments of convenience instead of arguments of merit. It is not up to a society to have to put up with such antics. Just because Tyson has hired a bunch of lawyers, economists, and politicians to get around the laws and rules of society doesn't mean they should get away with it. The Pickett jurors saw through that charade and the judges reviewing the case obviously have a bias towards the status quo. I have brought up serious questions as to their judgement and their potential biases. They deserve a review.

Now, do you want to get into the RPA?

 

[agman]

Econ 101...Where is the diversion, Agman? Is it in your question?

Agman, if you want to go around in life and blame everything on everyone else go ahead.


Now, do you want to get into the RPA?

A total LIE and joke from Mr Blame!!!! You are the biggest fraud to ever post on this forum. I can assure you I don't lay blame but I won't set by a let a total fraud like you post unsupported allegations because of your unending bias and total lack of knowledge of the beef industry. You are truly all hat and no cattle.


RPA- do you even know what the Glickman-IBP case was about? Until I posted you did not even know the difference from the Glickman-IBP versus your comments regrading Hudson foods and comments from Glickman. RPA was central to that decision which was ruled in IBP's favor. RPA allows for price discrimination in a multitude of sound business practices. The judges saw that in the Pickett trial also. The plaintiffs lost on every account. It does not make a hoot what you think. Who actually cares anyway what you think after seeing you post a continuing stream of unsupported allegations? You have yet to support one allegation that you have made. Talk is many times cheap, coming from you it has proven to be totally worthless.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:RPA allows for price discrimination in a multitude of sound business practices.

Just post what you are getting at. Obviously from your airline example I can not read your packer mind. Cite the specific example you want to use.

I warn you not to jump to the conclusion of what I know or do not know. You have already been burned on that jumping around on another thread.

Tell us the economic reasoning used in the decision and how it applies to the RPA example used in the Pickett case. You are totally correct in saying that there can be differences in price paid, but price discrimination is based on the premise that the items are equal in value in time and place. Each of those aspects are important in determining whether there was a violation of the law or not.

Bring out your example if you dare.

 

[agman]

Agman:RPA allows for price discrimination in a multitude of sound business practices.

Just post what you are getting at. Obviously from your airline example I can not read your packer mind. Cite the specific example you want to use.

I warn you not to jump to the conclusion of what I know or do not know. You have already been burned on that jumping around on another thread.

Tell us the economic reasoning used in the decision and how it applies to the RPA example used in the Pickett case. You are totally correct in saying that there can be differences in price paid, but price discrimination is based on the premise that the items are equal in value in time and place. Each of those aspects are important in determining whether there was a violation of the law or not.

Bring out your example if you dare.

Your quote in case you have forgotten "Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy."

You cannot even remember the nonsense you post. My "airline" example, which evidently was to complex for you to understand, was in direct response to your usual phony and unsupported anti-business statements regarding barriers to entry which you cited the airline as an example. How many new airlines have started while the large inefficient ones either must change their failed business model or perish. Have you ever heard of Southwest, Jet Blue or Virgin Airlines to name but a few new and successful entrants into a business with high barriers to entry as result of very high capital requirements? You just got that fish hook stuck in your lip again!!

Packers face the same environment-very high capital costs which limits entry and success. Is that a conspiracy or is high capital a prerequisite for success in that business? The last packing company that was started and managed by some academia types, as I expect you are, blew $200+ million before God got the news. I expect they, like you, will say it was a conspiracy overlooking the fact that their business model was more than $400 per head from their actual results. Textbook theory does not cut it in the real world of business-so much for your intelligence and hypotheticals. You are simply too easy. Your lack of real knowledge is totally transparent, you fool no one. BTW, regarding your tapped phone, I have come to believe you tapped it yourself to listen to yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary economics,

You can't even grasp the simplest thing such as the difference between the formula price based on last week's cash market and this week's cash market. For every time the cash market is higher than the formula market, the formula market is higher than the cash market.

You are a complete phony with your never ending unsupported opinions and theories. You couldn't be any more empty handed than you are.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Agman:RPA allows for price discrimination in a multitude of sound business practices.

Just post what you are getting at. Obviously from your airline example I can not read your packer mind. Cite the specific example you want to use.

I warn you not to jump to the conclusion of what I know or do not know. You have already been burned on that jumping around on another thread.

Tell us the economic reasoning used in the decision and how it applies to the RPA example used in the Pickett case. You are totally correct in saying that there can be differences in price paid, but price discrimination is based on the premise that the items are equal in value in time and place. Each of those aspects are important in determining whether there was a violation of the law or not.

Bring out your example if you dare.

Your quote in case you have forgotten "Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy."

You cannot even remember the nonsense you post. My "airline" example, which evidently was to complex for you to understand, was in direct response to your usual phony and unsupported anti-business statements regarding barriers to entry which you cited the airline as an example. How many new airlines have started while the large inefficient ones either must change their failed business model or perish. Have you ever heard of Southwest, Jet Blue or Virgin Airlines to name but a few new and successful entrants into a business with high barriers to entry as result of very high capital requirements? You just got that fish hook stuck in your lip again!!

Packers face the same environment-very high capital costs which limits entry and success. Is that a conspiracy or is high capital a prerequisite for success in that business? The last packing company that was started and managed by some academia types, as I expect you are, blew $200+ million before God got the news. I expect they, like you, will say it was a conspiracy overlooking the fact that their business model was more than $400 per head from their actual results. Textbook theory does not cut it in the real world of business-so much for your intelligence and hypotheticals. You are simply too easy. Your lack of real knowledge is totally transparent, you fool no one. BTW, regarding your tapped phone, I have come to believe you tapped it yourself to listen to yourself.

Agman, in the article on the airlines, the point was made that on this last airlines bankruptcy, the bankruptcy actually hurt the overall industry for allowing oversupply in the industry. If you had read the article, instead of trying to bash me over nothing, you would have understood that point in the article.

I don't have an anti-busines bias. Businesses will start and fail. Guarenteed returns are not part of the free markets. Jason was arguing that the packers in Canada needed to be bailed out. My point was that they didn't need that. When these corporations get the handouts they do from taxpayers they create barriers of entry for new entrants. That reduces competition. Companies should be able to stand on their own and actually make money. When they do not, they should not expect a handout from taxpayers. Businesses are organizations that are supposed to make money, not take money.

As far as the Pickett case went, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I don't know why judges think that they have to keep Tyson from paying the damages that they inflicted on the market through a slide down the supply curve. Was it, as SH says, that they don't make that much money so they can not have done the damages? What a lousy excuse.

The airline industry has changed and the meat industry needs to change also.

Now, what is your RPA (Robinson-Patman Act) example you wanted to bring up on the Glickman vs. IBP. case? This is the second time you have railed against me and not answered the question. You brought it up, now what is your example from the case? Are we supposed to read your mind?

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "Was it, as SH says, that they don't make that much money so they can not have done the damages? What a lousy excuse."

To someone as ignorant as you I'm sure it would be. You simply don't know any better.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Member


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 565
Location: TX

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
Quote:
Agman:RPA allows for price discrimination in a multitude of sound business practices.


Just post what you are getting at. Obviously from your airline example I can not read your packer mind. Cite the specific example you want to use.

I warn you not to jump to the conclusion of what I know or do not know. You have already been burned on that jumping around on another thread.

Tell us the economic reasoning used in the decision and how it applies to the RPA example used in the Pickett case. You are totally correct in saying that there can be differences in price paid, but price discrimination is based on the premise that the items are equal in value in time and place. Each of those aspects are important in determining whether there was a violation of the law or not.

Bring out your example if you dare.


Your quote in case you have forgotten "Jason, you make the economic argument that I make. When the larger packers play their games they do, they create barriers to entry. There was a real good article in the Wall Street Journal on this same phenomena in the airline industry and it is having some real big ripple effects on our economy."

You cannot even remember the nonsense you post. My "airline" example, which evidently was to complex for you to understand, was in direct response to your usual phony and unsupported anti-business statements regarding barriers to entry which you cited the airline as an example. How many new airlines have started while the large inefficient ones either must change their failed business model or perish. Have you ever heard of Southwest, Jet Blue or Virgin Airlines to name but a few new and successful entrants into a business with high barriers to entry as result of very high capital requirements? You just got that fish hook stuck in your lip again!!

Packers face the same environment-very high capital costs which limits entry and success. Is that a conspiracy or is high capital a prerequisite for success in that business? The last packing company that was started and managed by some academia types, as I expect you are, blew $200+ million before God got the news. I expect they, like you, will say it was a conspiracy overlooking the fact that their business model was more than $400 per head from their actual results. Textbook theory does not cut it in the real world of business-so much for your intelligence and hypotheticals. You are simply too easy. Your lack of real knowledge is totally transparent, you fool no one. BTW, regarding your tapped phone, I have come to believe you tapped it yourself to listen to yourself.


Agman, in the article on the airlines, the point was made that on this last airlines bankruptcy, the bankruptcy actually hurt the overall industry for allowing oversupply in the industry. If you had read the article, instead of trying to bash me over nothing, you would have understood that point in the article.

I don't have an anti-busines bias. Businesses will start and fail. Guarenteed returns are not part of the free markets. Jason was arguing that the packers in Canada needed to be bailed out. My point was that they didn't need that. When these corporations get the handouts they do from taxpayers they create barriers of entry for new entrants. That reduces competition. Companies should be able to stand on their own and actually make money. When they do not, they should not expect a handout from taxpayers. Businesses are organizations that are supposed to make money, not take money.

As far as the Pickett case went, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I don't know why judges think that they have to keep Tyson from paying the damages that they inflicted on the market through a slide down the supply curve. Was it, as SH says, that they don't make that much money so they can not have done the damages? What a lousy excuse.

The airline industry has changed and the meat industry needs to change also.

Now, what is your RPA (Robinson-Patman Act) example you wanted to bring up on the Glickman vs. IBP. case? This is the second time you have railed against me and not answered the question. You brought it up, now what is your example from the case? Are we supposed to read your mind?



_________________

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary Economics: "Was it, as SH says, that they don't make that much money so they can not have done the damages? What a lousy excuse."

There is no way in hell that any reasonable jury would award damages larger than a company's profits when the only damages in question were related to the pricing of cattle.

How could the plaintiffs be entitled to more money for their cattle than ibp needed to make a profit?

This is just another blatant example of why the packer blamers lost their case. THEY NEVER HAD A CASE!



~SH~