• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is Agman a Good Fisherman or Just Using Fake Lures?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Does testing for causality matter or is it another fish?

Agman continually brings up the point that Taylor never tested his “theories” for causality and that this is a prerequisite of the plaintiffs (Pickett) to win the point that Taylor’s calculations were correct. An understanding of the question shows that the causality point is just another fish for the unknowing who take the bait. When you really understand the issue, you will see that this point is just another argument to lure you away from the truth.

What is causality? Causality is a relationship between two events. Here is another definition that you can find on the web at:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/CAUSALITY.html

(or Causation) A process linking two or more events or states of affairs so that one brings about or produces the other. One event is the cause of another if (a) the event occurs prior to the effect, (b) there is an invariant conjunction of the two events and (c) there is an underlying mechanism or physical structure attesting to the necessity of the conjunction. Since (c) is not always demonstrable in empirical data the requirement may be replaced by tests assuring that no third variable controls both or mediates between the two events. Without this weaker test, a cause may be termed spurious and genuine otherwise.

Agman is fond of pointing out that under testimony Taylor agreed he did not test his reasons that Tyson may want to alter the normal supply/demand outcome with marketing agreements and manipulation based on their buying strategy. The question is, do the reasons one may wish to manipulate the market need to be tested for causality or is that just a superfluous exercise?

To know the answer to that question you have to know the reason you test for causality and whether or not that reason is applicable. Causality is usually determined on a set of data with mathematical calculations. These calculations determine whether or not there is a cause and effect from the stated actions on the set of data. The only problem with the argument that causality must be determined is that first you must determine if indeed that is the correct question.

In the Pickett case, the reasons that Taylor gave for Tyson wanting to manipulate the market have no relevance or causality to the way they manipulated the markets. They were possible reasons for Tyson benefiting from their actions, not necessarily the way that was exercised and hence were not them selves causative. Agman is smart enough to know this, after all, he has the trial transcripts. When Agman brings up the point that Taylor did not test what he calls his “theories” (another word for reasons), he is bringing up a lawyer trick of making an issue out of something that was never the issue in the first place; the causative factor was Tyson’s willingness to discriminate against the sellers in cash market for a greater gain, not the reasons they would do it. That gain was a lowering of the total market price for cattle paid by discriminating against the cash market in selective periods of time.

This above argument is similar to the marketing agreements argument. Marketing agreements can be legal, but their abuse can be illegal, just as guns can be legal, but their use in a crime could be illegal.

If you take the argument SH makes, that there are times when the cash price is higher than the captive supply price, you have to do an analysis to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the two over periods of time. Those were the calculations that were done by Taylor. The results showed a depression of the cash market (due to discrimination against the cash market) of approximately 5%. This reduction of prices paid of 5% included ALL the times that the cash market was higher than the captive supply price. In other words, the reduction of the overall price paid for cattle that was calculated included the times that the cash price was higher. This shows that the arguments that SH makes has already been accounted for in the calculations. They are just anomalies in a data set, not statistically significant.

The next argument that is articulated is that there was no real benefit to Tyson to manipulate the market since they did not profit from the manipulation in the same amount of the calculated damages. Of course anyone who has knowledge of economics knows that this argument on its face is wrong. Deadweight losses make this a reality to all market manipulation schemes. SH readily admits that during the Tyson manipulation time periods, the average profit per head went up from a long term average of $3.88 to over $26.00 per head all the while cattle prices to producers was being driven down. This calculation itself shows how much more profit Tyson earned by the scheme they executed during the time it was executed. The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market.

As I said before, beef is inelastic. The group of meats which includes chicken and pork (fish to a lesser degree) is more inelastic than beef alone. Here is a website in elasticity:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics4.asp

When the supply of beef is restricted, along with pork and chicken, the price of all three go up more than the loss in revenue from less supply. Tyson benefits off of this phenomena, not in beef, where prices are currently passed on to the producers, but in poultry and pork, where increases in price are held by Tyson due to the market structure in those businesses. It is interesting to me that the ERS, which is supposed to just provide data to policy makers, has come out with the AMI in regards to Harkin’s call to action in the meats industry. Here is the quote and source:

“AMI continues to oppose any expansion of existing authorities that would adversely inhibit producers and packers’ ability to respond to the demands of consumers in a highly competitive market place. Coincidentally, USDA’s Economic Research Service has repeatedly researched and recognized the value of the current structure and has not recommended an expansion of authorities.”

Source: http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/28966.shtml

The ERS is making a policy decision that they know is wrong. Jim McDonald knows the structure of the poultry and pork industries, the main mechanism for the benefits to Tyson for the economic frauds against cattle producers.

Agman, you have been called out in your positions. You either don’t know what you are talking about or you deliberately misleading people on this board as to the merits on the Pickett case. If you disagree with the above points, let us discuss them.

This isn’t the first time I have called your hand, Agman. It is time to be truthful and mislead no more. It is time you admitted you are fishing with fake lures.

I hope we can continue the discussion on these points with civility. If you think I am wrong, let us discuss the issue further on this forum. If anyone else has some input, let us all try to stick to the points without the name calling. If you don't understand something, just ask. If you want to divert and try a little fishing with your own lures, start another thread. Remember, everyone has an opinion. It may be right, or it may be wrong. They are still entitled to their opinion. I will respect everyone's opinion but will argue (arguing is just a form of communication if done correctly nobody gets bloody) my view if I see it differently until I understand another's view or develop mine further.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
The definition of Causality on the linked Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems is long and confusing. A simpler definition may be helpful in following and making sense of the linked definition. Take it or leave it.

Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Causality as: 1. relation between cause and effect. 2. causal characters or agency.

Definition of Causation: 1. the act of causing. 2. that which produces an effect. 3. the valuation of cause and effect. Also: an excuse, pretext, or: to bring about.

Definition of Cybernetics: The science that treats of the principles of control and communication as they apply both to the operation of complex machines and all the functions of organisms.

May not be "one hundred dollar words: in the definitions, but cybernetics sure seems like one.......and those describing "cybernetics" on that link sound like lawyer lingo, don't they?

No opinion on the rest of Econs post till after lunch. Time constraints right now.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
The definition of Causality on the linked Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems is long and confusing. A simpler definition may be helpful in following and making sense of the linked definition. Take it or leave it.

Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Causality as: 1. relation between cause and effect. 2. causal characters or agency.

Definition of Causation: 1. the act of causing. 2. that which produces an effect. 3. the valuation of cause and effect. Also: an excuse, pretext, or: to bring about.

Definition of Cybernetics: The science that treats of the principles of control and communication as they apply both to the operation of complex machines and all the functions of organisms.

May not be "one hundred dollar words: in the definitions, but cybernetics sure seems like one.......and those describing "cybernetics" on that link sound like lawyer lingo, don't they?

No opinion on the rest of Econs post till after lunch. Time constraints right now.

MRJ

MRJ, I had to take the mid road between the economist's terminology and the general public. Agman was using it in the economic sense as it pertained to the case. Please don't tell me we have to parse every single word's definition just so you can have something to say. We will never get to the meat of the issue that way.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
The definition of Causality on the linked Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems is long and confusing. A simpler definition may be helpful in following and making sense of the linked definition. Take it or leave it.

Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Causality as: 1. relation between cause and effect. 2. causal characters or agency.

Definition of Causation: 1. the act of causing. 2. that which produces an effect. 3. the valuation of cause and effect. Also: an excuse, pretext, or: to bring about.

Definition of Cybernetics: The science that treats of the principles of control and communication as they apply both to the operation of complex machines and all the functions of organisms.

May not be "one hundred dollar words: in the definitions, but cybernetics sure seems like one.......and those describing "cybernetics" on that link sound like lawyer lingo, don't they?

No opinion on the rest of Econs post till after lunch. Time constraints right now.

MRJ

MRJ, I had to take the mid road between the economist's terminology and the general public. Agman was using it in the economic sense as it pertained to the case. Please don't tell me we have to parse every single word's definition just so you can have something to say. We will never get to the meat of the issue that way.

Sorry if you don't want the material as understandable as possible for as many people as possible, but I do and I have as much right to post as you do. I do lag FAR behind you in numbers of posts.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The fish in this case is Conman's stupid "ILLUSION" that a difference in price between the cash market and the formula market is proof of market manipulation. It's not! Tyson dropping their price in one market to reflect their purchases in another market is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction. Tyson is "A MARKET", not "THE MARKET". The only way the plaintiffs could prove manipulation of "THE MARKET" is to prove that ALL PACKERS dropped their prices in the cash market to reflect TYSON'S purchase in the formula market. It's bullsh*t. The exact opposite would occur. If Tyson had most of it's needs procured in the formula market, that would make Excel, Swift, and USPB that much more competitive for the remaining cattle in "THE" cash market.


Here's another lie Conman. You said Taylor tested his theories. Taylor testified under oath that he did not test his theories. YOU BLATANTLY LIED ABOUT THAT! Your lie contradicts Taylor's own testimony UNDER OATH. You are a pathetic lying @%!*&^%*&!! That's all there is to it. Yet you try to create an "ILLUSION" you aren't lying by asking for proof of your lies and deception.


Conman: "The next argument that is articulated is that there was no real benefit to Tyson to manipulate the market since they did not profit from the manipulation in the same amount of the calculated damages. Of course anyone who has knowledge of economics knows that this argument on its face is wrong. Deadweight losses make this a reality to all market manipulation schemes. SH readily admits that during the Tyson manipulation time periods, the average profit per head went up from a long term average of $3.88 to over $26.00 per head all the while cattle prices to producers was being driven down. This calculation itself shows how much more profit Tyson earned by the scheme they executed during the time it was executed. The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market."

Oh for crying out loud. How can anyone be so completely ignorant and so conspiracy driven?

You have some dumbassed conspiracy theory for every faction of this industry don't you?

First, the only issue in Pickett was whether producers were entitled to more of Tyson's $26 per head profits during that time period. There is no way in hell the damages could be higher than that amount because the only damages was producers not getting more of that $26. Tyson is not in business to loose money so whiny little packer victims can make more on their efficiency. The damage figure that was higher than ibp's profits shows how backwards this entire case was.

Second, only a complete idiot like you would compare the $26 of ibps profits for a small snapshot in time (the Pickett era of "ALLEGED" market manipulation) to the $3.88 per head that was applicable to THE FIVE MAJOR PACKERS THROUGH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT 10 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.

You pick and chose certain facts OUT OF CONTEXT to create an illusion that the facts themselves will not support. True to your pathetic deceptive ways.

To make such a stupid comparison, you would have to believe that all the packers should be equally profitable AT ALL TIMES. How can anyone who claims to know something about this industry be so incredibly stupid to believe that all packers would be equally as efficient and equally as profitable WITH DIFFERENT MARKETS FOR BEEF AND BEEF BYPRODUCTS???

How can you possibly be so stupid?

Third, reductions in supplies can hardly be blamed on ibp's profits.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Glad to see you are back, SH. When you talk to Agman, ask him to respond to my post INTELLIGENTLY.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Does testing for causality matter or is it another fish?

Agman continually brings up the point that Taylor never tested his “theories” for causality and that this is a prerequisite of the plaintiffs (Pickett) to win the point that Taylor’s calculations were correct. An understanding of the question shows that the causality point is just another fish for the unknowing who take the bait. When you really understand the issue, you will see that this point is just another argument to lure you away from the truth.

What is causality? Causality is a relationship between two events. Here is another definition that you can find on the web at:


Econ...Agman is fond of pointing out that under testimony Taylor agreed he did not test his reasons that Tyson may want to alter the normal supply/demand outcome with marketing agreements and manipulation based on their buying strategy. The question is, do the reasons one may wish to manipulate the market need to be tested for causality or is that just a superfluous exercise?

Response from Agman...The "reason" for so called manipulation was NEVER the question as you INCORRECTLY ASSUME. The question was if Taylor ever tested his own theories as to how markets could be manipulated by Tyson's action? That question is vastly different than your PHONY assumption which is another blatant attempt to divert from the real issue and question. Are you actually saying "causality" is irrelevant? Whow, that is a good one.

You, Econ, stated repeatedly that he did test his "theories" and Taylor under oath contradicted twice your claim or assumption. Either you are lying or Taylor lied under oath. Do you have the integrity to admit who was lying-you or Taylor? Most readers know the answer if you are too embarrassed to admit who got trapped in one more blatant lie.

Econ...To know the answer to that question you have to know the reason you test for causality and whether or not that reason is applicable. Causality is usually determined on a set of data with mathematical calculations. These calculations determine whether or not there is a cause and effect from the stated actions on the set of data. The only problem with the argument that causality must be determined is that first you must determine if indeed that is the correct question.

Response from Agman...Diversion again from Econ, what else is new. The central question to satisfy the court is whether he tested his own theories which he advanced at trail. That process is required by law and Taylor under oath admitted he did not test his own theories. In jest, we and the court are just supposed to accept his conclusion because he said so. Sorry folks, the court requires more than his stated conclusion in such a situation. Econ has repeatedly failed to answer a a simple "yes" or "no" question regarding that legal requirement. You can all figure out why he is silent on that issue. Either answer check-mates his entire argument in support of the Pickett case.

Econ...When Agman brings up the point that Taylor did not test what he calls his “theories” (another word for reasons),

Response from Agman....Those were Taylor's words "theories" under oath not mine. He is the one who stated under oath that he did not test his six "theories" as to how Tyson manipulated the market. It might behoove you to actually read the transcript and quit drawing conclusion from your fantasy world of assumptions. You continue to fool no one but yourself with your deception.


Econ.... You take the argument SH makes, that there are times when the cash price is higher than the captive supply price, you have to do an analysis to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the two over periods of time. Those were the calculations that were done by Taylor. The results showed a depression of the cash market (due to discrimination against the cash market) of approximately 5%. This reduction of prices paid of 5% included ALL the times that the cash market was higher than the captive supply price. In other words, the reduction of the overall price paid for cattle that was calculated included the times that the cash price was higher. This shows that the arguments that SH makes has already been accounted for in the calculations. They are just anomalies in a data set, not statistically significant.

Respose from Agman...Not only did Taylor not test his own theories as he said under oath he also failed to test some critical variables that are relevant to price action which place further doubt regarding his own conclusion. His analysis failed the "Hausman" test for causality. In short his conclusion that Tyson's action lowered prices did not hold up under scrutiny by one of the worlds best econometricians and developer of the "Hausman" test for causality. Additionally, you seem to conveniently forget or overlook that the plaintiff's own witnesses testified that Tyson was not always the market leader. Taylor failed to differentiate that in his works; just a minor oversight I guess!! Need I add that when beef demand began to improve he could not explain why the same methodology that he claimed showed manipulation no longer could show those continuing results.

Econ.....SH readily admits that during the Tyson manipulation time periods, the average profit per head went up from a long term average of $3.88 to over $26.00 per head all the while cattle prices to producers was being driven down. This calculation itself shows how much more profit Tyson earned by the scheme they executed during the time it was executed. The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market.

Response from Agman... After repeatedly being told you still continue to use two separate periods and distinct data sets to compare profitably. I can excuse you the first time you incorrectly used that data to support your bias. After repeatedly using data that cannot be properly compared, I know because I computed the original data, your use of that data is the result of total lack of comprehension, diversion or an outright lie. The readers can choose for themselves which it is.

Your imagination Econ leaves you too believe they can manipulate the entire cattle cycle both here and abroad. Maybe someone believes your nonsense but I find it hard it believe there would be two people so ignorant of fact. Your quote from above "The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market." Yes, in your fantasy world they controlled the cattle cycle and even a further stretch this was done to benefit from the BSE crisis which occurred years after the period analyzed by Taylor. A simple question if you care to answer rather than divert. Who manipulated the numerous cattle cycles decades before Tyson and or marketing agreements were introduced? No phony diversionary explanation is required. A very short correct answer will do.


Econ.....As I said before, beef is inelastic. The group of meats which includes chicken and pork (fish to a lesser degree) is more inelastic than beef alone.

Response from Agman...What a revelation from the man who did not even know the level of beef production but had all the accusations and claimed answers regarding packers their claimed manipulation of prices. You are the same individual who did state "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down." Simple question: How do you explain when the price of beef goes up when the supply of all meats, including beef, is also going up? Check-mated you again. Correction...that was a fools-mate. Anyone who plays chess know the moves and terminology. You are just too easy.


Econ....Agman, you have been called out in your positions. You either don’t know what you are talking about or you deliberately misleading people on this board as to the merits on the Pickett case. If you disagree with the above points, let us discuss them.

This isn’t the first time I have called your hand, Agman. It is time to be truthful and mislead no more. It is time you admitted you are fishing with fake lures.

Respone from Agman....Well I have responded and I expect you will divert as usual to stoke your ego. You are the one who has been trapped in your own lies and deception. You are the one who assumes without knowing.

Don't try to LURE readers on this forum with more diversion and lies. Most a too smart for that game. They have you figured out just as I did from the very beginning. Before you attempt to call my hand again as you claim you need to get your facts straight and learn something about this industry. Your endless stream of assumptions are transparent, shallow and are getting to be old hat. You are just too easy. You best go play with kids your age now! This stuff is over your head.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
[
Econ101 said:
Does testing for causality matter or is it another fish?

Agman continually brings up the point that Taylor never tested his “theories” for causality and that this is a prerequisite of the plaintiffs (Pickett) to win the point that Taylor’s calculations were correct. An understanding of the question shows that the causality point is just another fish for the unknowing who take the bait. When you really understand the issue, you will see that this point is just another argument to lure you away from the truth.

What is causality? Causality is a relationship between two events. Here is another definition that you can find on the web at:


Econ...Agman is fond of pointing out that under testimony Taylor agreed he did not test his reasons that Tyson may want to alter the normal supply/demand outcome with marketing agreements and manipulation based on their buying strategy. The question is, do the reasons one may wish to manipulate the market need to be tested for causality or is that just a superfluous exercise?

Response from Agman...The "reason" for so called manipulation was NEVER the question as you INCORRECTLY ASSUME. The question was if Taylor ever tested his own theories as to how markets could be manipulated by Tyson's action? That question is vastly different than your PHONY assumption which is another blatant attempt to divert from the real issue and question. Are you actually saying "causality" is irrelevant? Whow, that is a good one.

You, Econ, stated repeatedly that he did test his "theories" and Taylor under oath contradicted twice your claim or assumption. Either you are lying or Taylor lied under oath. Do you have the integrity to admit who was lying-you or Taylor? Most readers know the answer if you are too embarrassed to admit who got trapped in one more blatant lie.

Econ: Not only did he test them, he found them to be statistically significant to the tune of over 2 billion dollars, Agman.

Econ...To know the answer to that question you have to know the reason you test for causality and whether or not that reason is applicable. Causality is usually determined on a set of data with mathematical calculations. These calculations determine whether or not there is a cause and effect from the stated actions on the set of data. The only problem with the argument that causality must be determined is that first you must determine if indeed that is the correct question.

Response from Agman...Diversion again from Econ, what else is new. The central question to satisfy the court is whether he tested his own theories which he advanced at trail. That process is required by law and Taylor under oath admitted he did not test his own theories. In jest, we and the court are just supposed to accept his conclusion because he said so. Sorry folks, the court requires more than his stated conclusion in such a situation. Econ has repeatedly failed to answer a a simple "yes" or "no" question regarding that legal requirement. You can all figure out why he is silent on that issue. Either answer check-mates his entire argument in support of the Pickett case.

Econ: The question has always been what theories were you referring to, Agman. Of course I have repeatedly asked you this question and you have not answered. The "theory" that discriminating against the cash market made the captive supply market less expensive and that this drove down the overall market was illustrated AND tested.


Econ...When Agman brings up the point that Taylor did not test what he calls his “theories” (another word for reasons),

Response from Agman....Those were Taylor's words "theories" under oath not mine. He is the one who stated under oath that he did not test his six "theories" as to how Tyson manipulated the market. It might behoove you to actually read the transcript and quit drawing conclusion from your fantasy world of assumptions. You continue to fool no one but yourself with your deception.

Econ: It might. I don't have the transcripts. Maybe you could convince the judge to release them so we can all see the mathematical mistake Hauseman made.

Econ.... You take the argument SH makes, that there are times when the cash price is higher than the captive supply price, you have to do an analysis to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the two over periods of time. Those were the calculations that were done by Taylor. The results showed a depression of the cash market (due to discrimination against the cash market) of approximately 5%. This reduction of prices paid of 5% included ALL the times that the cash market was higher than the captive supply price. In other words, the reduction of the overall price paid for cattle that was calculated included the times that the cash price was higher. This shows that the arguments that SH makes has already been accounted for in the calculations. They are just anomalies in a data set, not statistically significant.

Respose from Agman...Not only did Taylor not test his own theories as he said under oath he also failed to test some critical variables that are relevant to price action which place further doubt regarding his own conclusion. His analysis failed the "Hausman" test for causality. In short his conclusion that Tyson's action lowered prices did not hold up under scrutiny by one of the worlds best econometricians and developer of the "Hausman" test for causality. Additionally, you seem to conveniently forget or overlook that the plaintiff's own witnesses testified that Tyson was not always the market leader. Taylor failed to differentiate that in his works; just a minor oversight I guess!! Need I add that when beef demand began to improve he could not explain why the same methodology that he claimed showed manipulation no longer could show those continuing results.

Econ: Get them to release the transcripts, Agman, instead of a court that doesn't know beans about econometrics and an appellate court that PROVED they know less about economics from hiding the truth. We all need a little peer review instead of a bunch of judges acting for the jury when they obviously know less about the Packers and Stockyards Act than the the FRAUDS running GIPSA.

Econ.....SH readily admits that during the Tyson manipulation time periods, the average profit per head went up from a long term average of $3.88 to over $26.00 per head all the while cattle prices to producers was being driven down. This calculation itself shows how much more profit Tyson earned by the scheme they executed during the time it was executed. The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market.

Response from Agman... After repeatedly being told you still continue to use two separate periods and distinct data sets to compare profitably. I can excuse you the first time you incorrectly used that data to support your bias. After repeatedly using data that cannot be properly compared, I know because I computed the original data, your use of that data is the result of total lack of comprehension, diversion or an outright lie. The readers can choose for themselves which it is.

Econ: Right back at you with the Beef Demand Index you had a hand in, Agman. Did you not use it in your calculations you brought forward for our previous discussion on supply being the dominant factor of higher prices for beef? Don't call other people on the things you do. Show your work instead of presenting numbers and then hiding behind them. You still have not shown your work.


Your imagination Econ leaves you too believe they can manipulate the entire cattle cycle both here and abroad. Maybe someone believes your nonsense but I find it hard it believe there would be two people so ignorant of fact. Your quote from above "The real payoff came later, when this depression of the cattle prices lead to a reduction in the amount of cattle produced in the U.S. and the BSE crisis in Canada that led to an artificial shortage of beef on the market." Yes, in your fantasy world they controlled the cattle cycle and even a further stretch this was done to benefit from the BSE crisis which occurred years after the period analyzed by Taylor. A simple question if you care to answer rather than divert. Who manipulated the numerous cattle cycles decades before Tyson and or marketing agreements were introduced? No phony diversionary explanation is required. A very short correct answer will do.

Econ: Cattle cycles will happen anyway. Market manipulation that Pickett proved accentuates them. Your own numbers proved the recent run up in prices was due to supply. I have thanked you numerous times for bringing that data up, although I have asked for the work to be shown.

Econ.....As I said before, beef is inelastic. The group of meats which includes chicken and pork (fish to a lesser degree) is more inelastic than beef alone.

Response from Agman...What a revelation from the man who did not even know the level of beef production but had all the accusations and claimed answers regarding packers their claimed manipulation of prices. You are the same individual who did state "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down." Simple question: How do you explain when the price of beef goes up when the supply of all meats, including beef, is also going up? Check-mated you again. Correction...that was a fools-mate. Anyone who plays chess know the moves and terminology. You are just too easy.

Econ: Agman, we have already been through this before. There is a lot of play in the chain. It depends on the situation. Do we need to go through it again? When there is an oversupply of an inelastic commodity such as beef (it could be corn, wheat, or anything else), the price trend will not go up until the supply contracts. You should know this, Agman.

Econ....Agman, you have been called out in your positions. You either don’t know what you are talking about or you deliberately misleading people on this board as to the merits on the Pickett case. If you disagree with the above points, let us discuss them.

This isn’t the first time I have called your hand, Agman. It is time to be truthful and mislead no more. It is time you admitted you are fishing with fake lures.

Respone from Agman....Well I have responded and I expect you will divert as usual to stoke your ego. You are the one who has been trapped in your own lies and deception. You are the one who assumes without knowing.


Don't try to LURE readers on this forum with more diversion and lies. Most a too smart for that game. They have you figured out just as I did from the very beginning. Before you attempt to call my hand again as you claim you need to get your facts straight and learn something about this industry. Your endless stream of assumptions are transparent, shallow and are getting to be old hat. You are just too easy. You best go play with kids your age now! This stuff is over your head.

Econ: There is really NOTHING to respond here because none of this part of your post is substantive.

Agman, you like to hide behind the information that has not been released by the judge. Get the judges to release the transcripts, Agman. Stop hiding. Show your work.
 

Latest posts

Top