It is the Industry Concentration Game--Producers lose

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Pickett lost because they couldn't meet the extra criteria Strom placed on them, you know, armed robbery is not a crime if you use a hunting gun."

That's a damn lie.

Strom cited numerous reasons why the plaintiffs failed to prove their burden of market manipulation. Judge Strom's reasoning has been posted. Yet you paint another deceptive illusion like the pathetic individual you are.



~SH~

Yes, his reasons have been posted. They still make no sense. would you like that "legitimate use of a weapon" requirement placed on you if you were the plaintiff in a crime?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "They still make no sense. would you like that "legitimate use of a weapon" requirement placed on you if you were the plaintiff in a crime?"

Only you would try to draw a parallel between the use of a weapon in a crime to ibp dropping their price in the cash fat cattle market to reflect their purchases in the formula fat cattle market.

In case you're too stupid to realize it, a formula sale requires TWO WILLING PARTICIPANTS. A crime involving a weapon requires only one willing participant.

Only you would be a big enough fool to draw a comparison between the two.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "They still make no sense. would you like that "legitimate use of a weapon" requirement placed on you if you were the plaintiff in a crime?"

Only you would try to draw a parallel between the use of a weapon in a crime to ibp dropping their price in the cash fat cattle market to reflect their purchases in the formula fat cattle market.

In case you're too stupid to realize it, a formula sale requires TWO WILLING PARTICIPANTS. A crime involving a weapon requires only one willing participant.

Only you would be a big enough fool to draw a comparison between the two.



~SH~

You should think before you type, SH. Maybe look around for like examples. The two willing participants means nothing. People willingly enter scams everyday, thinking they are legitimate deals. Are you telling me scams are not illegal because the victim entered into them willingly?

Pickett contended that Tyson was using contracts as a tool to alter prices in their favor. Whether or not they had any legitimate uses for the tool has absolutly no bearing on if the tool was used to break the law. Why would it?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You should think before you type, SH."

Your the one who can never back his claims.

Sandbag: "Maybe look around for like examples. The two willing participants means nothing. People willingly enter scams everyday, thinking they are legitimate deals. Are you telling me scams are not illegal because the victim entered into them willingly?"

You are the one who continually uses UNLIKE examples.

Anyone that sells feeder cattle under the formula knows how the base price is derived. Many feeders sell cattle this way every day. There is no scam. There is nothing illegal. The terms of the deal are transparent. Everyone who sells under a formula knows how the base price is derived.

YOU PACKER BLAMERS LOST THE CASE FOR THAT VERY REASON!

Sandbag: "Pickett contended that Tyson was using contracts as a tool to alter prices in their favor. Whether or not they had any legitimate uses for the tool has absolutly no bearing on if the tool was used to break the law. Why would it?"

Pickett contended market manipulation but Pickett didn't prove market manipulation. THEY LOST THE CASE!

There was no PSA violation. NONE!

You lost now quit sucking your thumb and move on.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "You should think before you type, SH."

Your the one who can never back his claims.

Sandbag: "Maybe look around for like examples. The two willing participants means nothing. People willingly enter scams everyday, thinking they are legitimate deals. Are you telling me scams are not illegal because the victim entered into them willingly?"

You are the one who continually uses UNLIKE examples.

Anyone that sells feeder cattle under the formula knows how the base price is derived. Many feeders sell cattle this way every day. There is no scam. There is nothing illegal. The terms of the deal are transparent. Everyone who sells under a formula knows how the base price is derived.

YOU PACKER BLAMERS LOST THE CASE FOR THAT VERY REASON!

Sandbag: "Pickett contended that Tyson was using contracts as a tool to alter prices in their favor. Whether or not they had any legitimate uses for the tool has absolutly no bearing on if the tool was used to break the law. Why would it?"

Pickett contended market manipulation but Pickett didn't prove market manipulation. THEY LOST THE CASE!

There was no PSA violation. NONE!

You lost now quit sucking your thumb and move on.


~SH~

SH, Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and there was not ANY evidence to the contrary that supported overturning the decision. Your little excuses have all been shot down. You need to go on your little trip down the yellow brick road. If you have any new arguments, bring them on. I would love to hear them.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and there was not ANY evidence to the contrary that supported overturning the decision."

Pickett never proved market manipulation and that is why Judge Strom overturned the verdict and the 11th circuit supported his decision.

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs in the formula market is not market manipulation.

If I have told you once, I have told you many many times and you still don't get it. It was not ibp's responsibility to prove their innocense, it was the plaintiff's responsibility to prove ibp's guilt. THEY FAILED TO DO THAT AND THAT IS WHY THEY LOST.

Our judicial system is not based on the "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" it is based on the "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE".

GUILT HAS TO BE PROVEN, NOT INNOCENSE.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH, Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and there was not ANY evidence to the contrary that supported overturning the decision."

Pickett never proved market manipulation and that is why Judge Strom overturned the verdict and the 11th circuit supported his decision.

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs in the formula market is not market manipulation.

If I have told you once, I have told you many many times and you still don't get it. It was not ibp's responsibility to prove their innocense, it was the plaintiff's responsibility to prove ibp's guilt. THEY FAILED TO DO THAT AND THAT IS WHY THEY LOST.

Our judicial system is not based on the "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" it is based on the "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE".

GUILT HAS TO BE PROVEN, NOT INNOCENSE.


~SH~

They didn't fail to do it, you idiot. The jury agreed with them unanimously. It was the 11th circuit, largely recommended by the republican senators in those states, that overturned the jury verdict.

They had the presumption of innocense, but it became apparent to the jurors that they were not innocent in their market manipulation.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Anyone that sells feeder cattle under the formula knows how the base price is derived. Many feeders sell cattle this way every day. There is no scam. There is nothing illegal. The terms of the deal are transparent. Everyone who sells under a formula knows how the base price is derived."

Yes, feeders know the mechanisms. What they don't know is the aproximate number of cattle that will be bought in the pricing time frame, nor do they have any control of it - the packers do. It's not an even field when one participant can effect the mechanisms and the other can not. It's not hard to figure out.

Answer this - can Joe Schmoe feedyard do anything that could effect the national cash prices? Can Tyson do anything that could effect the national cash prices?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Yes, feeders know the mechanisms. What they don't know is the aproximate number of cattle that will be bought in the pricing time frame, nor do they have any control of it - the packers do. It's not an even field when one participant can effect the mechanisms and the other can not. It's not hard to figure out."

Packers don't know how many cattle they are going to buy UNTIL THEY ARE BOUGHT. You act like feeders are forced to sell. You can't even reason.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Yes, feeders know the mechanisms. What they don't know is the aproximate number of cattle that will be bought in the pricing time frame, nor do they have any control of it - the packers do. It's not an even field when one participant can effect the mechanisms and the other can not. It's not hard to figure out."

Packers don't know how many cattle they are going to buy UNTIL THEY ARE BOUGHT. You act like feeders are forced to sell. You can't even reason.


~SH~

Do packers know to the exact animal? No. Do they know within a % or two? You bet they do.

You avoided my question concerning Joe Schmoe feeder and Tyson.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Yes, feeders know the mechanisms. What they don't know is the aproximate number of cattle that will be bought in the pricing time frame, nor do they have any control of it - the packers do. It's not an even field when one participant can effect the mechanisms and the other can not. It's not hard to figure out."

Packers don't know how many cattle they are going to buy UNTIL THEY ARE BOUGHT. You act like feeders are forced to sell. You can't even reason.


~SH~

Feeders have an economic reason to sell, the packers have an economic reason to buy. They have to match up, SH, for there to be a deal. The law says the packers are prohibited from doing certain things in this deal. Pickett showed they were breaking those prohibitions.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Do packers know to the exact animal? No. Do they know within a % or two? You bet they do."

Packers know how many they need, not how many feeders are willing to sell them. Each packer also has to bid against the other major packers further confusing knowing how many each is going to get bought.

Conman: "Feeders have an economic reason to sell, the packers have an economic reason to buy. They have to match up, SH, for there to be a deal."

YA THINK??????????

Where did you obtain such revolutionary knowledge?

I'll take that as your admission that packers can't know how many cattle the feeders are willing to sell them.

Conman: "The law says the packers are prohibited from doing certain things in this deal. Pickett showed they were breaking those prohibitions."

Pickett lost their case and lost on appeal. Pickett proved nothing of the sort.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Do packers know to the exact animal? No. Do they know within a % or two? You bet they do."

Packers know how many they need, not how many feeders are willing to sell them. Each packer also has to bid against the other major packers further confusing knowing how many each is going to get bought.

Conman: "Feeders have an economic reason to sell, the packers have an economic reason to buy. They have to match up, SH, for there to be a deal."

YA THINK??????????

Where did you obtain such revolutionary knowledge?

I'll take that as your admission that packers can't know how many cattle the feeders are willing to sell them.

Econ: You can take it as an admission that feeders don't know how many cattle the packers are willing to buy.

Conman: "The law says the packers are prohibited from doing certain things in this deal. Pickett showed they were breaking those prohibitions."

Pickett lost their case and lost on appeal. Pickett proved nothing of the sort.


~SH~

Econ: Pickett didn't lose nearly as much as the judges did, unless you don't care a thing about integrity. Oh, I forgot, I am conversing with you, SH.

What happens when someone calls you a fruitbasket in Cody?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "You can take it as an admission that feeders don't know how many cattle the packers are willing to buy."

How can Packers possibly know how many cattle they will get bought if they don't know how many feeders are willing to sell?

Conman: "Econ: Pickett didn't lose nearly as much as the judges did, unless you don't care a thing about integrity."

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit court's integrity doesn't ride on the opinions of a bunch of thumb sucking packer blamers like you.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "You can take it as an admission that feeders don't know how many cattle the packers are willing to buy."

How can Packers possibly know how many cattle they will get bought if they don't know how many feeders are willing to sell?

Econ: Why don't you ask them, SH? Don't you have a friend over there?

Conman: "Econ: Pickett didn't lose nearly as much as the judges did, unless you don't care a thing about integrity."

Judge Strom and the 11th circuit court's integrity doesn't ride on the opinions of a bunch of thumb sucking packer blamers like you.


~SH~

Econ: Do you want to bet on that?