A
Anonymous
Guest
Another unsupported statement!
If it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it, explain how it is more complex or divert because you can't.
~SH~
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jury Duty!!!
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Another unsupported statement!
If it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it, explain how it is more complex or divert because you can't.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Sandman: "It's not a simple as you're trying to make it out to be."
Another unsupported statement!
If it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it, explain how it is more complex or divert because you can't.
~SH~
They're not just lowering prices as they fill their book. They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices. I don't expect you to get it because you don't want to. My reply was for the benefit of others.
Jason
Well-known member
They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices.
So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?
Jason said:They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices.
So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?
They try. It depends on their supply of captive cattle controlled. This is where transparency is important and missing all too often. This involves inventory levels, captive supply levels, boxed beef big sales, etc.... Many of these factors are totally controlled and known only by the packers. No public info.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "They're not just lowering prices as they fill their book. They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices. I don't expect you to get it because you don't want to. My reply was for the benefit of others."
HOW THE HELL CAN THEY PUT A LID ON PRICES IF THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION?????
You can't explain that nor can you answer Jason's question regarding rising markets. You guys just keep throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what will stick. Your reply is for the benefit of yourself because you are the only one who thinks it makes sense.
Jason: "So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?"
Kindergarten (in response): "They try. It depends on their supply of captive cattle controlled. This is where transparency is important and missing all too often. This involves inventory levels, captive supply levels, boxed beef big sales, etc.... Many of these factors are totally controlled and known only by the packers. No public info."
THEY TRY????? You are so full of it! Again you don't know what you are talking about. Captive supply levels are reported to GIPSA. Boxed beef prices are reported by USDA. Live cattle prices are reported by USDA. This industry could not be any more transparent.
The captive supply level remains stable as supply and demand factors raise and lower boxed beef prices which in turn raises and lowers live cattle prices.
You don't have an explanation for the times when the cash price is higher than the "non negotiated" formula price. Nothing changes about the level of captive supply.
You absolutely don't have a clue what you are talking about.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Sandman: "They're not just lowering prices as they fill their book. They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices. I don't expect you to get it because you don't want to. My reply was for the benefit of others."
HOW THE HELL CAN THEY PUT A LID ON PRICES IF THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION?????
You can't explain that nor can you answer Jason's question regarding rising markets. You guys just keep throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what will stick. Your reply is for the benefit of yourself because you are the only one who thinks it makes sense.
Jason: "So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?"
Kindergarten (in response): "They try. It depends on their supply of captive cattle controlled. This is where transparency is important and missing all too often. This involves inventory levels, captive supply levels, boxed beef big sales, etc.... Many of these factors are totally controlled and known only by the packers. No public info."
THEY TRY????? You are so full of it! Again you don't know what you are talking about. Captive supply levels are reported to GIPSA. Boxed beef prices are reported by USDA. Live cattle prices are reported by USDA. This industry could not be any more transparent.
The captive supply level remains stable as supply and demand factors raise and lower boxed beef prices which in turn raises and lowers live cattle prices.
You don't have an explanation for the times when the cash price is higher than the "non negotiated" formula price. Nothing changes about the level of captive supply.
You absolutely don't have a clue what you are talking about.
~SH~
SH, the crux of the case came down to whether or not the packers were discrimnating against the cash market. The packers conveniently declined to produce the pricing structure of the captive supply when questioned by the plaintiffs so that it could be compared to the cash market purchases. Mike posted that info on Ranchers.net and it was not disputed.
The captive supply numbers/ inventory show exactly how much buying power the packers have at a given time. If the captive supply is biased so much that the packers have over the amount needed to operate the plant for a given amount of time, it totally blows your "if they reduce prices paid in the cash market as needs are met it is not manipulation" B.S. There are a lot of different games and circumstances that you have no knowledge about regarding the strategies of manipulation that can be employed with these tools.
You never have answered any of my questions regarding the issues of this case. Instead you have diverted or started calling names and making judgments like you have above.
I do have an answer for your
You don't have an explanation for the times when the cash price is higher than the "non negotiated" formula price. Nothing changes about the level of captive supply.
I have given it many times. The cash price should be higher than the non negotiated formula price about half the time. It was not. One time of price suppression by prices being lower in the cash market than captive supply is not necessarily proof of market manipulation. A statistically significant one is. Do you know what that means? I have tried to use language you would understand.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "SH, the crux of the case came down to whether or not the packers were discrimnating against the cash market."
The crux of the case came down to whether or not the packers were MANIPULATING THE MARKETS. Dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the "non negotiated" formula market could be considered discriminating against the cash market due to the amount of cattle in the formula market BUT THAT IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION.
Kindergarten: "The packers conveniently declined to produce the pricing structure of the captive supply when questioned by the plaintiffs so that it could be compared to the cash market purchases. Mike posted that info on Ranchers.net and it was not disputed."
THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT FALL ON THE ACCUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not IBP's responsibility to prove their innocense. How many times do I have to tell you that?????????
That information is readily available for anyone who wants to obtain it because the "non negotiated" formula price is based on the weekly weighted average of the cash price the week prior to delivery.
You just keep throwing out the same baseless allegations as if they will suddenly have merit.
Kindergarten: "The captive supply numbers/ inventory show exactly how much buying power the packers have at a given time. If the captive supply is biased so much that the packers have over the amount needed to operate the plant for a given amount of time, it totally blows your "if they reduce prices paid in the cash market as needs are met it is not manipulation" B.S."
WHY DOES THE FEEDING INDUSTRY NEED YOU TO SAVE THEM FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS?????
If producers don't like the cash price, THEY CAN SELL ON THE GRID, if they don't like the grid, THEY CAN FORWARD CONTRACT, if they want a negotiated base price, THEY CAN SELL ON ANGUS GENE NET, if they don't want to sell to Tyson, THEY CAN SELL TO EXCEL, SWIFT, AND USPB.
THE FEEDERS DO NOT NEED YOU TO SAVE THEM FROM THEIR PRICING MECHANISMS!
If Tyson has dropped their price due to having a lot of formula cattle already purchased, SELL TO THE OTHER PACKERS!!!!
What is so damn difficult to figure out about that?????
GAWD I GET SICK OF YOUR BASELESS CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!!!!!!!
Kindergarten: "There are a lot of different games and circumstances that you have no knowledge about regarding the strategies of manipulation that can be employed with these tools."
You don't know a damn thing about this industry. All you know is these same wore out baseless conspiracy theories you keep parroting. You can't even reason.
~SH~
Sorry you don't agree SH, but discriminating against the cash market in favor of the formula cattle for the similar product IS market manipulation.
Appellate court proved they did not know economics the law was based on and so have you.
Why don't you get Agman to answer the RPA questions on the other thread? What is the problem, you two don't know enough about economics? The PSA is an ECONOMIC LAW.
Appellate court proved they did not know economics the law was based on and so have you.
Why don't you get Agman to answer the RPA questions on the other thread? What is the problem, you two don't know enough about economics? The PSA is an ECONOMIC LAW.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Elementary economics: "Sorry you don't agree SH, but discriminating against the cash market in favor of the formula cattle for the similar product IS market manipulation."
I am sorry you are so misinformed but you are wrong on this issue as with most issues you discuss.
If dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being filled in the "non-negotiated" formula market was truly market manipulation it would have consequences in every segment of this industry. An order buyer dropping his price in the sale barn because most of his needs were met on the video auction would also be considered market manipulation.
What a slippery slope that would be if the law is ever left to the interpretation of blamers like you.
Elemenatary economics: "Appellate court proved they did not know economics the law was based on and so have you."
Keep telling yourself that because you sure haven't proven anything.
Elementary economics: "Why don't you get Agman to answer the RPA questions on the other thread? What is the problem, you two don't know enough about economics? The PSA is an ECONOMIC LAW."
Agman will do as he pleases and you don't know sh*t about the economics of the cattle industry. In fact you couldn't be any more ignorant of the economics of this industry.
The intent of the PSA was to prevent "PRICE FIXING" by packers getting their heads together to set a price, not to prevent packers from dropping their price in the cash market as their needs were met in the futures market.
~SH~
SH:
So what if it has implications for the industry? It is supposed to. If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market. Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period.
You are leaping to conclusions in your last statement. It might or it might not. Depends on the circumstances.
You said the plaintiffs did not present evidence of these issues. Is it your case that you just disagree with the evidence they presented?
If dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being filled in the "non-negotiated" formula market was truly market manipulation it would have consequences in every segment of this industry. An order buyer dropping his price in the sale barn because most of his needs were met on the video auction would also be considered market manipulation.
So what if it has implications for the industry? It is supposed to. If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market. Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period.
You are leaping to conclusions in your last statement. It might or it might not. Depends on the circumstances.
You said the plaintiffs did not present evidence of these issues. Is it your case that you just disagree with the evidence they presented?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Elementary economics: "If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market."
QUALITY IN THE CASH MARKET IS NOT DETERMINED UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT!!!!!
THE FORMULA MARKET IS A WEEK APART FROM THE CASH MARKET SO THE TWO PRICES WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME.
ALL FEEDERS HAVE OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS WHICH TOTALLY DEFEATS THE MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORY.
You are flag wrong about this, PERIOD!
Elementary economics: "Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period."
You are wrong, PERIOD!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Elementary economics: "If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market."
QUALITY IN THE CASH MARKET IS NOT DETERMINED UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT!!!!!
THE FORMULA MARKET IS A WEEK APART FROM THE CASH MARKET SO THE TWO PRICES WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME.
ALL FEEDERS HAVE OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS WHICH TOTALLY DEFEATS THE MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORY.
You are flag wrong about this, PERIOD!
Elementary economics: "Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period."
You are wrong, PERIOD!
~SH~
What was the other market option that Mike C. had? Was it the same as the other market options in value? If I give you a choice between a beating with a whip and a bullet through the head is that a real choice? Can I then say, in my defense, that I gave you a choice and you picked?
Hide behind the hide in the quality considerations. From what I hear, that was well addressed at trial, was it not? Your excuse didn't fly with the jury. There was no evidence to the contrary presented at the trial or if there was, the jury did not buy it.
If the cash and formula were a week apart, and you have already conceded that the cattle from that week apart could have been killed at the same time, were they really a week apart? Your argument is just semantics, not reality.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Elementary: "What was the other market option that Mike C. had? Was it the same as the other market options in value?"
ASK HIM!
If the value of the other options was the same, how can you make a case for market manipulation unless they got their heads together and fixed the price. You want to go down that conspiring road?
Elementary: "Hide behind the hide in the quality considerations. From what I hear, that was well addressed at trial, was it not? Your excuse didn't fly with the jury. There was no evidence to the contrary presented at the trial or if there was, the jury did not buy it."
How the hell would you know when you admitted you hadn't even read the testimony. You're only repeating what someone told you. What a phony you keep proving yourself to be.
The fact remains, you don't know what is under the hide until the hide comes off and that is a fact. The argument about the cash cattle being "higher quality" is relative to the definition of quality which would include the choice/select spread at the time, the fat discounts, the overweight discounts, and the yield. I'm sure you don't know what any of that means.
Elementary: "If the cash and formula were a week apart, and you have already conceded that the cattle from that week apart could have been killed at the same time, were they really a week apart?"
They were a week apart in price and that is reality.
Keep saving the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms! I don't know how they could function without arrogant people like you telling them how to conduct their business.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Elementary: "The mechanisms of the feed industry were not the problem until they were abused."
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A PROBLEM. ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR UNSUPPORTED "OPINIONS" AND "THEORIES".
You are factually void to support this view.
These pricing mechanisms are still not a problem because they weren't abused.
Why are more producers concerned about it than feeders who actually deal with these pricing mechanisms?
~SH~
~SH~ said:Elementary: "The mechanisms of the feed industry were not the problem until they were abused."
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A PROBLEM. ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR UNSUPPORTED "OPINIONS" AND "THEORIES".
You are factually void to support this view.
These pricing mechanisms are still not a problem because they weren't abused.
Why are more producers concerned about it than feeders who actually deal with these pricing mechanisms?
~SH~
How much of a percent of the vote did Sadam Hussein get the last election he was in?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Diverticuli!
Why are more producers concerned about feeder pricing mechanisms than the feeders who use them?
Answer the question.
~SH~
Why are more producers concerned about feeder pricing mechanisms than the feeders who use them?
Answer the question.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Diverticuli!
Why are more producers concerned about feeder pricing mechanisms than the feeders who use them?
Answer the question.
~SH~
Because when feeders get paid less, cattlemen who sell to them get less. Don't you use your own reasoning?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "Because when feeders get paid less, cattlemen who sell to them get less. Don't you use your own reasoning?"
Hahaha! Nice try!
You just don't want to admit that you blamers are so arrogant that you think you need to save the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms based on your wild market manipulation conspiracy theories.
How the feeder reinvests his profits does not change the fact that if they truly felt they were being screwed by the packers like packer blaming producers do, they wouldn't enter into these captive supply arrangements.
~SH~
