A
Anonymous
Guest
As long as you keep saying that YOU CAN KEEP DODGING HAVING TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE.
WHAT A NOVEL DIVERSIONARY CONCEPT HUH?
~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:
As long as you keep saying that YOU CAN KEEP DODGING HAVING TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE.
WHAT A NOVEL DIVERSIONARY CONCEPT HUH?
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "Evidence is for trials and jurys, neither of which you seem to respect."
Determination of whether laws were broken is for Judges and apellate courts when juries do not understand the evidence within the context of the law. Neither of which you respect. You think juries know more about the law than judges.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Kindergarten: "Evidence is for trials and jurys, neither of which you seem to respect."
Determination of whether laws were broken is for Judges and apellate courts when juries do not understand the evidence within the context of the law. Neither of which you respect. You think juries know more about the law than judges.
~SH~
In their appellate briefs they need to provide "proof" that this is the case and it wasn't in there. Daubert issues were hashed out pre trial, the appellate court showed its economic ignorance in its RPA example, and your "spin" doesn't change those FACTS. Yes, sometimes jury's judgement shows they know more about the law than judges. This is a perfect example and in the appellate court's own writing. There is a reason in the constitution that juries are to decide cases, not judges. Do you doubt those reasons? Show us you know more about constitutional law than anyone, SH. Do the jurors know the difference between "or" and "and" or is that part of legal writing up for judges who want to legislate from the bench? These judges should be reviewed to see if they are capable of holding that office. Maybe they should join you in elementary school to know the meaning of very little words, SH.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "In their appellate briefs they need to provide "proof" that this is the case and it wasn't in there."
What wasn't in there? PROOF TO THE CONTRARY???? If I told you once I told you a hundred times the burden of proof was on the accuser, not the accused. You can't even understand that most basic premise of law.THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER NOT THE ACCUSED!
What wasn't in there was the proof to earn a conviction. The plaintiffs never presented any proof, they presented "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" which the jury wrongfully believed it as fact. The jury couldn't explain their bogus damages. They agreed that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when all of the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. They couldn't get it right so the judge stepped in as a normal process and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. That decision didn't happen to support your packer conspiracy theories so now you are pouting saying the judge overstepped his bounds. Funny, Judge Strom was previously held in such high regard by the plaintiffs for his willingness to even hear such a bogus case.
You packer blamers lost, get over it!
~SH~
~SH~ said:Kindergarten: "In their appellate briefs they need to provide "proof" that this is the case and it wasn't in there."
What wasn't in there? PROOF TO THE CONTRARY???? If I told you once I told you a hundred times the burden of proof was on the accuser, not the accused. You can't even understand that most basic premise of law.THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER NOT THE ACCUSED!
What wasn't in there was the proof to earn a conviction. The plaintiffs never presented any proof, they presented "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" which the jury wrongfully believed it as fact. The jury couldn't explain their bogus damages. They agreed that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when all of the plaintiffs testified to the contrary. They couldn't get it right so the judge stepped in as a normal process and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. That decision didn't happen to support your packer conspiracy theories so now you are pouting saying the judge overstepped his bounds. Funny, Judge Strom was previously held in such high regard by the plaintiffs for his willingness to even hear such a bogus case.
You packer blamers lost, get over it!
~SH~
Are you telling me that they did not provide evidence that Tyson was paying less for cattle in the cash market, quality considerations accounted for, than they were in the captive supply markets? I believe Mike C. posted a little info. on that. Just becuase you do not want to hear it or believe it doesn't mean they did not present that evidence. Are you saying that they never brought forth evidence or that you just don't believe it? The jury seemed to believe it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "Are you telling me that they did not provide evidence that Tyson was paying less for cattle in the cash market, quality considerations accounted for, than they were in the captive supply markets?"
Where did that come from? Creating an illusion again huh?
Are you telling me that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the futures market is market manipulation?
Are you telling me that this week's cash price, based on this weeks supply and demand factors, is going to be the same as last week's cash price which is based on last week's supply and demand factors and establishes the basis for this week's non negotiated formula and grid price?
Using your stupid logic, if there is a difference between this week's price and last week's price there is market manipulation.
Why don't you stick to topics you are not quite as ignorant on?
~SH~
~SH~ said:Kindergarten: "Are you telling me that they did not provide evidence that Tyson was paying less for cattle in the cash market, quality considerations accounted for, than they were in the captive supply markets?"
Where did that come from? Creating an illusion again huh?
Are you telling me that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the futures market is market manipulation?
Are you telling me that this week's cash price, based on this weeks supply and demand factors, is going to be the same as last week's cash price which is based on last week's supply and demand factors and establishes the basis for this week's non negotiated formula and grid price?
Using your stupid logic, if there is a difference between this week's price and last week's price there is market manipulation.
Why don't you stick to topics you are not quite as ignorant on?
~SH~
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you argue that the availabilty of cattle at the plant is the key to efficient operations?
A
Anonymous
Guest
ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS FOR ONCE KINDERGARTEN!
QUIT DIVERTING THE ISSUES ALL THE TIME!
Are you telling me that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the futures market is market manipulation?
Are you telling me that this week's cash price, based on this weeks supply and demand factors, is going to be the same as last week's cash price which is based on last week's supply and demand factors and establishes the basis for this week's non negotiated formula and grid price?
Watch the dance again folks...............
~SH~
QUIT DIVERTING THE ISSUES ALL THE TIME!
Are you telling me that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the futures market is market manipulation?
Are you telling me that this week's cash price, based on this weeks supply and demand factors, is going to be the same as last week's cash price which is based on last week's supply and demand factors and establishes the basis for this week's non negotiated formula and grid price?
Watch the dance again folks...............
~SH~
Are you telling me that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the futures market is market manipulation?
It could be. Depends on the circumstance. Do you want an example?
Are you telling me that this week's cash price, based on this weeks supply and demand factors, is going to be the same as last week's cash price which is based on last week's supply and demand factors and establishes the basis for this week's non negotiated formula and grid price?
My argument of market manipulation is based on a bias of buyers of the cash market compared to the captive supply based on factors already adjusted for quality, not of a cash one week vs. a cash another week. That is your jump.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "It could be. Depends on the circumstance. Do you want an example?"
I want an example and an explanation.
Kindergarten: "My argument of market manipulation is based on a bias of buyers of the cash market compared to the captive supply based on factors already adjusted for quality, not of a cash one week vs. a cash another week. That is your jump."
How many times do I have to tell you that this week's cash market is not driven by the same supply and demand factors as last week's cash market WHICH SET THE BASE PRICE FOR THIS WEEK'S FORMULA MARKET. You keep trying to make a case for market manipulation based on a difference between the cash price and the "non negotiated" formula/grid price which are based on seperate weeks.
How can you compare the two without seperating out the supply and demand factors that contributed to each week's price LET ALONE ANY VALID DISCRIMINATION FOR "QUALITY" DIFFERENCES.
In this case "QUALITY" is not defined soley by "QUALITY GRADE" based on the choice select spread at the time but also by less than desirable over fat carcasses and the impact of additional tonnage on the market.
Go ahead Kindergarten, see if you can debate me on either point.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Kindergarten: "It could be. Depends on the circumstance. Do you want an example?"
I want an example and an explanation.
Kindergarten: "My argument of market manipulation is based on a bias of buyers of the cash market compared to the captive supply based on factors already adjusted for quality, not of a cash one week vs. a cash another week. That is your jump."
How many times do I have to tell you that this week's cash market is not driven by the same supply and demand factors as last week's cash market WHICH SET THE BASE PRICE FOR THIS WEEK'S FORMULA MARKET. You keep trying to make a case for market manipulation based on a difference between the cash price and the "non negotiated" formula/grid price which are based on seperate weeks.
How can you compare the two without seperating out the supply and demand factors that contributed to each week's price LET ALONE ANY VALID DISCRIMINATION FOR "QUALITY" DIFFERENCES.
In this case "QUALITY" is not defined soley by "QUALITY GRADE" based on the choice select spread at the time but also by less than desirable over fat carcasses and the impact of additional tonnage on the market.
Go ahead Kindergarten, see if you can debate me on either point.
~SH~
Could the delivery and posession of those two different classes, cash market and captive supply, be the same?
This is not a trick question. Can you answer it?
I will give you an illustration after you answer the question.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "Could the delivery and posession of those two different classes, cash market and captive supply, be the same?"
The delivery and posession is irrelevant to what factors determined the price. Now quit diverting and answer my questions.
How can you compare this week's cash price to last week's cash price which derived this week's non negotiated formula price without determining the supply and demand factors that played on each week's market let alone the quality variances????
IF ALL OTHER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS ARE EQUAL, packers can afford to pay more for formula cattle because there is less risk for them regarding how they will grade, yield, and dress. With cash cattle, you don't know how they will grade, yield, or dress until the hide comes off.
Go ahead, argue those points if you dare or you can do the typical Kindergarten thing and divert with statements.
~SH~
If this were the case, why didn't the packers pay more for formula or captive cattle during the 2 some odd years that you have already brought up compared to the cash market? Is your argument one of convenience or one of logic? If the latter, then explain the anomoly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Don't try to Sandhusker me,
You can answer my question now.........
~SH~
You can answer my question now.........
How can you compare this week's cash price to last week's cash price which derived this week's non negotiated formula price without determining the supply and demand factors that played on each week's market let alone the quality variances????
~SH~
~SH~ said:Don't try to Sandhusker me,
You can answer my question now.........
How can you compare this week's cash price to last week's cash price which derived this week's non negotiated formula price without determining the supply and demand factors that played on each week's market let alone the quality variances????
~SH~
"Don't try to Sandhusker me, " (another classic!!! SH, you are really funny sometimes)
If the delivery was for the same time period, what was the difference? A profit maximizing company would try to get the most cattle at the lowest price. If the cash market was lower, then they would buy in the cash market. If the captive supply was lower, then they would go for that. Pickett obviously proved to the jury for similar quality this was not the case.
Instead, IBP tried to get captive supply cattle where prices could not make the markets move up even if they could get the same quality cattle on the cash market for less. If buyers can get an amount of their needs from arrangements like these (evidence that captive supplies were, what, 180% of needs? was presented) then they could put downward price pressures on the cash market so the next week's cash price was lowered and it would then set the next week's captive supply base price lower.
The packers set up a little nasty nash equilibrium (probably easiest textbook example for you to understand) that had little to do with the quality of cattle and the real supply and demand properties, and more to do with how much the packers had in their captive supplies to be able to continue the game.
I am very familiar with these type of games. Heck, before I realized it was wrong, I did them in highschool and made extra lunch money. Someone like you would have been my bread and butter, SH. That is probably why you are so humorous to me.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten: "If the delivery was for the same time period, what was the difference? A profit maximizing company would try to get the most cattle at the lowest price. If the cash market was lower, then they would buy in the cash market. If the captive supply was lower, then they would go for that. Pickett obviously proved to the jury for similar quality this was not the case."
BECAUSE THE "NON NEGOTIATED" FORMULA CATTLE PRICE WAS BASED OFF THE WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE CASH MARKET THE WEEK PRIOR.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS????????
The formula cattle were already committed last week for delivery this week based on last week's price. THEY ARE ALREADY SOLD!!!!! This week's price is this week's price. Last week's price is last week's price.
Start paying attention and quit acting like such an idiot.
Kindergarten: "Instead, IBP tried to get captive supply cattle where prices could not make the markets move up even if they could get the same quality cattle on the cash market for less."
Total bullsh*t!
Feeders have the choice of whether or not to sell cash vs. formula. IBP doesn't control their decision. IBP controls the price they can pay and the feeder decides whether or not to sell and which marketing option he will sell by.
I ALSO TOLD YOU THAT QUALITY IS NOT KNOWN UNTIL THE CARCASS IS GRADED SO THAT TOO IS ANOTHER BULLSH*T ARGUMENT THAT YOU KEEP THROWING OUT EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS.
Kindergarten: "If buyers can get an amount of their needs from arrangements like these (evidence that captive supplies were, what, 180% of needs? was presented) then they could put downward price pressures on the cash market so the next week's cash price was lowered and it would then set the next week's captive supply base price lower."
Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation and it never will be.
You have been corrected on every statement you have made here but I have no doubts you will make the same statements next week or maybe even today yet.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation and it never will be."
Nobody ever said it was. Another strawman.
Nobody ever said it was. Another strawman.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten said dropping your price as your needs are met COULD BE considered market manipulation.
OCM mentioned ibp's testimony that "when captive supplies go up, the cash price comes down" statement for that very reason.
Strawman?
More like DIVERSION on your part again.
Won any bets you didn't contribute anything to lately?
~SH~
OCM mentioned ibp's testimony that "when captive supplies go up, the cash price comes down" statement for that very reason.
Strawman?
More like DIVERSION on your part again.
Won any bets you didn't contribute anything to lately?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Kindergarten said dropping your price as your needs are met COULD BE considered market manipulation.
OCM mentioned ibp's testimony that "when captive supplies go up, the cash price comes down" statement for that very reason.
Strawman?
More like DIVERSION on your part again.
Won any bets you didn't contribute anything to lately?
~SH~
It's not a simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
I haven't made any bets where I was supposed to prove anything. Have you trapped yourself lately?
