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

More answers for SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Again you ask the question, "Explain how the damages in Pickett vs. ibp could be more than IBP's total profits? How do you manipulate prices to a point of hurting producers more than you profit? "

I've answered this twice already - you shut up for a while, and then you ask again. I started a new thread for you this time so maybe you won't "forget" again.

Let's say my business is looking like I'm going to lose $10,000. I steal $15,000 from you. You go to the law and claim I stole $15,000 to which I show my balance sheet to the Sheriff and say, "I couldn't of stolen $15,000 from SH, I only have $5000". What do you think now? Feel like a Pickett Plaintiff?

You're welcome. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Let's say my business is looking like I'm going to lose $10,000. I steal $15,000 from you. You go to the law and claim I stole $15,000 to which I show my balance sheet to the Sheriff and say, "I couldn't of stolen $15,000 from SH, I only have $5000". What do you think now?"

This is so typical of your blind faith to defend anything that supports your packer blaming bias. You are better off keeping your ignorance to yourself Randy.

Regarding your analogy....

First off, how could IBP be manipulating markets if IBP was losing money?

PRETTY HARD TO SCREW SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE SCREWING YOURSELF.

Second, how could anyone defend the Plaintiffs being entitled to more money for their cattle if IBP was already operating at a loss?

Even if IBP could manipulate markets, WHICH THEY CAN'T, the Pickett plaintiffs would never be entitled to more money for their cattle than IBP could pay and still run at a profit.

WELL AH GARSH JUDGE AH I JUST FELT THAT IF THEY WERE PAYING $65 LAST WEEK THAT THEY SHOULD PAY AH $65 FOR THIS WEEK TOO AH. WHAT WAZ THAT BOUT BOXED BEEF PRICES AGAIN?

Your inappropriate analogy doesn't apply here.

Try again!



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Let's say my business is looking like I'm going to lose $10,000. I steal $15,000 from you. You go to the law and claim I stole $15,000 to which I show my balance sheet to the Sheriff and say, "I couldn't of stolen $15,000 from SH, I only have $5000". What do you think now?"

This is so typical of your blind faith to defend anything that supports your packer blaming bias. You are better off keeping your ignorance to yourself Randy.

Regarding your analogy....

First off, how could IBP be manipulating markets if IBP was losing money?

PRETTY HARD TO SCREW SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU ARE SCREWING YOURSELF.

Second, how could anyone defend the Plaintiffs being entitled to more money for their cattle if IBP was already operating at a loss?

Even if IBP could manipulate markets, WHICH THEY CAN'T, the Pickett plaintiffs would never be entitled to more money for their cattle than IBP could pay and still run at a profit.

WELL AH GARSH JUDGE AH I JUST FELT THAT IF THEY WERE PAYING $65 LAST WEEK THAT THEY SHOULD PAY AH $65 FOR THIS WEEK TOO AH. WHAT WAZ THAT BOUT BOXED BEEF PRICES AGAIN?

Your inappropriate analogy doesn't apply here.

Try again!


When are you going to provide the proof that I lied and why would you take Agman's word for something that supported your bias and ignore his statements for what didn't? I'll tell you why, because you are a deceptive little parasite, that's why.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
As expected, you respond with your signature rant and juvinile name-calling that we all find so endearing of you.

I made it as simple as I could, SH, and you still can't (won't) get it. This is exactly the same kind of math word problems my 4th grade daughter is doing now. Would it help you if I started faxing you her homework worksheets?

SH, "When are you going to provide the proof that I lied..."

How many times do I have to do it? I even started a completly new thread for you so you wouldn't miss it. Read it again. Actually, it is obvious reading it yourself isn't working. Have someone read it to you and have them explain it. Since your math isn't at the 4th grade level, it is reasonable to conclude that your comprehension skills are the same, so have your interpreter explain on a 2nd grade level and see if you can understand it then. If that doesn't work, 1st grade, Kindergarten, etc...

Love you bunches,
Parasite, Clone, Blamer, Deceiver, etc...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, If IBP would have been caught right away and not been allowed to discriminate against the cash market over the 7 years was it? time period, the damages probably would not have been over their profits. They "embezzled" that amount over a long period of time from the cattle producers. Just because they gave some of that "money" away from their actions to other market participants (not producers) doesn't mean their dollar amount in damages should reflect that give away.

Think about that one before you answer.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "First off, how could IBP be manipulating markets if IBP was losing money?"

Ever hear of a company called Enron?

SH, "Second, how could anyone defend the Plaintiffs being entitled to more money for their cattle if IBP was already operating at a loss?"

Damages are just that, damages. Ask someone to explain that to you.

If you didn't have such a packer-backer bias, you wouldn't ask such silly questions.

Luv ya bunches!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "As expected, you respond with your signature rant and juvinile name-calling that we all find so endearing of you."

WE ALL?????

Who do you think you speak for besides a handful of other packer blamers that can't think for themselves? You've already defined yourself totally when you accepted Agman's word and thanked him for his honesty on facts that supported your bias and questioned him for facts that didn't support your bias when you had no data either way. That totally defined who you are.


You are right, the math here is simply. Assuming that dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are met in the formula and grid market is considered "market manipulation", then the plaintiffs would only be eligible for a dollar figure between $1 and $26 per head. IBP's profits for that period of time was determined to be $26 per head. There is no way in hell, in this circumstance, that the plaintiffs were entitled to more than ibp's profits for that time period. That is absolute insanity unless you are really so full of blame that you believe IBP should operate at a loss to support packer parasites.

Your elementary math does not apply to this situation because the manipulation bracket, IF IT EXISTED, would have to fall between $1 and $26 per head because no reasonable judge or jury would expect IBP to operate at a loss.

Leave it to you to defend the indefensible. I would expect nothing less from you.


Kindergarten: "SH, If IBP would have been caught right away and not been allowed to discriminate against the cash market over the 7 years was it? time period, the damages probably would not have been over their profits. They "embezzled" that amount over a long period of time from the cattle producers. Just because they gave some of that "money" away from their actions to other market participants (not producers) doesn't mean their dollar amount in damages should reflect that give away."

That is another lie that you cannot prove. You just make it up as you go.

THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS DEFINED IN THE CASE. You can't go outside of that period of time and "ASSUME" what might have happened.

There is no way in hell that the plaintiffs were entitled to any more than $26 per head in this case. There was no logic behind the damages which is exactly why Taylor and the jury disagreed and could not explain how they derived at those damages. RED FLAG!!!!!

You got nothing here.


Sandman: "Ever hear of a company called Enron?"

TOTALLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES!

Another classic Sandman apples to watermelons comparison.


Sandman: "Damages are just that, damages. Ask someone to explain that to you."

That's right, damages are damages and those damages could not be more than ibp's profits for that time period.

Keep showing the world how ignorant you both are.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, here is another "watermelon" comparison for you:

If an embezzeler embezles a bank for $25,000.00 and then splits the proceeds with his friends, his share is less than the amount he robbed. Does this mean that he can only be held liable for the amount he kept? What if he only kept 25 cents? Would that drop his liability down from a felony?

You show your comparative intelligence every time you post. This type of thing was what the jury was supposed to judge. If you knew anything at all about economics you would know that ANYTIME market power is exerted to frustrate the normal supply/demand equilibrium there is a deadweight loss to society. The profits will NEVER be more than the harm. If you knew anything about economics you would drop this silly argument.

NEXT!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No fair minded judge or jury would ever let the damages be greater than ibp's total profits for that time period. That's insane. Only an idiot like you would defend such insanity.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
That's right, damages are damages and those damages could not be more than ibp's profits for that time period.

Not exactly a true statement. "Profits" could be used for expansion, salaries, etc. and deducted as normal business expenses for the ultimate benefit of the company and/or it's employees in the future.

Spending "profit" on a depreciable asset is a game played by all of us to avoid giving it to Uncle Sam at tax time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How can the plaintiffs believe they are entitled to more money for their cattle than ibp needs to break even???

How could anything be so insane?


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
SH, going by the occasional comment from the anti-packer crowd, I have to wonder.......do they want cattle slaughter handled by a government run packing plant operating with no profit, even going in the red if necessary to assure ALL cattle producers are paid "enough" to quantify as a "living wage" or even a generous profit?.........or do they want small, locally owned packing plants to harvest all beef.......and sell it to the few who can afford to pay enough for it for all involved in raising, processing, and marketing that beef a generous profit?

Actually, isn't the latter currently available via organic markets and, supposedly, Mike Callicrates' product?

I hear lots of complaints, or is it the same complaint lots of times? However, few suggestions for possible solutions are offered.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One thing is for sure, what they want is to their own benefit at the expense of the industry. If they could break up the large efficient packing companies into smaller less efficient packing companies based on the silly notion that more packing companies results in more dollars for producers, they would do so and cattlemen would receive less money for their cattle. They'd claim another victory as the industry was dealt another defeat. Ignorance is bliss.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
One thing is for sure, what they want is to their own benefit at the expense of the industry. If they could break up the large efficient packing companies into smaller less efficient packing companies based on the silly notion that more packing companies results in more dollars for producers, they would do so and cattlemen would receive less money for their cattle. They'd claim another victory as the industry was dealt another defeat. Ignorance is bliss.



~SH~

Competition of packing plants for cattle owners will not lead to lower cattle prices. The exertion of market power does. Your margin argument is bogus. You could have large "efficient" packing plants all over the U.S. and not have the market concentration we have in this industry. Another clear diversion.

You certainly have cornered the market on bliss.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Competition of packing plants for cattle owners will not lead to lower prices. The exertion of market power does. Your margin argument is bogus. You could have large "efficient" packing plants all over the U.S. and not have the market concentration we have in this industry. Another clear diversion.

Would you care to explain this statement Econ?

Competition does not lead to lower prices, I agree. How can you have large efficient plants all over the States if there are more plants than cattle? Or if a different company ownes each plant?

The competition results in a concentration of companies in any industry. Less ranchers producing more beef is another example.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Competition of packing plants for cattle owners will not lead to lower prices. The exertion of market power does. Your margin argument is bogus. You could have large "efficient" packing plants all over the U.S. and not have the market concentration we have in this industry. Another clear diversion.

Would you care to explain this statement Econ?

Competition does not lead to lower prices, I agree. How can you have large efficient plants all over the States if there are more plants than cattle? Or if a different company ownes each plant?

The competition results in a concentration of companies in any industry. Less ranchers producing more beef is another example.

Sorry, Jason. Little typo. I should have said "lower cattle prices". I corrected it. Thanks. Competition does not lead to more concentration, the exercise of market power does. Sometimes efficiencies of scale will lead to a larger facility but a larger facility does not have to lead concentration. When there is concentration, there is a possibility of market power being exerted. That will lead to EITHER: 1) higher profits than would otherwise have been or 2) more concentration and more market power.

SH has some argument out there that in result #1 means that the harm to the cattle markets can not exceed the profits. That is just wrong as I have pointed out on other posts. It also ignores result 2) completely.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
If a company could manipulate the market and lets say artificially lowers that price of cattle to the producer by $5 a head, how can you say they damaged the producer by more than $5 a head?

If we use your reasoning that they covered a loss to hide the damage, that would indicate the industry wasn't very good at manipulating the price downward. If an industry like the packers operate at a loss, they all lower their bid for cattle, where's the manipulation in that? It's called lack of demand for an over supply.

In a case like Pickett, if IBP was losing money how did they manipulate the price to show a $26 profit for that time period? You again assume packers operate on a 0 margin on purpose. If they operate on a 0 margin, they have no market power because they cannot absorb higher costs even if they wanted to.

Competition keeps margins low, not company managers.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Mike said:
That's right, damages are damages and those damages could not be more than ibp's profits for that time period.

Not exactly a true statement. "Profits" could be used for expansion, salaries, etc. and deducted as normal business expenses for the ultimate benefit of the company and/or it's employees in the future.

Spending "profit" on a depreciable asset is a game played by all of us to avoid giving it to Uncle Sam at tax time.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing, Mike. My comment "Damages are damages" was meant to illustrate that the dollar figures are derived from how much the wronged are damaged, not by how much the damager ended up retaining.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
If a company could manipulate the market and lets say artificially lowers that price of cattle to the producer by $5 a head, how can you say they damaged the producer by more than $5 a head?

If we use your reasoning that they covered a loss to hide the damage, that would indicate the industry wasn't very good at manipulating the price downward. If an industry like the packers operate at a loss, they all lower their bid for cattle, where's the manipulation in that? It's called lack of demand for an over supply.

In a case like Pickett, if IBP was losing money how did they manipulate the price to show a $26 profit for that time period? You again assume packers operate on a 0 margin on purpose. If they operate on a 0 margin, they have no market power because they cannot absorb higher costs even if they wanted to.

Competition keeps margins low, not company managers.

Your argument is really the increase in consumer surplus = efficiency in an economy argument. I call it the robin hood argument. It is just plain incorrect and leads to a wealthy few and many poor. It is the argument for aristocractic rule and is partly what is wrong with the Mexican economy. More and more ours and with you obviosly looking at your large rancher neighbor, yours too. Let me think of how to describe it to you on this forum.



When real economists looked at these questions some 90 years ago (don't think you are any smarter than they are, you just live in a different time), they realized that this was an incorrect argument and decided that the producer surplus was just as valuable as the consumer surplus. And hence the ruling that the 11th circuit erroneously argues that the PSA was written for the protection of competition for the packers solely. The historical (and economic) contexts show that the law was written for the producers also as evidenced by the "or" instead of the "and". We just have some economically and historically incompetent or corrupt judges as Agman points out continually. If these judges were economically litterate, they would realize that free markets set the equilibrium betweeen consumer surplus and producer surplus with supply and demand instead of market plays by middle margin players like packers. Any deviation from that creates inefficiency in the economy.

To win these arguments the middlemen must mix up the characteristics of both sides of the argument. Middlemen are both buyers and sellers. Each of these sides has different characteristics and should not be confused or argued for another like SH tries and like the appellate court did with their Robinson-Patman example. It is a slap in the face to real economists.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten,

Concentration is not unique to the packing industry nor is the distribution of the concentration in the packing industry out of line nor is their any proof to suggest that this level of concentration in the packing industry has been anything but beneficial to this industry.

During the 90,s the packer profit margins for the 5 largest packers was $3.88 per head. HOW MANY SMALLER LESS EFFICIENT PACKING COMPANIES WOULD STILL BE IN BUSINESS AT A $3.88 PER HEAD MARGIN????

Larger more efficient packing companies that sell everything but the "MOO" can and do pay a heck of a lot more for cattle than some inefficient packing plant that is paying someone to haul their ofal away like many smaller plants do.

Competition is not defined by more bidders for cattle.

This is one more issue you don't have a clue about.


Kindergarten: "competition does not lead to more concentration, the exercise of market power does."

THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE!

Did you impress yourself with that ridiculous statement?


Kindergarten: "Sometimes efficiencies of scale will lead to a larger facility but a larger facility does not have to lead concentration."

If a company expands their capacity, THAT IS FURTHER CONCENTRATION!

How can you be so ignorant?


Sandman: "My comment "Damages are damages" was meant to illustrate that the dollar figures are derived from how much the wronged are damaged, not by how much the damager ended up retaining."

In this case the damages cannot be more than the profits.


Kindergarten: "Your argument is really the increase in consumer surplus = efficiency in an economy argument.'

Your argument is called the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t" argument. Nobody does that better than you.


Kindergarten: "We just have some economically and historically incompetent or corrupt judges as Agman points out continually. If these judges were economically litterate, they would realize that free markets set the equilibrium betweeen consumer surplus and producer surplus with supply and demand instead of market plays by middle margin players like packers. "

Of course, anyone that doesn't agree with your anti corporate, big is evil, packer blaming philosophies is incompetant.ZZZZZzzzzzzzz! I'd say that too if I was as "factually void" as you are. Supply and demand does determine the price not some crazy unproven "market play" conspiracy theory of yours.

YOU STILL GOT NOTHING!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top