More Socialism

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "Why do you support the concentration in the industry then? It only leads to market power."

Concentration leads to "BUYING POWER".

Less efficient packing plants cannot operate on the same tight margins that larger plants can. That is why the larger plants replaced the less efficient plants before them.

Concentration is in virtually every industy that surrounds us yet you packer blamers somehow think our industry is unique.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: "Why do you support the concentration in the industry then? It only leads to market power."

Concentration leads to "BUYING POWER".

Less efficient packing plants cannot operate on the same tight margins that larger plants can. That is why the larger plants replaced the less efficient plants before them.

Concentration is in virtually every industy that surrounds us yet you packer blamers somehow think our industry is unique.


~SH~

Did you want to go back into your flawed coke/pepsi example? Let the packers own as large a plant as they want. The ownership of more than one plant leads to buying power over cattle producers and leads to market manipulation. That is what needs to be curbed. Don't confuse plant efficiency with market concentration. They are two seperate issues. Market concenteration in the buying of cattle leads to lower prices for cattle producers. Efficiency gains in size of plant may lead to higher profits--if other plants are not doing the same.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "The ownership of more than one plant leads to buying power over cattle producers and leads to market manipulation."

The same baseless unsupported allegation!

Elementary: "Don't confuse plant efficiency with market concentration. They are two seperate issues. Market concenteration in the buying of cattle leads to lower prices for cattle producers."

Prove it! Talk is cheap! You know you can't prove it so you continue to say it instead. Music to the packer blamers ears.

You can't back any of your theories all you can do is present them, just like Taylor!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: "The ownership of more than one plant leads to buying power over cattle producers and leads to market manipulation."

The same baseless unsupported allegation!

Elementary: "Don't confuse plant efficiency with market concentration. They are two seperate issues. Market concenteration in the buying of cattle leads to lower prices for cattle producers."

Prove it! Talk is cheap! You know you can't prove it so you continue to say it instead. Music to the packer blamers ears.

You can't back any of your theories all you can do is present them, just like Taylor!



~SH~

Taylor was more convincing than Tyson to the jury. Tyson convinced 1 judge and then a federal appellate court with not a mere scintilla of evidence and incorrect economic reasoning to boot. Do you still believe it was a conspiracy of 12? The petit tender and the flat iron were invented by NCBA also. Is that your line? You never came up with a value on that.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "Taylor was more convincing than Tyson to the jury. Tyson convinced 1 judge and then a federal appellate court with not a mere scintilla of evidence and incorrect economic reasoning to boot."

To the jury but not to Judge Strom or the 11h circuit. They saw through Taylor's "UNTESTED" theories.

You are still of this twisted belief that the defense has to prove their innocense. Another of your never ending wrong assumptions.

Elementary: "Do you still believe it was a conspiracy of 12?"

Never said it was. Making it up as you go again. Can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.

I believe that the jury was convinced that dropping your price as your needs are met constituted a PSA violation. I know Judge Strom and the 11th circuit knew better.


You never did come up with any proof that the flat iron steak does not return profit to the producer did you?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: "Taylor was more convincing than Tyson to the jury. Tyson convinced 1 judge and then a federal appellate court with not a mere scintilla of evidence and incorrect economic reasoning to boot."

To the jury but not to Judge Strom or the 11h circuit. They saw through Taylor's "UNTESTED" theories.

You are still of this twisted belief that the defense has to prove their innocense. Another of your never ending wrong assumptions.

Elementary: "Do you still believe it was a conspiracy of 12?"

Never said it was. Making it up as you go again. Can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.

I believe that the jury was convinced that dropping your price as your needs are met constituted a PSA violation. I know Judge Strom and the 11th circuit knew better.


You never did come up with any proof that the flat iron steak does not return profit to the producer did you?


~SH~

I don't need to. That was your assertion.