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

Numbers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
It is interesting about numbers we take for granted because they sound close and we tend not to check everything out for ourselves.


Most have accepted that Cargill and Tyson in Canada kill 80% of our cattle. The following paragraph from Canfax would seem to disagree with those numbers.

"As of December 24, Canadian Federally Inspected steer slaughter was down 4% from a year ago at 1.79 million head. Approximately 70% of fed steers were slaughtered in Alberta FI establishments, while 22% were slaughtered in Ontario. Canadian heifer slaughter as of December 24 was down 5% at 1.24 million head. Almost 80% of the fed heifers in Canada had been slaughtered in Alberta with Ontario fed heifer kill represented 15%."

There are provincially inspected plants killing, plus at least 2 maybe 3 federally inspected plants in Alberta killing, besides the Tyson and Cargill plants.

With Cargill buying Better Beef in Ontario, they will have increased their percentage of the kill, but Better Beef isn't the only FI plant killing in Ontario.

The above numbers add up to 3.03 million head slaughtered. Cargill is a steer/heifer only plant, while Tyson kills cows and bulls in their mix. Knowing the exact split would be necessary to figure what % of the fed cattle kill they control.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Facts seem to frighten some I guess.

Sounds like your usual number analysis, Jason. I have finished helping you with your schooling becuase you will not do your homework. You need to hire a private tutor instead of looking at others to correct every little mistake you make. Facts should not be that hard for you to look up. Find a good, independent source. You are obviously biased against anything I say, so I only reply when it suits me.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
So obviously conman has nothing to counter the facts.

It is clear the "control" of the Canadian industry is less than has been espoused.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
So obviously conman has nothing to counter the facts.

It is clear the "control" of the Canadian industry is less than has been espoused.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

What facts?
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Econ what is your prob. with the numbers posted? Since they do not add up to the total that you prefer you just imply that Jason is ''queer'' :roll: What part of your education and vast exp. leeds you to this conclusion? Do you have some charts or graphs to show the rest of us how to tell the sex habits of posters or does this only work for people north of the border?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
mwj said:
Econ what is your prob. with the numbers posted? Since they do not add up to the total that you prefer you just imply that Jason is ''queer'' :roll: What part of your education and vast exp. leeds you to this conclusion? Do you have some charts or graphs to show the rest of us how to tell the sex habits of posters or does this only work for people north of the border?

mwj, I don't know Jason at all. My name calling is not a response to his numbers or his points to his arguments or even his sex habits(which I could care less about). It is a response to his name calling with which I have given ample warning.

Jason: "So obviously conman has nothing to counter the facts. "

As I have said many times before, I think the name calling is juvenile. I have known some people who can not say 5 words without using a cussword (oil executives) and I accept them for who they are. As far as anyone else but SH, who I accept as he is, you might have to get used to this response.

It would be better if we all tried to learn something from the other posters on this board instead of calling names, however much we disagree with their post. They all have a viewpoint that is from their own persepective, even if you don't agree with it. You can point out why you don't agree with it, but name calling brings it down to a level where nothing is learned.

Thanks for asking.
 

mwj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
562
Reaction score
0
Location
central Illinois
Econ in a large number of posts to dif. individuals I see the term ''brown noser'' used for people that are oposed to your point of view. My question to you, is this more proper than just saying that they are kissing someones ass?? This is just an example of the pot calling the kettle black from my point of view! If an insult or ''name'' is the total reply to a question it is wrong no matter how the ''name'' is phrased or who does it!
 

Bward

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta
This "fact" scares me.

There are provincially inspected plants killing, plus at least 2 maybe 3 federally inspected plants in Alberta killing, besides the Tyson and Cargill plants.

Is it 2 or is it 3? Can't they count? Is one of those three almost killing? or is one of those three almost federally inspected? What?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
mwj said:
Econ in a large number of posts to dif. individuals I see the term ''brown noser'' used for people that are oposed to your point of view. My question to you, is this more proper than just saying that they are kissing someones ass?? This is just an example of the pot calling the kettle black from my point of view! If an insult or ''name'' is the total reply to a question it is wrong no matter how the ''name'' is phrased or who does it!

mwj, that facet of Econ 101's personality has puzzled, even offended me as well.

Because we don't even know which sex Econ 101 is, it is difficult to know how to address that person, but it seems he/she is overly sensitive to to being called "Conman", which causes me to wonder if it may be hitting far too close to the truth for comfort.

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
mwj, that facet of Econ 101's personality has puzzled, even offended me as well.

Because we don't even know which sex Econ 101 is, it is difficult to know how to address that person, but it seems he/she is overly sensitive to to being called "Conman", which causes me to wonder if it may be hitting far too close to the truth for comfort.

MRJ[/quote]

MRJ, so you have a problem in that you don't whether to address Econ101 as "Conman" or "Conwoman"? That's funny!

You DO have a sense of humor after all! :lol: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
mwj said:
Econ in a large number of posts to dif. individuals I see the term ''brown noser'' used for people that are oposed to your point of view. My question to you, is this more proper than just saying that they are kissing someones ass?? This is just an example of the pot calling the kettle black from my point of view! If an insult or ''name'' is the total reply to a question it is wrong no matter how the ''name'' is phrased or who does it!

mwj, Jason has called me a liar on this board and I have asked him to state where the lie is. He could not.

Jason claimed that the industry was not oligopolistic or ologopsonistic (I will not get into the specific variation of the word as I am paraphrasing him here). He was wrong about that.

Jason has condemed the efforts of Big C and instead applauded the actions of the big packers.

Jason has condemed the strikers in his own country that want to better their working conditions where this industry has major problems.

Jason has acquiesed to the Canadian taxpayer subsidizing in large amounts, the packers who already have market power and assets. These two packers control much of the industry and are tightly controlled family businesses that have been involved in market manipulation activities.

Jason has argued against the Pickett plaintiffs (cattlemen) and for the packers.

Jason has argued for the live poultry dealers (Tyson again) in the U.S. and against the poultry farmer without knowing any of the industry structure, history, or its lack of enforcement.

Jason has argued for "free markets" while supporting the corporate welfare and a socialist or fascist policy.

Jason continually misuses my name. While I have given him wide lattitude in this regard when he has an objective argument that makes a case for the name I am called, I always reserve the "fighting" rules as Jason.

JASON HAS CONTINUALLY ARGUED FOR THOSE WITH MARKET POWER AGIANST THE INTERESTS OF THE LITTLE GUY (AVERAGE CATTLEMAN).

THIS IS RANCHERS DOT NET, NOT PACKERS DOT NET. HE IS EITHER ON THE WRONG FORUM OR HAS THE BIGGEST CASE OF BROWN NOSING THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN.

I do not CONTINUALLY call him "brown noser", but I do get frustrated with him masquerading around as an objective and informed cattleman as he supports packer interests at the expense of cattlemen, producer, or social interests.

He can call me what he likes, but I reserve the same opportunity. If I had my rathers though, we would both not call names. We should be able to agree to disagree. I can do that quite well.

I put Agman and MRJ in that same category. SH is in a category all by himself.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
No facts conman?

Figures.

I have said you tell lies. If you are a liar it depends if you continue to promote lies after they have been proven false.

Pickett lost to say he proved anything is a lie. It was overturned so he proved nothing.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
No facts conman?

Figures.

I have said you tell lies. If you are a liar it depends if you continue to promote lies after they have been proven false.

Pickett lost to say he proved anything is a lie. It was overturned so he proved nothing.

You have proven nothing. I repeat, in the United States, the judgement of whether something is a fact or not rests upon the consciouses of 12 jurors. Not judges, not economists, and not Canadians who want to be brown nosers to the oligarchs of the world. 12 jurors. That is how this country was set up. I am sorry you do not accept that fact.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Ok Conman a jury is the ultimate in your twisted world of no proof.

Why does a judge preside over a case where there is a jury?

Why is there an option is some cases to have a judge alone?

Yep you got me a jury sure is the ultimate authority. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
"A jury trial is a trial in which the judge of the facts, as opposed to the judge of the law, is a jury, made up of citizens who are usually randomly selected and are generally not legal professionals. In other words, a panel of citizens collectively decide what facts occurred relating to a lawsuit or crime. Juries are most commonly associated with common law jurisdictions. However some civil law jurisdictions also involve juries."
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
United States Court of Appeals:

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Mike said:
United States Court of Appeals:

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

Why did you dismiss the part about serious Daubert issues concerning those findings - footnote #7 page 13? Just curious... Those are the findings that Dr Taylor admitted to under oath that he could not explain how those marketing agreements actually lowered prices. Then he failed to test his six theories suggesting how marketing agreements could lower prices. Are you still confused as to why the judge threw out the jury verdict?

Since you have your law dictionary handy or law reference manual handy is it or is it not required under Daubert to test theories advanced at trail? Your friends have all dodged answering that quesion for readers. I expect more from you Mike. A "yes" of "no" answer will suffice.
 

Latest posts

Top