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

Packer blamers hoisting their beers again.

A

Anonymous

Guest
Remember the last time the packer blamers were hoisting their beers to victory only to have the decision reversed?

Let's put this decision into proper perspective shall we?

THE ALLEGATION WAS $43 MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES. The $9.25 million awarded is ONLY 21% of the alleged damages.

What does that tell you about the legitimacy of the plaintiff's allegations?????

Tyson slaughters 10.5 Million cattle in a year. Tyson was fined $4 million in damages. That's a whopping $.38 per head in damages for the year for Tyson.

That's how you put this into proper perspective.

Once again, the plaintiff's allegations ($43 Million in damages) were proven to be the same bogus bullsh*t we have come to expect from the same packer blaming crowd.

Has anyone provided the evidence that PROVES the packers knew of the falsely reported prices and bought accordingly?

What was that proof? Let's hear it. I haven't heard it yet.


This $9.25 million verdict only says that producers were short changed due to USDA's flawed price reporting and should be compensated but I haven't heard the evidence that suggest the packers knew the boxed beef prices were wrong and still lowered their cattle prices accordingly.

The jury threw the plaintiffs a bone because nobody could deny that the USDA falsely reported prices nor could anyone deny that the packers benefitted from those faulty reported prices.

That doesn't prove a PSA violation as the packer blamers are claiming. The only way it could be a PSA violation is if there is solid evidence to prove that the packers knew that the USDA's numbers were faulty and did not adjust their prices. Does anyone have that proof? If so, let's hear it.

I challenge anyone to show me the proof that Tyson, Excel, and Swift knew about the faulty prices before it was announced. That proof is the proof that is necessary to claim a PSA violation.

Incidentally Conman, Herman said in his testimony (paraphrasing) that boxed beef prices were the single biggest factor affecting live cattle prices? How many times have I said live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices and how many times have you questioned that using Canada's BSE situation as proof to the contrary? Did you question Herman's court statement you damn hypocrite?? I didn't think so!

You'll divert that one I'm sure!

Consider how that statement directly contradicts Herman's co-plaintiff's, (Mike Callicrate's) previous statements that "cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand and are totally arbitrary". That is an absolute contradiction. You see, you packer blamers simply cannot keep your arguments consistant.

This is not a victory for the packer blamers until someone provides me the evidence that proves that Tyson, Excel, and Swift absolutely knew that USDA's numbers were flawed and failed to adjust their prices accordingly. Awarding the plaintiffs 21% of their allegation is nothing more than "thowing the plaintiff's a bone" due to USDA's mistake.

Claiming the packers were guilty of a PSA violation and market manipulation is not what the award was based on. The award was based on the fact that the packers profited unjustly due to the USDA's faulty reporting. Nowhere does it prove that the packers knew that USDA's prices were in error until it was announced.

Let's see if even that stands at the appeals court level.

How anyone could believe that the packers are to blame for USDA's faulty price reporting is taking packer blaming to another level.

Keep hoisting them beers boys, those damages IF AWARDED will cost feeders an extra $.38 per head until they are recovered. Some victory!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Remember the last time the packer blamers were hoisting their beers to victory only to have the decision reversed?

Let's put this decision into proper perspective shall we?

THE ALLEGATION WAS $43 MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES. The $9.25 million awarded is ONLY 21% of the alleged damages.

What does that tell you about the legitimacy of the plaintiff's allegations?????

Tyson slaughters 10.5 Million cattle in a year. Tyson was fined $4 million in damages. That's a whopping $.38 per head in damages for the year for Tyson.

That's how you put this into proper perspective.

Once again, the plaintiff's allegations ($43 Million in damages) were proven to be the same bogus bullsh*t we have come to expect from the same packer blaming crowd.

Has anyone provided the evidence that PROVES the packers knew of the falsely reported prices and bought accordingly?

What was that proof? Let's hear it. I haven't heard it yet.


This $9.25 million verdict only says that producers were short changed due to USDA's flawed price reporting and should be compensated but I haven't heard the evidence that suggest the packers knew the boxed beef prices were wrong and still lowered their cattle prices accordingly.

The jury threw the plaintiffs a bone because nobody could deny that the USDA falsely reported prices nor could anyone deny that the packers benefitted from those faulty reported prices.

That doesn't prove a PSA violation as the packer blamers are claiming. The only way it could be a PSA violation is if there is solid evidence to prove that the packers knew that the USDA's numbers were faulty and did not adjust their prices. Does anyone have that proof? If so, let's hear it.

I challenge anyone to show me the proof that Tyson, Excel, and Swift knew about the faulty prices before it was announced. That proof is the proof that is necessary to claim a PSA violation.

Incidentally Conman, Herman said in his testimony (paraphrasing) that boxed beef prices were the single biggest factor affecting live cattle prices? How many times have I said live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices and how many times have you questioned that using Canada's BSE situation as proof to the contrary? Did you question Herman's court statement you damn hypocrite?? I didn't think so!

You'll divert that one I'm sure!

Consider how that statement directly contradicts Herman's co-plaintiff's, (Mike Callicrate's) previous statements that "cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand and are totally arbitrary". That is an absolute contradiction. You see, you packer blamers simply cannot keep your arguments consistant.

This is not a victory for the packer blamers until someone provides me the evidence that proves that Tyson, Excel, and Swift absolutely knew that USDA's numbers were flawed and failed to adjust their prices accordingly. Awarding the plaintiffs 21% of their allegation is nothing more than "thowing the plaintiff's a bone" due to USDA's mistake.

Claiming the packers were guilty of a PSA violation and market manipulation is not what the award was based on. The award was based on the fact that the packers profited unjustly due to the USDA's faulty reporting. Nowhere does it prove that the packers knew that USDA's prices were in error until it was announced.

Let's see if even that stands at the appeals court level.

How anyone could believe that the packers are to blame for USDA's faulty price reporting is taking packer blaming to another level.

Keep hoisting them beers boys, those damages IF AWARDED will cost feeders an extra $.38 per head until they are recovered. Some victory!


~SH~

SH, you are no longer worth responding to.

Why are you so against producers getting their fair share while hiding your ability to get something different than them?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "SH, you are no longer worth responding to.

Why are you so against producers getting their fair share while hiding your ability to get something different than them?"


Conman says, "you are no longer worth repondiong to" and follows that with a response. Hahaha!

Why would I be against producers/feeders getting their fair share when I have sold feeders and fats? Another idiotic statement!

I'm not against producers/feeders getting their fair share, what I'm against is "SOCIALISTS" like you who pass dumb assed laws like MPR then suing the packers when USDA reports those MANDATORY prices inaccurately.

This industry has reached an all time low in packer blaming when Tyson, Excel, and Swift are held responsible for USDA's admitted mistake.

The problem here is with these socialist laws like MPR when voluntary price reporting information has always worked before. But everyone suffers because of stupid "socialist" laws like MPR.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Has anyone provided the evidence that PROVES the packers knew of the falsely reported prices and bought accordingly? What was that proof? Let's hear it. I haven't heard it yet. "

You're not going to hear it setting gopher traps, either. The jury awarding for the plaintiffs shows that they felt they heard proof.

Why are you always against the cattleman when it comes to any packer vs producer situation? I think you have the same problem Lee Harvey Oswald had.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
1) THE ALLEGATION WAS $43 MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES. The $9.25 million awarded is ONLY 21% of the alleged damages.

2) What does that tell you about the legitimacy of the plaintiff's allegations?????

3) Has anyone provided the evidence that PROVES the packers knew of the falsely reported prices and bought accordingly?


1) Not sure how it works in the US, but up here generally damages also include any forecasted court fees as well as lawyer bills, and any other incurred expenses. Depending on how many expert witnesses need to be called and how much groundwork needs to be done, the actual damages can be 1/4 to 1/2 the actual requested amount. So at 20%, its not far off. The jury (or judge) probably decided that the defendants shouldn't be on the hook for the plaintiffs lawyer bill. Perhaps the jury simply decided they forecasted too much for lawyer bills? Of course, you'll point to this and say SPECULATION. Don't bother doing that, because you're SPECULATING too.

2) The reward amount tells you absolutely NOTHING. So don't bother going there.

3) Obviously, the plaintiffs were able to prove some wrong doing otherwise the reward would be ZERO. Then the plaintiffs would have to go back to the USDA and sue them instead.

You're asking for the evidence to be provided. You know very well that the court transcripts haven't been released yet, so whats the point in asking for something that isn't available? So you can sit there and say NO EVIDENCE, NO EVIDENCE?

The jury apparently did decide there was sufficient evidence, and until the transscripts are released, you can't say otherwise.

Rod
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SH...Tyson slaughters 10.5 Million cattle in a year. Tyson was fined $4 million in damages. That's a whopping $.38 per head in damages for the year for Tyson.

Scott they are not being fined for a whole year of damages, they are being fined for a period from April 2 to May 11, 2001, that is when the USDA misreported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat. So use an apple to apple comparison.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
SH
What did NCBA say the cattlemen lost from the mistake? Were they more, less or the same as R-calf? Where were they during all of this? :oops: :oops: :oops:
 

the chief

Well-known member
Tommy said:
SH...Tyson slaughters 10.5 Million cattle in a year. Tyson was fined $4 million in damages. That's a whopping $.38 per head in damages for the year for Tyson.

Scott they are not being fined for a whole year of damages, they are being fined for a period from April 2 to May 11, 2001, that is when the USDA misreported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat. So use an apple to apple comparison.

You are right Tommy. SH is wrong....again. It was a six(6) week period. So multiply Sh's $0.38 x 8.66 and you get $3.29 per steer that Tyson will pay.

OH MY GOD!!! There goes Tyson's profit!!! :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
SH
What did NCBA say the cattlemen lost from the mistake? Were they more, less or the same as R-calf? Where were they during all of this? :oops: :oops: :oops:

NO remember- according to Super Hero and Maxine NCBA can never be wrong-- they must have been misinterpreted :wink: :???: :lol:

Where did the $42 or so million dollars that NCBA claimed was lost go?

Just like no NCBA person will answer how non- Bse testing is economically feasible when the NCBA President says producers are losing $175 on every animal slaughtered while the Asian trade is closed....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "The jury awarding for the plaintiffs shows that they felt they heard proof."

They heard proof that USDA falsely reported prices. Based on that, they felt obligated to make a correction.

That has nothing to do with a PSA violation. The packers cannot be held responsible for USDA's mistake.


Sandbag: "Why are you always against the cattleman when it comes to any packer vs producer situation?"

You packer blamers are the ones who are against cattle producers. If the damages are awarded, it will remove $9.25 million in equity from the packing industry and set a presidence that ibp, Excel, and Swift are responsible for USDA's false reporting.

Where do you think that lost equity is going to come from Sandbag? It's going to come from someone else's cattle. Basically, the large packers are going to have to pay less for Peter's cattle to pay Paul. Some victory! That's how ridiculous this is and narrow minded.

Instead of focusing on increasing consumer demand for our product, you packer blamers think you can sue and blame your way to prosperity. No this isn't about packer blamers vs. packer defenders. This is about blamers vs. those who can see past the nose on their face to what's really important in this industry.

All you did is rob Peter to pay Paul but you packer blamers are simply too ignorant to realize it.

You will not become rich in the cattle industry by suing packers.


Sandbag: "I think you have the same problem Lee Harvey Oswald had."

Another dumb assed statement! PAR!


Tommy: "Scott they are not being fined for a whole year of damages, they are being fined for a period from April 2 to May 11, 2001, that is when the USDA misreported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat. So use an apple to apple comparison."

I never said they were Tommy! I simply pointed out that the damages were EQUIVALENT TO $.38 per head for each animal Tyson slaughtered in a year. I didn't say that's what the damages per class member would be. Another spin on a statement. I know very well what the time frame was. I was simply putting it into the perspective of how it will affect the industry as a whole.

Tommy, you packer blamers think you really accomplished something here don't you? The fact is, if the verdict stands, you will have removed $9.25 million in equity from the packing industry. That means that some other cattle feeder is going to pay for the small amounts given to those who feed on lawsuits. You call that a victory for cattle producers?

A victory for one cattle producer means the same amount of loss for another. KNOW WHY????? Because any new equity that comes into this industry comes from WITHOUT, not from within but you have to be able to see past your blame to realize it.


Chief: "You are right Tommy. SH is wrong....again. It was a six(6) week period. So multiply Sh's $0.38 x 8.66 and you get $3.29 per steer that Tyson will pay."

No Chief, you are wrong. If the verdict stands, other producers will pay for the damages collected by those that feed on lawsuits.


OT: "NO remember- according to Super Hero and Maxine NCBA can never be wrong-- they must have been misinterpreted"

Why do you insist on lying OT. Not smart enough to come up with anything legitimate so you have to make stuff up as you go.

I'm not a clone to NCBA like you are to R-CULT. I've publicly displayed my objections to certain positions of theirs. Any time they lean towards the blaming side of the industry, I oppose them. You on the other hand will repeat their contradictions word for word like the whiskey drinking follower you are.


OT: "Where did the $42 or so million dollars that NCBA claimed was lost go?"

I question that figure no matter who states it.


OT: "Just like no NCBA person will answer how non- Bse testing is economically feasible when the NCBA President says producers are losing $175 on every animal slaughtered while the Asian trade is closed...."

I question that figure also. According to your fearless leader Bill Bullard, "producers would be in a very favorable position without an export market". Did you express your disagreement towards Bullard's statement claiming that the loss of the Asian market is costing us $175 per head or did you nod your head like a nag fighting face flies???

Yeh, that's what I thought!



~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
They heard proof that USDA falsely reported prices. Based on that, they felt obligated to make a correction.

Did you actually read the suit? The cattlemen allege that the packers themselves knew what they were receiving for boxed beef, even though the USDA reported it falsely. So they tied their purchase prices to the lower USDA value, knowing it was incorrect.

So you believe that someone who is selling boxed beef doesn't know what they are receiving for it?

Rod
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SH...Tommy, you packer blamers think you really accomplished something here don't you? The fact is, if the verdict stands, you will have removed $9.25 million in equity from the packing industry. That means that some other cattle feeder is going to pay for the small amounts given to those who feed on lawsuits. You call that a victory for cattle producers?

Scott there is no denying that from April 2 to May 11, 2001 the USDA mis-reported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat.
Someone benefited from that error. Who was the benefisciary of that error Scott?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, do you have a calculator that you know how to use? Add 42 + 54 and then divide by 2. You will get the median of what your NCBA says that mistake cost producers and the packers benefitted from, and the jury says KNOWINGLY benefitted from. The answer is 48. Now subtract 9.25 from that number. The answer is 38.75. This means your packer buddies can pay their fines and still have $38,770,000.00 left. Not bad for a month of playing dumb, is it?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Sandhusker...and still have $38,770,000.00 left. Not bad for a month of playing dumb, is it?


Not bad at all!! What gets me in all of this is that they never offered to give any of the money back.
The saying is.....integrity is doing what is right when no one is looking.

Greed took over first in this case.
 

the chief

Well-known member
Quote:
Chief: "You are right Tommy. SH is wrong....again. It was a six(6) week period. So multiply Sh's $0.38 x 8.66 and you get $3.29 per steer that Tyson will pay."


No Chief, you are wrong. If the verdict stands, other producers will pay for the damages collected by those that feed on lawsuits.

No, SH, you are wrong. Tyson WILL pay it. Whether they decide to screw the producers to collect the damages is up to them. They probably will, but the producers will not DIRECTLY pay it. Indirectly, through more corporate thievery, they very well may pay it. :twisted:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
the chief said:
Quote:
Chief: "You are right Tommy. SH is wrong....again. It was a six(6) week period. So multiply Sh's $0.38 x 8.66 and you get $3.29 per steer that Tyson will pay."


No Chief, you are wrong. If the verdict stands, other producers will pay for the damages collected by those that feed on lawsuits.

No, SH, you are wrong. Tyson WILL pay it. Whether they decide to screw the producers to collect the damages is up to them. They probably will, but the producers will not DIRECTLY pay it. Indirectly, through more corporate thievery, they very well may pay it. :twisted:

The amount for margin producers is more relevant in the concentration game. If Tyson is cheating producers by using market power to decrease the cost of their goods and they get away with it while others do not, they get a competitive edge in amount of dollars brought in. This allows them to win in the market concentration game.

It seems as if the economics of fraud in this case, have been in favor of those doing the fraud.

SH may have a point that the packers will try to take it out of producers, but if there were real competition in the industry, this would be an empty threat. If Tyson wants to play the market concentration game, which is what they did in poultry and are now doing by integrating their proteins portfolios, they should bear the costs of cheating at that game by swift enforcement judgements in the courts after juries agree with plaintiffs.

I would think that Tyson would try to drag this out as far as possible so it does not have an economic impact on the concentration game they are playing.

This judgement, because of its size, has little real relevance economically speaking, but it may have much more relevance legally speaking.

We shall see what happens in the appellate courts.

On another note, WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THE USDA TO PICK AND SET UP A NATIONAL ANIMAL ID SYSTEM WHEN THEY ARE SO INCOMPETENT WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES THEY ALREADY HAVE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES IN AND ARE FAILING IN? USUALLY WHEN SOMEONE FAILS, THEY ARE NOT REWARDED.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THE USDA TO PICK AND SET UP A NATIONAL ANIMAL ID SYSTEM WHEN THEY ARE SO INCOMPETENT WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES THEY ALREADY HAVE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES IN NAIS controls.

The Animal ID sytem they talk about is 1992 technology ,talk about incompetent ,Good Lord ,What if google needed 48 hrs to display a answer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy: "Scott there is no denying that from April 2 to May 11, 2001 the USDA mis-reported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat. Someone benefited from that error. Who was the benefisciary of that error Scott?"

That's right Tommy, USDA made the mistake and packers benefitted from that mistake. Does that make them in violation of the PSA???

If you want to blame someone, blame those who thought the government could report prices better than the voluntary system we already had in place.

There's a lesson to be learned here Tommy! The federal government will never do a better job of reporting prices than the free enterprise system. I give you government mandate lovers full credit for the flawed price reporting. You did the same thing with "M"COOL. You handed USDA a flawed law and said, "ENFORCE THIS".

Brilliant!


Rod and Sandbag,

How can you hold Tyson responsible for USDA's screw up????

I don't see how you can get a PSA violation when USDA was the organization that falsely reported the prices THANKS TO ANOTHER STUPID UNJUSTIFIED GOVERNMENT MANDATE TO SAVE THIS INDUSTRY FROM ITSELF AGAIN (MPR).


Chief: "No, SH, you are wrong. Tyson WILL pay it. Whether they decide to screw the producers to collect the damages is up to them. They probably will, but the producers will not DIRECTLY pay it. Indirectly, through more corporate thievery, they very well may pay it."

I'm wrong but then you agree with me that Tyson will pay Peter less for his cattle to pay for Paul's lawsuit. LOL!

Make no mistake, this $9.25 million lost in equity will be $9.25 million less in cattle buying power. Some victory! Hoist them beers boys! You managed to help Tyson rob Peter to pay Paul. Whoopi!


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Rod and Sandbag,

How can you hold Tyson responsible for USDA's screw up????

SH, why didn't you answer my question from earlier? The suit claimed that although the boxed beef prices were reported inaccurately, the packers KNEW this and used the erroneous data from the USDA.

Do the packers not know what they're selling boxed beef for? Why would they use the erroneous data when they HAD TO KNOW it was erroneous?

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "If you want to blame someone, blame those who thought the government could report prices better than the voluntary system we already had in place."

Wasn't the government involved with the voluntary system, too? :shock:

Are you aware that the New York Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile, the Chigago Board of Trade, the New York Board of Trade, Kansas City etc...... ALL have mandatory reporting and go to great lengths to keep everyone aware of the current market? They do this for a reason. A non-transparent market is a dysfunctional market. Why do you advocate a dysfunctional market, SH? Why do you want only the big packers to know what the market is?

Another packer over producer stand.
 
Top