Packers Use USDA to Hide Behind Frauds to Producers

[Econ101]

If a jury always got the decision right, you wouldn't need a judge or an appeals process. Our judicial system has checks and balances in place for good reason.

In a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the proceedings and the jury is there to return a verdict. If the jury verdict was allowed to stand, the Appellate Court over turned it, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I would have no problem with the case because due process would have played out the way it should have. The excuse of Judge Strom overturning the jury verdict because of HIS concern for HIS judicial record doesn't appear right, even if it is legal.

Agman, do you or SH agree with the Supreme Court eminent domain decision?

RM, you know better. Juries do not always get it right. The JUDGE, is given the right and obligation to see the verdict was consistent with the testimony. If not, he has a legal obligation to void the verdict. That is what the judge did. The judge has that responsibility, not the Appellate Court. He acted properly and within the confines of the law.

He overturned the case because the verdict had no merit. How foolish would he have looked to allow the verdict to stand. His concern for how it might appear was down the list to his legal obligation which he rightfully exercised and his decision was upheld UNANIMOUSLY. Are you suggesting it would be right for the judge to forgo his legal obligation and let an unjustified verdict stand-yes or no?

You have to be kidding to suggest if he let the verdict stand and the Appellate Court overturned the decision you could buy that process. I submit after seeing all your posts you would just find something else to complain about. To suggest otherwise is a cop-out.

Do you feed cattle and have you ever sold cattle on contract? I am just curious. For me the answer is "yes".

The Eminent Domain case is quite different then the Pickett case. There are two issues. One is the legality and the other involves execution of the law. I believe the ruling was legally correct. However, the execution of that EM law is very questionable and that will be ironed out in future legal cases. The limits to that right will be refined and that process is already underway. Personally, I believe old Nelly's house should be saved and the courts will refine and define that process. I believe most cases will be ruled in her favor; that will be a good thing.

I see you are hiding behind the "if you don't see it, it ain't there" theory again, Agman.

Have you made sure the court transcripts could be released yet?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "How can Tyson get their remaining needs met by lowering prices if Excel and Swift are still competing? If there was true competition, wouldn't the competition between Swift and Excel disallow Tyson from getting any cattle bought at lower prices? You STILL have not answered the question."

Very simple! Someone is obviously willing to sell Tyson more cattle even after they drop their price? Why? Transportation costs for one.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "How can Tyson get their remaining needs met by lowering prices if Excel and Swift are still competing? If there was true competition, wouldn't the competition between Swift and Excel disallow Tyson from getting any cattle bought at lower prices? You STILL have not answered the question."

Very simple! Someone is obviously willing to sell Tyson more cattle even after they drop their price? Why? Transportation costs for one.

NEXT!


~SH~

Oh come on! Weak, Weak, Weak! :lol: If Tyson has 50% of thier needs met via captive supply, and as they use over 30% of all fats, that means "someone" is going to sell 15% of all the fats in the nation for that week cheap because of transportation costs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You've really strenghtened your case here, SH!

Folks, send that $50 membership to Billings now. You side with R-CALF or you side with this.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Sandhusker you talk onesided competion. Remember there are feeders out there looking to sell cattle and if supply is greater then demand they will sell at a lower price to move cattle or they will hold them therefore increasing the tonnage of beef waiting to get into the supply chain. Show me one person that doesn't like to get a bargin.Why do stores put things on sale? Could it be because of over supply?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker you talk onesided competion. Remember there are feeders out there looking to sell cattle and if supply is greater then demand they will sell at a lower price to move cattle or they will hold them therefore increasing the tonnage of beef waiting to get into the supply chain. Show me one person that doesn't like to get a bargin.Why do stores put things on sale? Could it be because of over supply?

OK....your point is.....?

 

[Econ101]

Sandhusker you talk onesided competion. Remember there are feeders out there looking to sell cattle and if supply is greater then demand they will sell at a lower price to move cattle or they will hold them therefore increasing the tonnage of beef waiting to get into the supply chain. Show me one person that doesn't like to get a bargin.Why do stores put things on sale? Could it be because of over supply?

BMR,

I think Pickett argued that the price of cattle was suppressed more than it would have otherwise have been because of strategic buying of cattle that actually obfiscated normal market mechanisms. This was done with the use of captive supply.

I don't think you will see me arguing that the price of cattle may have been on a downward trend because of the supply/demand circumstances at the time. Instead, I argue that the captive supply actually interferred with the normal market mechanisms of competition because it thinned the cash market and made the market for cattle much more manipulatable.

There is a reason why Section 202 was written the way it was written. The prohibitions enumerated are the basis for market manipulation.

If the legislators could get economic reasoning correct in 1921, what in the world has happened to the economic litteracy in our USDA and the courts now? Is it globalization arguments?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Oh come on! Weak, Weak, Weak! If Tyson has 50% of thier needs met via captive supply, and as they use over 30% of all fats, that means "someone" is going to sell 15% of all the fats in the nation for that week cheap because of transportation costs?

You've really strenghtened your case here, SH!"

Yet another absolutely amazing spin job by Austin.

I sit in amazement of your utter stupidity Austin.

First Tyson only slaughters about 32% of all the fat cattle SO HOW THE HELL COULD THEY USE OVER 30% OF ALL THE FATS IF THEY ONLY PROCURED 50% OF THEIR NEED VIA "FORMULA CATTLE"???

DUH!!!!!

Stupid remark #1!

TYSON HAVING 50% OF THEIR NEEDS VIA "FORMULA CATTLE" (alleged "captive supply") IS NOT A MAJORITY OF TYSON'S CATTLE PROCUREMENT IS IT????

Stupid remark #2!

If Tyson did have 50% of their needs tied up in formula cattle, WHICH IS ONLY 15% OF THE TOTAL AVAILABLE CATTLE, where the hell did your 15% come from?

I KNOW, I KNOW, YOU PULLED IT OUT OF YOUR ARS LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO!

Stupid remark #3!

You're right on track Austin!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Don't dummy up. My comment was easy to understand and I'm not going to get off on your attempt to confuse the issue and divert from your pathetic attempt of an explaination.

Now your claim is that Tyson can lower their prices under their "competition" and get cattle bought because of transportation costs? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here's a clue for you once again - if you have to resort to idiotic reasoning to back your stance - your stance is wrong. Figure it out.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Now your claim is that Tyson can lower their prices under their "competition" and get cattle bought because of transportation costs?"

If Tyson is bidding $78 in the cash market and Excel and Swift are bidding $79. Tyson will still be able to buy some cattle if it costs some feeders more money in transportation to ship to Excel and Swift than is offset by Swift and Excel's higher bids, yes.

Is that so difficult for you to figure out Austin?

It will be interesting to see how you spin that statement.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Now your claim is that Tyson can lower their prices under their "competition" and get cattle bought because of transportation costs?"

If Tyson is bidding $78 in the cash market and Excel and Swift are bidding $79. Tyson will still be able to buy some cattle if it costs some feeders more money in transportation to ship to Excel and Swift than is offset by Swift and Excel's higher bids, yes.

Is that so difficult for you to figure out Austin?

It will be interesting to see how you spin that statement.


~SH~

Mute point - it works both ways.

You're trying to tell us that packers are competing for the same cattle and that there is ample competition with the packers that we have. You say that Tyson (32% of the NATION'S supply of fats) can get a portion of their needs via captive supply (say half, or 16% of the NATION'S supply) and then simply lower their bids for the remainder (the other 16%) because of transportation costs for SOME feeders. :shock:

Just who the heck do you expect to believe this? This is the truth that you champion? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Austin: "You're trying to tell us that packers are competing for the same cattle and that there is ample competition with the packers that we have. You say that Tyson (32% of the NATION'S supply of fats) can get a portion of their needs via captive supply (say half, or 16% of the NATION'S supply) and then simply lower their bids for the remainder (the other 16%) because of transportation costs for SOME feeders.

Just who the heck do you expect to believe this? This is the truth that you champion?"

You come up with some stupid assed statement about Tyson dropping their price after they have aquired ONLY HALF of their needs ("say half") then you attribute that statement to me??? I never said anything of the sort. I said Tyson can drop their price in the cash market and still buy "SOME" cattle when "MOST" of their needs have been met in the formula market simply based on the fact that Tyson is closer to some feeders than a Swift or Excel plant. Others will take the lower price out of fear that the market might fall further. Still others take the lower price because they didn't know a higher price was offered by Excel or Swift.

If you want to debate these facts with me, then debate them at word value, not on your spin of my statements you deceptive SOB.

I have never seen anything like you. Are you this deceptive in your banking??? Do you make up stories to potential clients simply to attain their business? Do you spin their statements to get a certain reaction? You and Conman are without a doubt two of the most manipulative, deceptive, lying pathetic SOBs I have ever met in my life. Almost beyond belief.

If you are going to attribute a statement to me, you damn sure better copy it word for word. You debate me at word value you little twirp, not on your deceptive spin on my statements.

This is all part of your little manipulative plan isn't it? Spin my statements into something they're not knowing how much I hate it so you can attain a certain reaction from me only to use that reaction as a means to discredit me. What a weasel! Guys like you are real popular in prison.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

OK, SH. Why not post a poll and see who buys your story?

 

[mrj]

Boys, you are confusing when you use "mute point" where it doesn't necessarily make sense.

Could you be meaning to say "moot point"?

"moot": adj. open to, or intended for discussion; debatable; a moot point. 1. to bring up for discussion; raise for debate. 2. To argue ( as case) in moot court. noun 1. Discussion or argument; especially, a discussion of a hypothetical case by law students. 2. In early English history,a meeting of freemen to discuss local affairs. Moot court is a court for the trial of hypothetical legal cases by law students.

"mute" adj. 1. Not producing speech or sound; silent. 2. Lacking the power of speech; dumb. 3. Expressed or conveyed without speech; unspoken; a mute appeal. 4. law, Deliberately refusing to plead on arraignment:chiefly in the phrase "to stand mute".

And.......neither word means "it works both ways"......which I believed it did, or more so, "it doesn't make a difference". Not correct!

Just bored, I guess.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Boys, you are confusing when you use "mute point" where it doesn't necessarily make sense.

Could you be meaning to say "moot point"?

"moot": adj. open to, or intended for discussion; debatable; a moot point. 1. to bring up for discussion; raise for debate. 2. To argue ( as case) in moot court. noun 1. Discussion or argument; especially, a discussion of a hypothetical case by law students. 2. In early English history,a meeting of freemen to discuss local affairs. Moot court is a court for the trial of hypothetical legal cases by law students.

"mute" adj. 1. Not producing speech or sound; silent. 2. Lacking the power of speech; dumb. 3. Expressed or conveyed without speech; unspoken; a mute appeal. 4. law, Deliberately refusing to plead on arraignment:chiefly in the phrase "to stand mute".

And.......neither word means "it works both ways"......which I believed it did, or more so, "it doesn't make a difference". Not correct!

Just bored, I guess.

MRJ

I stand corrected.

 

[ocm]

Sandbag: "How can packers lower their prices with all the competition for the cattle you claim exists?"

I read a question like this and I sit in absolute amazement that you lend people money. Were you the only one who applied for your job?

The largest packers are fairly equal in their efficiency and there is a minimal difference in what the receive for their beef and beef by products. That is why the bids are usually the same, not because of any "alleged" collusion. If boxed beef prices are falling, all the packers will lower their bids accordingly. That doesn't mean they don't still need a certain number of cattle to fill their slaughtering schedule. Did you think they should just lose money if boxed beef prices fall?

I'm just curious, is competition between large companies like rocket science for someone like you?


~SH~

Crap, here I go on a pig wreslting match again. Sorry, guys.

You completely didn't answer the question. Lets try a specific scenario; Tyson contracts half of the cattle they need. According to you, they can then simply lower their prices they pay for cattle on the cash market because their needs are half met. However, also according to you, there is competition between the packers for the same cattle and prices can't simply be lowered or they won't get the cattle bought.

Please try to explain this as I'm sure there are a few readers who are considering joining R-CALF and need just one more nudge.

Sandhusker, you've got to realize that in the cattle market supply and demand don't determine price, margin does. What packers do in order to know what to offer is to look at their margins, determine how much money they want to make and set their offers for fat cattle. It doesn't matter what the supply is. :!:

Just listen to the expert. He (not me) has spoken. Read the statement over again. The expert has just told you that fat cattle prices are not related to supply and demand, they are related to box prices.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Sandhusker, you've got to realize that in the cattle market supply and demand don't determine price, margin does. What packers do in order to know what to offer is to look at their margins, determine how much money they want to make and set their offers for fat cattle. It doesn't matter what the supply is.

Just listen to the expert. He (not me) has spoken. Read the statement over again. The expert has just told you that fat cattle prices are not related to supply and demand, they are related to box prices."

You mean to say boxed beef prices are not reflective of demand?

Ocm, you should have quit while you were behind. I just can't believe how ignorant some of you blamers are.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

OCM: "Sandhusker, you've got to realize that in the cattle market supply and demand don't determine price, margin does. What packers do in order to know what to offer is to look at their margins, determine how much money they want to make and set their offers for fat cattle. It doesn't matter what the supply is.

Just listen to the expert. He (not me) has spoken. Read the statement over again. The expert has just told you that fat cattle prices are not related to supply and demand, they are related to box prices."

You mean to say boxed beef prices are not reflective of demand?

Ocm, you should have quit while you were behind. I just can't believe how ignorant some of you blamers are.


~SH~

Supply really doesn't matter when they have captive supply. When prices are high, use the captive supply. When prices are lower, use cash market cattle. That way, you make extra margins with the use of your captive supply.

These guys are trying (and succeeding) on corralling the feeders with thier market and corrupt political power.

Who was behind JoAnn not doing her job?

 

[mrj]

Sandbag: "How can Tyson get their remaining needs met by lowering prices if Excel and Swift are still competing? If there was true competition, wouldn't the competition between Swift and Excel disallow Tyson from getting any cattle bought at lower prices? You STILL have not answered the question."

Very simple! Someone is obviously willing to sell Tyson more cattle even after they drop their price? Why? Transportation costs for one.

NEXT!


~SH~

Oh come on! Weak, Weak, Weak! :lol: If Tyson has 50% of thier needs met via captive supply, and as they use over 30% of all fats, that means "someone" is going to sell 15% of all the fats in the nation for that week cheap because of transportation costs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You've really strenghtened your case here, SH!

Folks, send that $50 membership to Billings now. You side with R-CALF or you side with this.

Sandhusker, and SH too, is it not a fact that if transportation costs FOR THE FEEDER SELLING THOSE CATTLE are lower (due to being near the plant), he can sell the cattle to Tyson at their lower price and STILL realize a HIGHER amount of money for his cattle?

Did you guys get that settled? Isn't it quite simple that if you are a feeder living 300 miles from the Swift and XL plants who are offering X dollars, it's going to cost you considerably more in transport than if you live 50
miles from the Tyson plant and sell to them for X dollars less than the Swift or XL price offer?

Come on, Sandhusker, you being the bank guy should be able to tell us exactly where the "break-even" point is in that deal. How about it? Either prove your point, or concede it to SH.

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Very simple! Someone is obviously willing to sell Tyson more cattle even after they drop their price? Why? Transportation costs for one.

NEXT!


~SH~

Oh come on! Weak, Weak, Weak! :lol: If Tyson has 50% of thier needs met via captive supply, and as they use over 30% of all fats, that means "someone" is going to sell 15% of all the fats in the nation for that week cheap because of transportation costs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You've really strenghtened your case here, SH!

Folks, send that $50 membership to Billings now. You side with R-CALF or you side with this.

Sandhusker, and SH too, is it not a fact that if transportation costs FOR THE FEEDER SELLING THOSE CATTLE are lower (due to being near the plant), he can sell the cattle to Tyson at their lower price and STILL realize a HIGHER amount of money for his cattle?

Did you guys get that settled? Isn't it quite simple that if you are a feeder living 300 miles from the Swift and XL plants who are offering X dollars, it's going to cost you considerably more in transport than if you live 50
miles from the Tyson plant and sell to them for X dollars less than the Swift or XL price offer?

Come on, Sandhusker, you being the bank guy should be able to tell us exactly where the "break-even" point is in that deal. How about it? Either prove your point, or concede it to SH.

MRJ

MRJ, just think about it for a minute. Tyson uses 1/3 of all the fats in the country. SH screams to the high hills that there is stiff competition between the packers that are left over from this consolidation for all our cattle. Now, if a packer can lower their prices because of geography, what does that say about competition?

Would you rather believe that Tyson is closer than anybody else on 1/3 of the entire US herd - that much closer on all those cattle that they can offer a lower price? All those cattle, MRJ.

SH makes these wild claims just to be contrary and then has to make up even wilder stories to back them. He's your NCBA buddy, so you want to believe him, but come on, MRJ, think about his claims. They're almost redicuous enought to not answer. I only challenge him in case there is somebody foolish enough to take his words for face value.