Pickett case goes down in flames

[agman]

Now that your fit is over, the facts remain. The plaintiff's use of forward contracts has no bearing what-so-ever regarding the question of IBP having a legitimate use for them. They're two different entities.

The court saw it otherwise. That is what counts. There is substantial precedent for the court's view per this subject. They did not establish a new precedent. Your comment is almost as much of a stretch as your personal definition of "low risk" when trying to defend R-Calf.

 

[pknoeber]

This one is easy. The plaintiffs and IBP are two different entities. Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use contracts, doesn't mean IBP does as well.

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like you would prefer that the producer have access to a tool (fwd contracts) to help their operation, but the processor can't use that same tool?
Not saying that packers don't try to distort the market in their favor, but that's what capitalism is. Doing the best you can with what you've got to obtain the best results for yourself. If we don't like it/can't handle it, well that's why they have Chapters 7, 11 & 12. (If I guessed your occupation right from the pic of your office I'd say that some of your borrowers have read the gospel to you from that book )
As a small-timer myself, yeah it hurts to watch the big get bigger, but that's what stimulates innovation/invention. I'll have to figure out what I can do to beat (or work with) the big boys that they can't do or I won't survive, I can't just go with the status quo and expect different results. Will it always work? No, but it's better than dying a slow financial death. Just some random thoughts.
Phil

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "The plaintiff's use of forward contracts has no bearing what-so-ever regarding the question of IBP having a legitimate use for them."

You know, I actually thought you might be kidding but you are actually going to try to defend this aren't you?

I can't believe it!


If you actually believe that the plaintiff's use of forward contracts has no bearing what-so-ever regarding the question of IBP having a legitimate use for them, PERHAPS THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES DOES HAVE A BEARING.

It's one thing to be stupid enough to argue against ibp's use of forward contracts after "WILLINGLY" entering into those forward contracts, it's quite another to be stupid enough to argue against ibp's use of forward contracts AFTER TESTIFYING THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR USING THEM.

The whole forest has burned to the ground and all that is left is the ashes of you and the little bush that you climbed into that you thought was a tree when you were 2 hours ahead of the fire. LOL!

Divert to another issue Sandman quickly, you are making a complete fool out of yourself trying to defend this.

THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES.

You can't spin that!
You can't divert it!
You can't misinterpret it!

The plaintiffs sunk their own toy boat and only a mindless lemming would try to defend it.

Come on Sandman, you are smarter than this. I used to consider you a worthy opponent. You are really letting me down here.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES."

If you can prove that, you've got something.

 

[agman]

SH, "THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES."

If you can prove that, you've got something.

If you have not read their testimony then you are just blowing smoke. Not just one testified to that, every witness the plaintiffs presented testified that Tyson had a legitimate business use of marketing agreements.

Don't try to debate this any further since it is apparent that you have never read any of their testimony. So you are the one who has nothing; no facts as usual, just unsupported opinion like Taylor tried to use at the trial.

 

[agman]

This one is easy. The plaintiffs and IBP are two different entities. Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use contracts, doesn't mean IBP does as well.

Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like you would prefer that the producer have access to a tool (fwd contracts) to help their operation, but the processor can't use that same tool?
Not saying that packers don't try to distort the market in their favor, but that's what capitalism is. Doing the best you can with what you've got to obtain the best results for yourself. If we don't like it/can't handle it, well that's why they have Chapters 7, 11 & 12. (If I guessed your occupation right from the pic of your office I'd say that some of your borrowers have read the gospel to you from that book )
As a small-timer myself, yeah it hurts to watch the big get bigger, but that's what stimulates innovation/invention. I'll have to figure out what I can do to beat (or work with) the big boys that they can't do or I won't survive, I can't just go with the status quo and expect different results. Will it always work? No, but it's better than dying a slow financial death. Just some random thoughts.
Phil

My compliments to you. With your positive approach to change you will most certainly be a successful survivor. You should pat yourself on the back. Fortunately, most of the industry is comprised of individuals with a positive attitude towards change. Those who live in the past and constantly complain are a small but vocal group. Unfortunately for them, they will scream and blame others all the way into bankruptcy of their own making. Best of luck to you in your future endovers.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES."

If you can prove that, you've got something.

If you have not read their testimony then you are just blowing smoke. Not just one testified to that, every witness the plaintiffs presented testified that Tyson had a legitimate business use of marketing agreements.

Don't try to debate this any further since it is apparent that you have never read any of their testimony. So you are the one who has nothing; no facts as usual, just unsupported opinion like Taylor tried to use at the trial.

Didn't I say that he would have something if he could prove it?

 

[agman]

SH, "THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES."

If you can prove that, you've got something.

If you have not read their testimony then you are just blowing smoke. Not just one testified to that, every witness the plaintiffs presented testified that Tyson had a legitimate business use of marketing agreements.

Don't try to debate this any further since it is apparent that you have never read any of their testimony. So you are the one who has nothing; no facts as usual, just unsupported opinion like Taylor tried to use at the trial.

Didn't I say that he would have something if he could prove it?

My point is that if you have not read any of the testimony then what business do you have of trying to debate this issue at all?

 

[Sandhusker]

If you have not read their testimony then you are just blowing smoke. Not just one testified to that, every witness the plaintiffs presented testified that Tyson had a legitimate business use of marketing agreements.

Don't try to debate this any further since it is apparent that you have never read any of their testimony. So you are the one who has nothing; no facts as usual, just unsupported opinion like Taylor tried to use at the trial.

Didn't I say that he would have something if he could prove it?

My point is that if you have not read any of the testimony then what business do you have of trying to debate this issue at all?

As I was not disputing testimony, why do you feel it necessary that I read it?

 

[RobertMac]

As a small-timer myself, yeah it hurts to watch the big get bigger, but that's what stimulates innovation/invention. I'll have to figure out what I can do to beat (or work with) the big boys that they can't do or I won't survive, I can't just go with the status quo and expect different results. Will it always work? No, but it's better than dying a slow financial death. Just some random thoughts.
Phil

to beat...the big boys are thin margins and large scale, you will have to be thinner margins and larger scale

work with...same thing, but your competition becomes your fellow producer...for about half the beef produced in USA, outside income is substituted for thin margins. Also, with each new FTA, the competition pool gets larger...wait 'til we get FTAA. Fact from an Argentina researcher/professor/cattleman (1000 head on 1600 acres)...price paid producer for finished cattle-$35.00/cwt...cost of production-$17.00/cwt (direct cost)...better get ready!

do what they can't do...now you're on to something...big boys leave big cracks, but they watch the cracks. A friend had to threaten law suites to get FSIS to follow the law so he could have USDA inspected chickens...Tyson was applying pressure to stop his very small operation to the extent that, they(Tyson) wouldn't let the inspector that inspects my beef, inspect his chickens. But remember, a reduction in demand for the big boys product creates opportunities...but available processing is a very fragile link to those opportunities.

By the way...GOOD LUCK, we will need it!

 

[Anonymous]

Good post pknoeber!

Your "non blaming" attitude will assure your success.

It's refreshing to hear a voice of reason coming from an industry overloaded with blamers.



~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Good post pknoeber!

Your "non blaming" attitude will assure your success.

It's refreshing to hear a voice of reason coming from an industry overloaded with blamers.



~SH~

Phil,
don't let SH know if you're a R-CALF member...he'll take it all back!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

 

[agman]

Didn't I say that he would have something if he could prove it?

My point is that if you have not read any of the testimony then what business do you have of trying to debate this issue at all?

As I was not disputing testimony, why do you feel it necessary that I read it?

If you were not disputing testamony just what were you actually doing? What baseless point were you attmetping to make never having read any of the testamony?

 

[Sandhusker]

My point is that if you have not read any of the testimony then what business do you have of trying to debate this issue at all?

As I was not disputing testimony, why do you feel it necessary that I read it?

If you were not disputing testamony just what were you actually doing? What baseless point were you attmetping to make never having read any of the testamony?

My point was that just because Bob has a reason to do something, that doesn't mean Stan does. Simple enough for you?

 

[agman]

As I was not disputing testimony, why do you feel it necessary that I read it?

If you were not disputing testamony just what were you actually doing? What baseless point were you attmetping to make never having read any of the testamony?

My point was that just because Bob has a reason to do something, that doesn't mean Stan does. Simple enough for you?

Ya, I got. You did not know what you were talking about again.

 

[Tam]

As I was not disputing testimony, why do you feel it necessary that I read it?

If you were not disputing testamony just what were you actually doing? What baseless point were you attmetping to make never having read any of the testamony?

My point was that just because Bob has a reason to do something, that doesn't mean Stan does. Simple enough for you?

Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? "

Maybe Bob is acting in good faith and Stan abuses the power he has due to his enormous holdings to screw Bob, Frank, Toby, Bill, Fred, etc...

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Tam, "Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? "

Maybe Bob is acting in good faith and Stan abuses the power he has due to his enormous holdings to screw Bob, Frank, Toby, Bill, Fred, etc...

Do you mean like the difference between the interest on Deposits and loans at a Banks.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, "Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? "

Maybe Bob is acting in good faith and Stan abuses the power he has due to his enormous holdings to screw Bob, Frank, Toby, Bill, Fred, etc...

Do you mean like the difference between the interest on Deposits and loans at a Banks.

You mean that 4% spread? Do you want to tell all of us what gets paid from that 4%? How much of that 4% is pure profit?

If you don't like the interest being offered/charged, go down the street. You can get an ag loan at 7 different places in Cherry County, Nebraska alone. Funny thing about banks, nobody controls 1/3 of all the business in this country, there is actual competition. Now compare that to the packers.....

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Tam, "Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? "

Maybe Bob is acting in good faith and Stan abuses the power he has due to his enormous holdings to screw Bob, Frank, Toby, Bill, Fred, etc...

Do you mean like the difference between the interest on Deposits and loans at a Banks.

You mean that 4% spread? Do you want to tell all of us what gets paid from that 4%? How much of that 4% is pure profit?

If you don't like the interest being offered/charged, go down the street. You can get an ag loan at 7 different places in Cherry County, Nebraska alone. Funny thing about banks, nobody controls 1/3 of all the business in this country, there is actual competition. Now compare that to the packers.....

So I can chose who i do business with. Well those pickett Plaintiff chose to do business with IBP then sued them. What sense does that make?