Conman: "Especially with this rigged court system."
SH: A blamer will always find someone or something to blame.
Econ: And a name caller has no real intellectual argument.
Conman: "Econ: You may have said that Tyson advertising helps producers with higher prices also, but you also said that by advertising the petite tender and other cuts, the packers are able to offer more for the cattle they buy. This assumes that the packers didn't just pocket it as a higher margin. The Canadian bse incident show us they are willing to pocket money and not share it with producers UNLESS MARKET CONDITIONS MAKE THEM DO IT."
If cattle markets were controlled by packers, prices would never move higher. That's the common sense of the issue.
Econ: You are the only one making the assertion that the cattle markets are completely controlled by the packers and hence your frogjump to the conclusions you have that make no sense. Even in the Canada bse fiasco, there are still market forces. The question is not an all or nothing one at this point, and even if Tyson was the only company in the industry, there are economic factors at play. Tyson economists know that the theoretical limit to their price suppression is the average variable costs. They use this limit all the time when calculating how much to pay farmers when they have a geographical monopsony as in their poultry business. Your little mind reasoning would suggest that Tyson could get their supply and pay farmers nothing, which shows how much you know about reality.
SH: If there was no competition in the packing industry between the major packers , this would open the doors for smaller less efficient packing companies to compete with the larger more efficient companies but you have a conspiracy to try to explain that fact away too don't you?
Econ: If you are going to call my answer a "conspiracy" and dismiss it before I give it, maybe you are not going to hear it anyway. The packers form a barrier of entry into the business by operating they way they do. It is a classical economic desire in any business. Your what if questions are pretty meaningless when you don't know a thing about how markets work.
SH: The Canadian situation is not applicable to the United States because the United States had historically slaughtered a large portion of Canada's cattle. When BSE was discovered in Canada and those Canadian cattle could no longer be shipped South to the United States for slaughter, Canada found themselves with more cattle than slaughter capacity while those plants in the NE United States that relied on Canadian cattle suddenly found themselves with more slaughter capacity than cattle.
Econ: No, I don''t ever expect you to believe anything you don't want to believe in. Even pertinent real life examples. You are describing supply/demand. That is the basis for markets. My example proves that it is supply and demand that determine price and that your little extraneous "theories" are apparently in error. The Aberdeen case was more about the fact that markets require transparency to function properly. The transparency wasn't there in the Aberdeen case and it created harm to the sellers and allowed the packers to profit at their expense.
SH: The BSE EXCEPTION does not make the rule. During BSE, the packers in the US were losing money. That is an undeniable fact.
You got nothing but baseless conspiracy theories and lies Conman.
Econ: The "rules" of the market are economic rules. This is something you have proven time and time again you have no mastery over. You have nothing but baseless gopher talk and name calling, SH.
Conman: "Market conditions and the manipulation of information about the market can have a huge effect on live prices. That was proven in Aberdeen to the jury."
Yet another lie. There was no manipulation of information about the market. USDA ADMITTED THAT THEY MADE A PRICE REPORTING MISTAKE.
Econ: Where was your touted "voluntary" price reporting, SH? As I said before, this would have been an affirmative defense for the packers in the case. The fact is that it is another "lie" that you bring to the board. It wasn't used as a defense because it didn't exist. You are full of tricks today, I see.
SH:
Conman: "As with everything, you have to put it into context. I think you have a problem with your ability to do that as the message on the bottom of all your posts attests."
DIVERSION!!!
Herman's statement was obviously pivotal in the case. DO YOU AGREE WITH IT, YES OR NO?????
Econ: It is a subset of the right answer, not the complete right answer. As a subset, it is entirely correct in the case cited. In the Canadian case, it was not, as I have shown you time and time again. How many times must you be spoon fed, SH? Will you ever grow up?
SH:
Conman: "Econ: I don't think you are able to understand anything I say because you just don't want to. You almost always take the packer side on every issue."
Diversion!
You don't want to admit to the hypocrisy in your position. If advertising beef only benefits the packers and not the producer, how do you explain "M"COOL? Using your argument, that would only benefit the packer.
Address the issue Conman and quit diverting.
Econ: It has the potential of benefitting both. It does not always do so. If there is no strong competition for producer's cattle, the benefits of the higher price will accrue to the packers only theoretically varying to the inverse of market power to perfect competition. Since the producers were paying for the advertising instead of Tyson, one would have to assume perfect competition in order for those benefits to be passed down to the producers. We don't have anything near perfect competition in the beef industry so it doesn't happen.
SH: As far as taking "the packer side", I am taking the truthful side of these issues, nothing more and nothing less.
The truth is, we won't get another dime for our cattle unless the packer receives more money for his beef. It's always been that way and it will always be that way.
Your cheap talk won't explain your way out of it. Boxed beef prices track with live cattle prices. Only a complete idiot like you would try to deny it.
Conman: " And it is well documented that market conditions have the overall say so, as the Canadians found out. Did their live prices track with boxed beef prices? You have a tendency to misuse information for your own purposes. This is another example of that tactic."
Why do you always think the "exception makes the rule".
THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.
WHEN THE CANADIAN BORDER WAS CLOSED, CANADA DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SLAUGHTER CAPACITY FOR THEIR AVAILABLE CATTLE.
APPLES AND WATERMELONS! THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE!
CANADIANS HAD NO OPTIONS FOR THEIR CATTLE BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SELL THEM IN THE UNITED STATES. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR CONCRETE HEAD????
How many times do we need to go over this fact and you still bring it up? I guess it's because you don't have any better arguments.
You want to blame someone for Canadian producers suffering, blame R-CULT for keeping the border closed longer than it had to be.
SH:
Conman: "Why do you almost always take the packer side of every argument? Do you have something against producers getting their fair share?"
Why do you take the "BLAMING PACKER VICTIM" side of every argument? Do you have something against the truth?
I take the factual side of an argument while you take the blaming conspiracy side of the argument.
~SH~