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

Psst, Sandhusker - rebuttal

Help Support Ranchers.net:

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
I would first like to say that VanSickle’s comments on page one are generally correct. Please note that he is objective enough to admit that the higher prices received in the U.S were not solely the result of the border closure. Having pointed that out many times myself, I am pleased to see him corroborate my position. I noted however, with special interest, that he failed to analyze the significance of the dramatic growth in domestic demand and the respective influence that gain also had in driving domestic prices higher. In sum, he only analyzed one-half of the price equation. That is par for R-Calf supporters. As previously mentioned, he also authored a piece in favor of MCOOL for R-Calf which also failed to analyze all pertinent data.

The first major flaw in his analysis of the economic impact of the resumption of trade with Canada is that it appears he assumes imports at the 2002 level of 1.68 million head. That is in conflict with his further stating that Canada has increased its daily kill capacity by 6,440 head. This, ironically, is approximately one-half the rate of weekly imports, pre-BSE. He further diminishes the importance of the new slaughter capacity in Canada by suggesting that it is mainly for cows and bulls over thirty months of age which will not be allowed into the U.S per the current published rule. As such, that added capacity would do little to stem the flow of fed cattle to U.S. slaughter plants. That assumption is a reach at best, and is wrong in that most plants, even smaller plants, are designed to handle various cattle types including fed steers and heifers. Thus, it is my belief that the added slaughter capacity will be in direct competition for many cattle previously destined for export to the U.S. This will limit the export of fed steers and heifers into the U.S. to a total well below pre-BSE levels, perhaps less than 50% of pre-BSE levels. He also does not account for this new slaughter capacity narrowing or limiting the price spread necessary to make exports an economically feasible venture. That, I believe, is another critical factor that was overlooked.

The latter condition is extremely relevant since, in his opinion, the import of slaughter cattle would limit expansion in U.S herds. There is no precedent for that occurrence. Of particular importance is this statement: “The increase in packer output due to increased supply from Canada was done by setting the regional purchase coefficient (RPC) for cattle to zero, FORCING (my emphasis) the model to import cattle for slaughter.” That is an assumption that in reality may be difficult or even impossible to achieve. He further stated: “The impacts are separated in our analysis to show the impact due to INCREASED (my emphasis) imports from Canada and the impact from DECREASED (my emphasis) production by U.S. cattle producers.” This dismisses the role of absolute price level paid to U.S producers and feed supply relative to production cost as a condition for U.S producers to expand. He incorrectly assumes that the level of Canadian cattle imports is the primary driver of herd expansion in the U.S. That is obviously a major oversight.

Finally, he assumes that the ban on Canadian beef exports imposed by some countries will remain in effect, thus creating a continued inherent price differential favorable to the export of cattle to the U.S. He states, “Clearly, the economic impact of the discovery of the BSE-infected Canadian cow in the U.S. is costing U.S. cattle producers. The new rule proposed by the USDA will increase those negative impacts by encouraging the economic displacement of U.S cattle producers by Canadian cattle producers, whose cattle are less expensive because of international import bans because of BSE in Canada.” This reasoning is flawed for three reasons. First, he dismissed the possibility that the import ban on Canadian beef in existence today by some countries could be lifted during the period of analysis, the years 2005-2007. Second, the so-called negative price differential he suggests will occur would have the opposite impact upon Canadian producers versus U.S producers. They would be less inclined to expand while producers in the premium market, U.S producers, would be more inclined to expand. Third, he makes no provision for the reduction of Canadian beef imports as those exported cattle enter the U.S. Thus, he is double counting the production from some cattle, thereby overstating the negative impact of the resumption of Canadian cattle imports.

In summation, the output from any model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions used to derive the output. In other words, Y is accurately predictable only if X is correct. If X is based upon unsupportable or incorrect assumptions, then the result derived at point Y is incorrect and meaningless. I believe the derived output from his efforts is a waste of good paper.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Agman: "In summation, the output from any model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions used to derive the output."

This is the general problem with models as I see it. That's why I believe it is best to use real data as much as possible to show what is happening. There is no doubt in my mind - from what I have read about VanSickle - that he is certainly smart enough to arrange a model with certain assumptions in order to create a certain desired outcome given what is known about all the factors that could be involved in a model. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few "what if" models were run with different assumptions before the "official model" was chosen. A lot of people do "what ifs."

The most amazing thing to me about VanSickle is that he is the Director of the Institute in relation to what I reported earlier - which is from his own bio on his page in the Center Faculty section - about his involvment in the past in other litigation trying to limit imports. Sounds to me like an advertisement for his services to anyone who wants to limit imports. I guess his being the Director is what allows him to say things like that. And then again, maybe that is the real intent of the entire "International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center" - to limit imports. I don't know for sure. Just wondering.

Be careful! Stick to the real numbers when you can.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Excellent analysis, agman. I haven't read the whole paper but even looking at the short version printed here, many of the numbers looked suspect.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
From the earlier article about VanSickle
Using data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) economic analysis of the agency’s Minimal Risk Region rule (Final Rule), VanSickle modeled the impacts of the Final Rule using a U.S. Input-Output model constructed with Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers. The model projected the impacts of the Final Rule for the period 2005 through 2007, and results were stated in 2005 dollars.

So are the erroneous assumptions and data you point out that VanSickle used from the USDA analysis or did he introduce something else? You didn't say.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
pointrider said:
Agman: "In summation, the output from any model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions used to derive the output."

This is the general problem with models as I see it. That's why I believe it is best to use real data as much as possible to show what is happening. There is no doubt in my mind - from what I have read about VanSickle - that he is certainly smart enough to arrange a model with certain assumptions in order to create a certain desired outcome given what is known about all the factors that could be involved in a model. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few "what if" models were run with different assumptions before the "official model" was chosen. A lot of people do "what ifs."

The most amazing thing to me about VanSickle is that he is the Director of the Institute in relation to what I reported earlier - which is from his own bio on his page in the Center Faculty section - about his involvment in the past in other litigation trying to limit imports. Sounds to me like an advertisement for his services to anyone who wants to limit imports. I guess his being the Director is what allows him to say things like that. And then again, maybe that is the real intent of the entire "International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center" - to limit imports. I don't know for sure. Just wondering.

Be careful! Stick to the real numbers when you can.

Pointrider, isn't what you are implying is that everyone has an agenda...except you and Agman, of course. :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
From the earlier article about VanSickle
Using data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) economic analysis of the agency’s Minimal Risk Region rule (Final Rule), VanSickle modeled the impacts of the Final Rule using a U.S. Input-Output model constructed with Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) multipliers. The model projected the impacts of the Final Rule for the period 2005 through 2007, and results were stated in 2005 dollars.

So are the erroneous assumptions and data you point out that VanSickle used from the USDA analysis or did he introduce something else? You didn't say.

The data from the USDA is not the problem. It is the assumptions made to derive the output from the model. I was very careful to outline some of the flaws with those assumptions. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
RobertMac said:
pointrider said:
Agman: "In summation, the output from any model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions used to derive the output."

This is the general problem with models as I see it. That's why I believe it is best to use real data as much as possible to show what is happening. There is no doubt in my mind - from what I have read about VanSickle - that he is certainly smart enough to arrange a model with certain assumptions in order to create a certain desired outcome given what is known about all the factors that could be involved in a model. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few "what if" models were run with different assumptions before the "official model" was chosen. A lot of people do "what ifs."

The most amazing thing to me about VanSickle is that he is the Director of the Institute in relation to what I reported earlier - which is from his own bio on his page in the Center Faculty section - about his involvment in the past in other litigation trying to limit imports. Sounds to me like an advertisement for his services to anyone who wants to limit imports. I guess his being the Director is what allows him to say things like that. And then again, maybe that is the real intent of the entire "International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center" - to limit imports. I don't know for sure. Just wondering.

Be careful! Stick to the real numbers when you can.

Pointrider, isn't what you are implying is that everyone has an agenda...except you and Agman, of course. :wink:

I am interested in getting the facts out to you. If you cannot acknowledge that then you have a real problem. It is the failure to accept facts that have caused your side to lose in every court case so far. How long will it take for you to admit you are just on the wrong side of the issues. That is what misinformation will get you every time-defeat.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
pointrider said:
Agman: "In summation, the output from any model is only as good as the validity of the assumptions used to derive the output."

This is the general problem with models as I see it. That's why I believe it is best to use real data as much as possible to show what is happening. There is no doubt in my mind - from what I have read about VanSickle - that he is certainly smart enough to arrange a model with certain assumptions in order to create a certain desired outcome given what is known about all the factors that could be involved in a model. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few "what if" models were run with different assumptions before the "official model" was chosen. A lot of people do "what ifs."

The most amazing thing to me about VanSickle is that he is the Director of the Institute in relation to what I reported earlier - which is from his own bio on his page in the Center Faculty section - about his involvment in the past in other litigation trying to limit imports. Sounds to me like an advertisement for his services to anyone who wants to limit imports. I guess his being the Director is what allows him to say things like that. And then again, maybe that is the real intent of the entire "International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center" - to limit imports. I don't know for sure. Just wondering.

Be careful! Stick to the real numbers when you can.

You are correct. A model is only as good as the input and the assumptions used in the X variable to derive the result or Y. In short, if one chooses to do so, anyone can produce any result they want by altering the assumptions regarding X variables. The output will reflect the change in those variables
 

Shorty

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
The data from the USDA is not the problem. It is the assumptions made to derive the output from the model. I was very careful to outline some of the flaws with those assumptions. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you.

Agman you are the most egotistical person I have read on this site. You must sleep very well at night thinking you are so much smarter than everyone else that reads this.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Shorty said:
The data from the USDA is not the problem. It is the assumptions made to derive the output from the model. I was very careful to outline some of the flaws with those assumptions. I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you.

Agman you are the most egotistical person I have read on this site. You must sleep very well at night thinking you are so much smarter than everyone else that reads this.

Which of my comments do you wish to challenge?
 

Shorty

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Which of my comments do you wish to challenge?

I do not challenge your research Agman. You come across, to me anyway, as one who thinks he knows more than anyone else.

"I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you."

This statement says a lot about you. IMO
Do you speak to your clients also in this manner?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Shorty said:
Which of my comments do you wish to challenge?

I do not challenge your research Agman. You come across, to me anyway, as one who thinks he knows more than anyone else.

"I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you."

This statement says a lot about you. IMO
Do you speak to your clients also in this manner?

I guess you are willing to overlook OCM's announced arrival on this forum. He was the one who issued a challenge to SH and myself while being certain to let us know that he was a debate judge. You seem to be long on opinion and SHORT on facts Shorty. When you cannot debate an issue you resort to your meaningless comments.

No, I have a great time with my clients. That is why many have been clients for 30 years. But then again, they are not the type who sit and complain and make excuses. They just want the facts so they can make a well informed business decision. That is why they lead and are leaders in vitrually every segment of the beef industry.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
agman said:
Shorty said:
Which of my comments do you wish to challenge?

I do not challenge your research Agman. You come across, to me anyway, as one who thinks he knows more than anyone else.

"I apologize if it was not written clearly enough for a sophisticate like you."

This statement says a lot about you. IMO
Do you speak to your clients also in this manner?

I guess you are willing to overlook OCM's announced arrival on this forum. He was the one who issued a challenge to SH and myself while being certain to let us know that he was a debate judge. You seem to be long on opinion and SHORT on facts Shorty. When you cannot debate an issue you resort to your meaningless comments.

No, I have a great time with my clients. That is why many have been clients for 30 years. But then again, they are not the type who sit and complain and make excuses. They just want the facts so they can make a well informed business decision. That is why they lead and are leaders in vitrually every segment of the beef industry.

Shorty, you penned the tail on Agman.
You see, Agman, it's not about the comments or facts you bring here, it's about your attitude. Neither you nor SH can have a discussion with someone you disagree without resorting to belittling comments. We each paint our on portrait with what we post here.

And 'my side'...it's that of the producer...beings that's been my only profession.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Unfortunately Robert Mac, your side is one the side of blame. Facts and truth mean nothing to you. You have been proven wrong more times than I care to count. You don't like our attitude because both of us have a real low tolerance for R-CULT's lies and deception. Look no further than R-CULT's lies about the safety of Canadian beef to see that the end (stopping Canadian live cattle imports) justifies the means (lying about the safety of Canadian beef).

R-CULT is everything that I loathe in the human race. Dishonesty, lies, deception, divertion, discrediting, anything to avoid the debate.

You think it's any mystery why Leo McDonnell, Mike Callicrate, and a host of other R-CULT supporters quit coming around? Just a few questions they couldn't answer and they vanished. BIG SURPRISE!

Sandman only stays around because he stays in his comfort zone and he can divert any issue thrown at him. I like that in Sandman because it just exposes more folks to what R-CULT is all about.

You guys bring opinions and theories. Agman brings the facts and so do I. None of you can contradict those facts. That's what really bothers you. That's why you are on the losing side in the courtroom as well.


~SH~
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
RobertMac said:
agman said:

I guess you are willing to overlook OCM's announced arrival on this forum. He was the one who issued a challenge to SH and myself while being certain to let us know that he was a debate judge. You seem to be long on opinion and SHORT on facts Shorty. When you cannot debate an issue you resort to your meaningless comments.

No, I have a great time with my clients. That is why many have been clients for 30 years. But then again, they are not the type who sit and complain and make excuses. They just want the facts so they can make a well informed business decision. That is why they lead and are leaders in vitrually every segment of the beef industry.

Shorty, you penned the tail on Agman.
You see, Agman, it's not about the comments or facts you bring here, it's about your attitude. Neither you nor SH can have a discussion with someone you disagree without resorting to belittling comments. We each paint our on portrait with what we post here.

And 'my side'...it's that of the producer...beings that's been my only profession.

You have found a partner, when you cannot back your position you resort to Shorty's commentary!!! How many times have I answered questions in a polite and courteous manner. What has your response been? If one chooses to play in the mud I can play that game also. Better luck next time RM.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
agman said:
RobertMac said:
agman said:
I guess you are willing to overlook OCM's announced arrival on this forum. He was the one who issued a challenge to SH and myself while being certain to let us know that he was a debate judge. You seem to be long on opinion and SHORT on facts Shorty. When you cannot debate an issue you resort to your meaningless comments.

No, I have a great time with my clients. That is why many have been clients for 30 years. But then again, they are not the type who sit and complain and make excuses. They just want the facts so they can make a well informed business decision. That is why they lead and are leaders in vitrually every segment of the beef industry.

Shorty, you penned the tail on Agman.
You see, Agman, it's not about the comments or facts you bring here, it's about your attitude. Neither you nor SH can have a discussion with someone you disagree without resorting to belittling comments. We each paint our on portrait with what we post here.

And 'my side'...it's that of the producer...beings that's been my only profession.

You have found a partner, when you cannot back your position you resort to Shorty's commentary!!! How many times have I answered questions in a polite and courteous manner. What has your response been? If one chooses to play in the mud I can play that game also. Better luck next time RM.

Come on, Agman, get real...what HAS been my response to your and SH's belittling personal comments???? Or are you just trying to provoke me? Not that I can't be, but that ain't going to do it :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
RobertMac said:
agman said:
RobertMac said:
Shorty, you penned the tail on Agman.
You see, Agman, it's not about the comments or facts you bring here, it's about your attitude. Neither you nor SH can have a discussion with someone you disagree without resorting to belittling comments. We each paint our on portrait with what we post here.

And 'my side'...it's that of the producer...beings that's been my only profession.

You have found a partner, when you cannot back your position you resort to Shorty's commentary!!! How many times have I answered questions in a polite and courteous manner. What has your response been? If one chooses to play in the mud I can play that game also. Better luck next time RM.

Come on, Agman, get real...what HAS been my response to your and SH's belittling personal comments???? Or are you just trying to provoke me? Not that I can't be, but that ain't going to do it :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

I will clarify. What has your response been to positive information and facts which I have posted? Do I ever hear a "thanks for bringing that to my attention". How many times have you seen me respond with a positive notation when someone posted pertinent factual data or positive information? If I failed to acknowledge such a post I will apologize for my over sight.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
I will clarify. I appreciate the information you post whether I agree with it or not. If I've never thanked you before, I thank you now.
 

Latest posts

Top