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

Question for Agman

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, what was the date of the meeting you described with Chuck Lambert on increasing "demand" for beef and how did you do it?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman, what was the date of the meeting you described with Chuck Lambert on increasing "demand" for beef and how did you do it?

It would have been in July of 1999. The meeting was not with Chuck Lambert. He was there along with the other Ag-Economists I mentioned. What do you mean by "how did you do it"?

We proceeded to have a two day discussion on improving beef demand and how best to disseminate any changes in demand to producers. It was concluded that an index, giving producers one trackable number, would be best for the industry. Thus the "Demand Index" was developed. Dr Purcell volunteered to develop the index which is used by the industry today and maintained by KSU.

The index was developed versus initial suggestions to develop an econometric model similar to that developed by Dr Ron Ward. Had the meeting proceeded in that direction Dr Schroeder was selected to develop the econometric model. It was determined at my urging that there was insufficient time and an econometric model was too complex. As such, it would serve little purpose to the NCBA or producers. Dr Schroeder and others present at the meeting agreed with my assessment and recommendation. The rest is history.

I run my own demand data and index on all the meats.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Would you like to, in turn, explain your economic theories on how supplies must come down before prices can go up?

Ag economists everywhere are hanging on the edge of their seats to learn of this fascinating theory of yours.

Explain please...........



~SH~
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Goes back to my question, "have you ECON, ever had published papers to support your ideas?"

You weren't one of the economists proven wrong in a court case were you? Axe to Grind?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman, what was the date of the meeting you described with Chuck Lambert on increasing "demand" for beef and how did you do it?

It would have been in July of 1999. The meeting was not with Chuck Lambert. He was there along with the other Ag-Economists I mentioned. What do you mean by "how did you do it"?

We proceeded to have a two day discussion on improving beef demand and how best to disseminate any changes in demand to producers. It was concluded that an index, giving producers one trackable number, would be best for the industry. Thus the "Demand Index" was developed. Dr Purcell volunteered to develop the index which is used by the industry today and maintained by KSU.

The index was developed versus initial suggestions to develop an econometric model similar to that developed by Dr Ron Ward. Had the meeting proceeded in that direction Dr Schroeder was selected to develop the econometric model. It was determined at my urging that there was insufficient time and an econometric model was too complex. As such, it would serve little purpose to the NCBA or producers. Dr Schroeder and others present at the meeting agreed with my assessment and recommendation. The rest is history.

I run my own demand data and index on all the meats.

Agman, did you discuss the Pickett case? Parity was a concept made up a long time ago too. It is not used today. Models such as the one you tout are not very useful except to point out changes from one time period to another.

Have you done the calculations based on Schroeder's report for the years 2001 to 2003? All of Schroeder's calculations are based on an economic assumption that all other things are held constant. They never are. If his report has any real value, his theorized numbers he came up with would work. It is useful in allowing some people to understand demand a little better and has some value there. To use it as a benchmark for the calculated values is about as useful as using parity today. I'll give you a hint, it is not being used.

The confusion over the model is just meant to make a few select people the "experts".

How did you "smart" people come up with "shifting demand" upwards, as you say, Agman? Do you still disagree with my verbage of "tight supplies"?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman, what was the date of the meeting you described with Chuck Lambert on increasing "demand" for beef and how did you do it?

It would have been in July of 1999. The meeting was not with Chuck Lambert. He was there along with the other Ag-Economists I mentioned. What do you mean by "how did you do it"?

We proceeded to have a two day discussion on improving beef demand and how best to disseminate any changes in demand to producers. It was concluded that an index, giving producers one trackable number, would be best for the industry. Thus the "Demand Index" was developed. Dr Purcell volunteered to develop the index which is used by the industry today and maintained by KSU.

The index was developed versus initial suggestions to develop an econometric model similar to that developed by Dr Ron Ward. Had the meeting proceeded in that direction Dr Schroeder was selected to develop the econometric model. It was determined at my urging that there was insufficient time and an econometric model was too complex. As such, it would serve little purpose to the NCBA or producers. Dr Schroeder and others present at the meeting agreed with my assessment and recommendation. The rest is history.

I run my own demand data and index on all the meats.

Agman, did you discuss the Pickett case? Parity was a concept made up a long time ago too. It is not used today. Models such as the one you tout are not very useful except to point out changes from one time period to another.

Have you done the calculations based on Schroeder's report for the years 2001 to 2003? All of Schroeder's calculations are based on an economic assumption that all other things are held constant. They never are. If his report has any real value, his theorized numbers he came up with would work. It is useful in allowing some people to understand demand a little better and has some value there. To use it as a benchmark for the calculated values is about as useful as using parity today. I'll give you a hint, it is not being used.

The confusion over the model is just meant to make a few select people the "experts".

How did you "smart" people come up with "shifting demand" upwards, as you say, Agman? Do you still disagree with my verbage of "tight supplies"?

Your tight supply point of view is a mute point and as senseless as most of your positions. Those so called "smart people" understand how to measure demand and you obviously do not. They do actual research rather than hypothesize and fabricate phony conclusions as you do. How do you explain demand when beef consumption and total meat consumption are higher accompanied by higher beef prices? When if ever have we had that condition?

You are questioning their research capability when you just recently discovered the trends in per capita beef supply! How did you draw your conclusions without knowing such a basic and essential factor relevant and necessary to determine the level or changes in beef demand? I can't wait to hear this line from you!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Go plug in the numbers of Schroeder's figures in his article, Agman. Do your little analysis. I have challenged you more than once on this. You need to stop hiding behind your little "superior knowledge" when you can not show your work.

I challenge you, 2001- 2003. Not too much work for you, eh?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Go plug in the numbers of Schroeder's figures in his article, Agman. Do your little analysis. I have challenged you more than once on this. You need to stop hiding behind your little "superior knowledge" when you can not show your work.

I challenge you, 2001- 2003. Not too much work for you, eh?

The purpose of the model was to do precisely what you claim it does-measure demand changes over time. What a laugh, you have not challenged me once. You would not know where to begin and you most certainly would not succeed. Why not answer my questions?

When have you ever shown any facts to support your endless assumptions and allegations? What a joke.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Go plug in the numbers of Schroeder's figures in his article, Agman. Do your little analysis. I have challenged you more than once on this. You need to stop hiding behind your little "superior knowledge" when you can not show your work.

I challenge you, 2001- 2003. Not too much work for you, eh?

What a laugh, you have not challenged me once. You would not know where to begin and you most certainly would not succeed. Why not answer my questions?

When have you ever shown any facts to support your endless assumptions and allegations? What a joke.

I might start answering your questions if you will start answering mine. Can you not do it? Schroeder's paper has been posted before.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Go plug in the numbers of Schroeder's figures in his article, Agman. Do your little analysis. I have challenged you more than once on this. You need to stop hiding behind your little "superior knowledge" when you can not show your work.

I challenge you, 2001- 2003. Not too much work for you, eh?

What a laugh, you have not challenged me once. You would not know where to begin and you most certainly would not succeed. Why not answer my questions?

When have you ever shown any facts to support your endless assumptions and allegations? What a joke.

I might start answering your questions if you will start answering mine. Can you not do it? Schroeder's paper has been posted before.

Why should I, he has already done the work. If you want to disprove his analysis then do so. Can't you do that? Another baseless assumpiton with no supporting facts from you-that is a real shocker!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
What a laugh, you have not challenged me once. You would not know where to begin and you most certainly would not succeed. Why not answer my questions?

When have you ever shown any facts to support your endless assumptions and allegations? What a joke.

I might start answering your questions if you will start answering mine. Can you not do it? Schroeder's paper has been posted before.

Why should I, he has already done the work. If you want to disprove his analysis then do so. Can't you do that? Another baseless assumpiton with no supporting facts from you-that is a real shocker!!!

I thought you were taking credit for it. Sure sounded like it to me. Why do you think I chose that paper? The wizard might have something for you, too.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
I might start answering your questions if you will start answering mine. Can you not do it? Schroeder's paper has been posted before.

Why should I, he has already done the work. If you want to disprove his analysis then do so. Can't you do that? Another baseless assumpiton with no supporting facts from you-that is a real shocker!!!

I thought you were taking credit for it. Sure sounded like it to me. Why do you think I chose that paper? The wizard might have something for you, too.

Did I say I authored that study, if so, where? The authors were listed. I provided a summation of those who were present at the meeting when the "Demand Index" used today was conceived at my urging.

You here strange sounds like people tapping your phone. You are not very stable nor are you knowledgeable about this industry. You continue to fool only yourself.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Why should I, he has already done the work. If you want to disprove his analysis then do so. Can't you do that? Another baseless assumpiton with no supporting facts from you-that is a real shocker!!!

I thought you were taking credit for it. Sure sounded like it to me. Why do you think I chose that paper? The wizard might have something for you, too.

Did I say I authored that study, if so, where? The authors were listed. I provided a summation of those who were present at the meeting when the "Demand Index" used today was conceived at my urging.

You here strange sounds like people tapping your phone. You are not very stable nor are you knowledgeable about this industry. You continue to fool only yourself.

I did not say you authored it. I said that your post indicated that you were trying to take credit for it. Please read my posts carefully so you do not misunderstand them. Read every word and put them together slowly. Then try to understand them. This might be helpful in our discussions. If you care to argue with yourself, please do not include me.

Since you had such important input in the discussion and in the paper, how well do you say the substitution numbers calculated for pork and poultry have held up in the year 2001 to 2003, the time of the supposed "shift in demand" that you claim?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

I am still waiting for the explanation for your "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" theory.

I suspect I'll be waiting for quite some time huh? LOL!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman,

I am still waiting for the explanation for your "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down" theory.

I suspect I'll be waiting for quite some time huh? LOL!


~SH~

What, are you tied to Agman on the hip? Is he not big enough to carry on his on discussion without you bringing in the diverticuli that you are so known for?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Go read the other threads, this one is not for that discussion. I have written on that elsewhere. Did Agman call you and tell you to run interference for him?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Can I take that as another kind of "no"? LOL!

Surprise, surprise!


Conman: " Did Agman call you and tell you to run interference for him?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your arrogance is absolutely astounding. Why would Agman call me to run interference for him when you are your own interference? LOL!

Guess what Conman? Agman needs no help from me swatting mosquitos either.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Can I take that as another kind of "no"? LOL!

Surprise, surprise!


Conman: " Did Agman call you and tell you to run interference for him?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your arrogance is absolutely astounding. Why would Agman call me to run interference for him when you are your own interference? LOL!

Guess what Conman? Agman needs no help from me swatting mosquitos either.


~SH~

Then why did you volunteer to hijack this thread? Maybe you are just annoying. I find you quite humorous.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How can I be annoying and humorous?

You really are confused.

Would you like to explain your "prices can't go up unless the supplies come down theory"?

Yes or no?

Or can we expect another diversion?


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top