• 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

Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
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!!!


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?



_________________
SH: Sandman has never trapped me. I trapped myself...
 
That post was kinda like lobbing a missle at a pharmaceutical buildling to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I'll bet you miss Slick Willie don't you?

Now, about explaining your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" statement?

Don't you think readers can recognize your dance steps?



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
That post was kinda like lobbing a missle at a pharmaceutical buildling to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I'll bet you miss Slick Willie don't you?

Now, about explaining your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" statement?

Don't you think readers can recognize your dance steps?



~SH~
Click to expand...

It was the discussion before you brought in your diverticuli. Start your own thread if you want. Diversion is another one of your tells.
 
Conman: "It was the discussion before you brought in your diverticuli. Start your own thread if you want. Diversion is another one of your tells."
Click to expand...

Hahaha! What's wrong Conman? Being exposed for a phony again?

All you have to do is explain your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" economic theory and you can regain your support group. Last I saw them, they were about a mile away still swimming for shore. Ooops, another one just jumped ship. SPLAT! Ouch, that had to hurt.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "It was the discussion before you brought in your diverticuli. Start your own thread if you want. Diversion is another one of your tells."
Click to expand...

Hahaha! What's wrong Conman? Being exposed for a phony again?

All you have to do is explain your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" economic theory and you can regain your support group. Last I saw them, they were about a mile away still swimming for shore. Ooops, another one just jumped ship. SPLAT! Ouch, that had to hurt.


~SH~
Click to expand...

SH, I don't need a support group but based on this thread Agman needs one. I have invited you to take that to another thread. This one is "Question for Agman", not SH.


Econ101
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:40 am Post subject:
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
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!!!


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?
 
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Conman: "It was the discussion before you brought in your diverticuli. Start your own thread if you want. Diversion is another one of your tells."
Click to expand...

Hahaha! What's wrong Conman? Being exposed for a phony again?

All you have to do is explain your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" economic theory and you can regain your support group. Last I saw them, they were about a mile away still swimming for shore. Ooops, another one just jumped ship. SPLAT! Ouch, that had to hurt.


~SH~
Click to expand...

SH, I don't need a support group but based on this thread Agman needs one. I have invited you to take that to another thread. This one is "Question for Agman", not SH.


Econ101
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:40 am Post subject:
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
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!!!


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?
Click to expand...

Once again you have skewed the facts by making this misstatement - "Since you had such important input in the discussion and in the paper." Where did I say I had anything to do with the paper your cite. The authors are clearly listed. My input, as I clearly explained, was with moving the industry toward a "Demand Index" in 1999 and away from a complex econometric model.

You don't even know the basics of economic analysis. Are your trying to suggest cross elasticities do not exit or are manipulated by packers or Tyson? Are you shocked to learn there are cross elasticities amongst the various meats?

If you disagree with their result - prove it? If you have another point to make then make it if you think you can.

There are only three things I have leaned from your posts. First, you are as dumb as a brick. You have little if any real knowledge of Economics, Law or the beef industry-you just imagine you do. Second, you are the world's best BS er; all talk, no facts ever. You even believe your own lies and misguided assumptions and allegations which are too numerous to cite. They accompany virtually every post you make. Third, I now know what a "total fraud" is by watching you dance and divert around every position. You continue to fool no one but yourself.
 
agman said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Hahaha! What's wrong Conman? Being exposed for a phony again?

All you have to do is explain your "prices can't go up unless supplies come down" economic theory and you can regain your support group. Last I saw them, they were about a mile away still swimming for shore. Ooops, another one just jumped ship. SPLAT! Ouch, that had to hurt.


~SH~
Click to expand...

SH, I don't need a support group but based on this thread Agman needs one. I have invited you to take that to another thread. This one is "Question for Agman", not SH.


Econ101
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:40 am Post subject:
Econ101
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1335
Location: TX

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
agman wrote:
Econ101 wrote:
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!!!


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?
Click to expand...

Once again you have skewed the facts by making this misstatement - "Since you had such important input in the discussion and in the paper." Where did I say I had anything to do with the paper your cite. The authors are clearly listed. My input, as I clearly explained, was with moving the industry toward a "Demand Index" in 1999 and away from a complex econometric model.

You don't even know the basics of economic analysis. Are your trying to suggest cross elasticities do not exit or are manipulated by packers or Tyson? Are you shocked to learn there are cross elasticities amongst the various meats?

If you disagree with their result - prove it? If you have another point to make then make it if you think you can.

There are only three things I have leaned from your posts. First, you are as dumb as a brick. You have little if any real knowledge of Economics, Law or the beef industry-you just imagine you do. Second, you are the world's best BS er; all talk, no facts ever. You even believe your own lies and misguided assumptions and allegations which are too numerous to cite. They accompany virtually every post you make. Third, I now know what a "total fraud" is by watching you dance and divert around every position. You continue to fool no one but yourself.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone is a little upset, Agman. Don't let it ruin your holiday.

I am not shocked to learn cross elasticities or anything else. I am shocked that both you and SH keep spewing the misinformation and diverticuli about the Pickett case and its points with such audacity. This post is one example. I asked you to do your little "demand" analysis on just a very limited number of years using the information from the paper you had so much influence on authored by Schroeder and others. You could not do it. Instead you have to write a post like this one.

NCBA/USDA has colluded with the packers to manipulate the market to get us to these higher prices we have today. The markets were damaged by an estimated 2 billion dollars. Tyson used its political influence on the hill to get away with it on both the Republican and Democrat sides. You have admitted as much on this forum.

It is time someone made you take your mask off. The wizard is a fake.
 
Conman: "NCBA/USDA has colluded with the packers to manipulate the market to get us to these higher prices we have today."
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, now NCBA and USDA have colluded with the packers to get higher prices. LOL! That's just as big a lie as suggesting that markets are being manipulated down.

Most every person on this forum has figured out that you are a complete phony and a compulsive liar.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Conman: "NCBA/USDA has colluded with the packers to manipulate the market to get us to these higher prices we have today."
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, now NCBA and USDA have colluded with the packers to get higher prices. LOL! That's just as big a lie as suggesting that markets are being manipulated down.

Most every person on this forum has figured out that you are a complete phony and a compulsive liar.


~SH~
Click to expand...

Agman brought that one to the board.
 
NO, YOU CLAIMED HE MADE THE STATEMENT, YOU BRING IT INSTEAD OF CREATING AN "ILLUSION" THAT HE MADE IT YOU LYING @%!&*!%^!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
NO, YOU CLAIMED HE MADE THE STATEMENT, YOU BRING IT INSTEAD OF CREATING AN "ILLUSION" THAT HE MADE IT YOU LYING @%!&*!%^!


~SH~
Click to expand...

Go read it yourself, SH. I am not your reading comprehension coach.
 
Another slippery diversion to avoid having to back your claim.

Pathetic !@$%^@!$!


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Another slippery diversion to avoid having to back your claim.

Pathetic !@$%^@!$!


~SH~
Click to expand...

I am not inclined to enter arguements you have with yourself or prove your false claims.

Do your own homework.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top