• 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 Elementary Economics

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary,

Let's get past one issue shall we?

You claim that the difference between this week's cash cattle that will be killed this week and this week's formula cattle that will be killed this week is proof of market manipulation. That was your claim.

I suppose now you are going to deny saying that huh?

Don't make me go back and get your quotes so you can slither out of it. Be a man and stand by your position.

Do you understand that this week's cash cattle market is based on this week's supply and demand factors and that this week's "NON NEGOTIATED" formula cattle are based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price?

Do you understand that?

If so, how can you claim market manipulation due to a difference between the cash price and the formula price when they are based on seperate weeks?

If supply and demand factors do not change from week to week, then why do prices change?


I think you know you cannot defend your position so you resort to diversion to avoid being pegged.

On the other hand, I admit when I am wrong knowing that desperate little parasites like Sandman will have a feeding frenzy with it.

Either back your position or admit that you can't. Be a man and quit slithering for once.

Observe folks...............

Any bets on whether Elementary Economics will try to explain his position, whether he will run off on an unrelated topic to divert, or whether he will admit that he's wrong.

Anyone placing any bets?

I'm betting he won't touch trying to explain how the formula and cash price from seperate weeks should be the same. He doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to find what he can find to support his anti corporate packer blaming bias.


~SH~
 

Econ101

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

Let's get past one issue shall we?

You claim that the difference between this week's cash cattle that will be killed this week and this week's formula cattle that will be killed this week is proof of market manipulation. That was your claim.

I suppose now you are going to deny saying that huh?

Don't make me go back and get your quotes so you can slither out of it. Be a man and stand by your position.

Do you understand that this week's cash cattle market is based on this week's supply and demand factors and that this week's "NON NEGOTIATED" formula cattle are based on the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price?

Do you understand that?

If so, how can you claim market manipulation due to a difference between the cash price and the formula price when they are based on seperate weeks?

If supply and demand factors do not change from week to week, then why do prices change?


I think you know you cannot defend your position so you resort to diversion to avoid being pegged.

On the other hand, I admit when I am wrong knowing that desperate little parasites like Sandman will have a feeding frenzy with it.

Either back your position or admit that you can't. Be a man and quit slithering for once.

Observe folks...............

Any bets on whether Elementary Economics will try to explain his position, whether he will run off on an unrelated topic to divert, or whether he will admit that he's wrong.

Anyone placing any bets?

I'm betting he won't touch trying to explain how the formula and cash price from seperate weeks should be the same. He doesn't want to know the truth, he wants to find what he can find to support his anti corporate packer blaming bias.


~SH~

Even you admitted that the delivery could be the same. Are you arguing that the formula is a futures market?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary: "Even you admitted that the delivery could be the same."

Delivery has nothing to do with it. The cattle were priced in seperate weeks.

TRY AGAIN!


Elementary: "Are you arguing that the formula is a futures market?"

No, I'm stating that most "NON NEGOTIATED" formula cattle are based on
the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price. That is the formula used to determine the base price.

Now answer my questions and quit diverting them.


Why would the formula and cash price be the same if the supply and demand factors for each week were not the same?

Quit being a slime ball and explain your position.



~SH~
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
~SH~ - "Any bets on whether Elementary Economics will try to explain his position, whether he will run off on an unrelated topic to divert, or whether he will admit that he's wrong.

Anyone placing any bets? "

I'm not a gambler,but if I was, my money would be on his use of the old "Who is Elementary Economics"/ "Nobody here named Sandman" dodge. A classic worm-out!!!
:D :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, There was essentially no difference in time between the two markets in either the time the purchase was made or the time of delivery. You go ahead and call your self smart as many times as you want(by calling other people stupdid), but it doesn't prove that you are smart. If the characteristics of both were the same, then it really doesn't matter what you call either of them. A rose by any other name.....

A discrimination of the cash market makes by definition, the formula price for next week go down. The only amount that the packers had to worry about was enough to fill their kill slots. The more they filled the formula, the more they could lower the cash price. This type of market situation does not send price signals down to producers that is helpful to maximize efficiency in the market. It creates deadweight losses. This is exactly why parts a) and b) of the PSA was written. If the testimony in the trial was that the buyers for the packers were discriminating against the cash market, and the jury was to be the judge of that, then there was evidence presented, the appellate courts just did not believe it. That is a big difference between a "mere scintella" of evidence and evidence through testimony.

Tyson had the ability to show this was not the case in their discovery and Mike from Alabama posted where they were asked in the trial for this evidence. They had plenty of opportunities to defend themselves with this asked for evidence and they did not present it. If you are caught trying to hide something in court, usually the people judging the issues pick that up. This wasn't even a judgement on someone not telling the truth, this was evidence that Tyson did not present when asked. Jurors see through this a lot of the time and that is why their decision, unless real mistakes can be pointed out by the judge, need to stand.

I think the law that is enumerated in Section 202 a and b is pretty clear. It only takes people like you and Agman who don't have reading comprehension skills to mess up the interpretation. Your efforts of asking a question and seemingly get a meaning out of it that was never there is amazing, but it shows your capacity for logic is degraded by your biases.

These court decisions have all of the attributes I have seen you and even Agman use in your diversionary tactics and use of evidence in a biased fashion. Agman likes to use his industry trivia that he probably works with on an everyday basis as something that makes him an expert on issues but by not answering my question I posed on consumer/packer/producer surplus and RPA questions, he shows his economic reasoning limits.

I should remind you that the operative parts of Section 202 contain economic reasoning that both you, Agman, and the appellate courts have all had a very lackluster showing on comprehension. If it is this easy to fool judges in the 11th circuit, maybe we, as taxpayers, should ask for some of our money back. The politicians who helped get us into government that is this incompetent should also be held accountable.

Why not? Every honest farmer or ranchers is.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
SH, There was essentially no difference in time between the two markets in either the time the purchase was made or the time of delivery. You go ahead and call your self smart as many times as you want(by calling other people stupdid), but it doesn't prove that you are smart. If the characteristics of both were the same, then it really doesn't matter what you call either of them. A rose by any other name.....

A discrimination of the cash market makes by definition, the formula price for next week go down. The only amount that the packers had to worry about was enough to fill their kill slots. The more they filled the formula, the more they could lower the cash price. This type of market situation does not send price signals down to producers that is helpful to maximize efficiency in the market. It creates deadweight losses. This is exactly why parts a) and b) of the PSA was written. If the testimony in the trial was that the buyers for the packers were discriminating against the cash market, and the jury was to be the judge of that, then there was evidence presented, the appellate courts just did not believe it. That is a big difference between a "mere scintella" of evidence and evidence through testimony.

Tyson had the ability to show this was not the case in their discovery and Mike from Alabama posted where they were asked in the trial for this evidence. They had plenty of opportunities to defend themselves with this asked for evidence and they did not present it. If you are caught trying to hide something in court, usually the people judging the issues pick that up. This wasn't even a judgement on someone not telling the truth, this was evidence that Tyson did not present when asked. Jurors see through this a lot of the time and that is why their decision, unless real mistakes can be pointed out by the judge, need to stand.

I think the law that is enumerated in Section 202 a and b is pretty clear. It only takes people like you and Agman who don't have reading comprehension skills to mess up the interpretation. Your efforts of asking a question and seemingly get a meaning out of it that was never there is amazing, but it shows your capacity for logic is degraded by your biases.

These court decisions have all of the attributes I have seen you and even Agman use in your diversionary tactics and use of evidence in a biased fashion. Agman likes to use his industry trivia that he probably works with on an everyday basis as something that makes him an expert on issues but by not answering my question I posed on consumer/packer/producer surplus and RPA questions, he shows his economic reasoning limits.

I should remind you that the operative parts of Section 202 contain economic reasoning that both you, Agman, and the appellate courts have all had a very lackluster showing on comprehension. If it is this easy to fool judges in the 11th circuit, maybe we, as taxpayers, should ask for some of our money back. The politicians who helped get us into government that is this incompetent should also be held accountable.

Why not? Every honest farmer or ranchers is.

Why would anyone answer any question from you? You are a pure fraud. You just make accusations and want others to prove they are not so. The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. As a self-professed legal expert you should know that is elementary.

Lackluster comprehension....you don't even know the basics of this industry yet you CLAIM you know more than the judges. No one is surprised by your claim which is as unsupportable as your claim of backroom meetings in the Pickett case. Simple question that your simple mind cannot answer. Who was there, when and where did these CLAIMED meetings occur? You made the accusation or was that just a bold faced lie? The burden of proof is yours. Don't hold your breath readers, the master of accusation, Con101, has not backed up one claim to-date.

Dancing again are you or are you dreaming up another phony accusation to divert attention once again!!!!! Try telling people again that your phone is tapped.

Hold on...one more simple question? How did you determine any change in demand when you did not even know the critical "X" factor, per capita supply? Did you think you could slip that one by all of us econ neophytes. Are you not the man who CLAIMED he was going to school me on economics? You are just way too easy. Do you have any students remaining in you classroom or have they too wised up to your fraud?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
No, I'm stating that most "NON NEGOTIATED" formula cattle are based on
the weekly weighted average of last week's cash price. That is the formula used to determine the base price.

~SH~

That is not an accurate statement.

By way of illustration let's use the November 2005 calendar. We will look at cattle that will be slaughtered the week beginning Monday November 21.

By Monday the 14th all formula cattle to be delivered the week of the 21st are committed. Packers now know how many cash cattle they have to buy. They typically wait until Thurs or Fri (the 17th or 18th) to make cash purchases. The cattle they buy on the 17th & 18th establish the price of formula cattle committed no later than the 14th.

The formula cattle in this example will be slaughtered the week of the 21st.
The cash cattle in this example will be slaughtered the week of the 21st.

The cash cattle SOLD AFTER THE FORMULA CATTLE ARE COMMITTED BUT BEFORE THEY ARE DELIVERED establish the price for the formula cattle.

If you sell on formula you CANNOT know what the cash price is that your cattle's price will be based on
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
I don't understand anybody selling on formula or grid! They are being taken advantage of!

Haymaker says fats aren't sold on the cash market in the US, I would think this would be the way to go!

You could determine the quality b4 you buy! No quality, no sale!

This would help the producer, in that they could hold them back, until they had the quality. Wouldn't supply suppression raise prices?

It would also help the packer out! They could run their plants on an "if we have cattle basis"

If a buyer fills a truck, then we call the employees in to work!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary, read this very carefully because I'm really going to try to help you to better understand this.

I'm sorry I can't bring myself to call you Econ. 101 after the ridiculous things you have posted. You simply are not worthy of that title.


Elementary: "SH, There was essentially no difference in time between the two markets in either the time the purchase was made or the time of delivery."

THAT IS WRONG!!!

IF THE "NON" NEGOTIATED FORMULA CATTLE (most formula cattle have weekly weighted average base prices from the week prior) AND THE CASH CATTLE WERE DELIVERED IN THE SAME WEEK, THEIR PRICES WERE FROM SEPERATE WEEKS.

THE FORMULA CATTLE IN QUESTION THAT ARE DELIVERED THIS WEEK HAVE THEIR BASE PRICE ESTABLISHED FROM LAST WEEK'S WEIGHTED AVERAGE CASH PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!! THE CASH CATTLE DELIVERED THIS WEEK ARE BASED ON THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE.

You cannot objectively compare a cash market price and a formula market price on cattle delivered in the same week BECAUSE THEIR PRICES ARE BASED ON SEPERATE WEEKS.

Each week has it's own supply and demand factors playing on that price.

If I sell my cattle this week for delivery next week on the formula, my base price will be the weekly weighted average of this week's cash price and they will be delivered next week. You can't compare this week's cash price to next week's cash price. The two markets are not the same. They are from two seperate weeks.

WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?????????????

How many more times do I need to explain it to you before you understand it? I seriously doubt you ever will. You simply cannot get it through your concrete head.

I just went and dug out a formula pricing system from Angus Gene Net. These cattle are sold to Swift but Tyson uses the same "FORMULA" base pricing system of the weekly weighted average cash price the week prior.

Option 1 Formula
start price* = USDA Wt. Avg.

USDA Previous Weeks "Weekly Weighted Average Dressed Beef Price"


Option 2 Bid = Start Price*

Call our Corporate office before cattle trade for the week to get the bid price.

All cattle feeders have this "Bid" option available to them in the formula with Angus Gene Net or they can sell in the cash market.


Elementary: "You go ahead and call your self smart as many times as you want(by calling other people stupdid), but it doesn't prove that you are smart."

That's right! Saying someone is stupid proves nothing WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I have just provided that supporting evidence. You still do not understand formula and cash market differences. I don't normally call people stupid unless they don't have a clue what they are talking about while trying to discredit someone who does while acting like they do know what they are talking about. That'd be you!


Elementary: "A discrimination of the cash market makes by definition, the formula price for next week go down."

LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST WROTE!!!!!!!!!!

You just contradicted your last statement.

You just admitted that formula prices and cash prices are from seperate weeks. Well, if you finally understand that this week's cash price affects next week's formula price, then how can you say there was no difference in time between the two markets in either the time the purchase was made or the time of delivery?

YOU ARE SO DAMN BUSTED! Why don't you sit back, take a deep breath, think about this then respond. I'm not vindictive. I'm not wanting to make you look stupid. What pisses me off about you is that you act like you know so much then try to belittle me when I do know what I'm talking about.

Now if you want to argue something, argue this point. Argue that because Tyson had most of their needs filled by the formula cattle, they dropped their cash price. In dropping their cash price, this affected the base price for next week's formula price. USE THAT ARGUMENT! At least that has a little more merit than your contradicting arguments.

Hey, I'm trying to help you out here because I actually feel sorry for you. LOL!

Use that argument and let me bust it for you because producers have the cash option next week as an alternative to the formula market. They can also use Angus Gene Net and bid the formula base price if they insist on selling on the grid with a negotiated price AND THEY DID IT WITHOUT THE COMMUNIST CAPTIVE SUPPLY REFORM ACT.

The fact that all producers/feeders have numerous market alternatives available to them with numerous packers also blows the hell of the market manipulation conspiracy theory.


Elementary: "The only amount that the packers had to worry about was enough to fill their kill slots. The more they filled the formula, the more they could lower the cash price."

That's exactly right. There's nothing illegal about dropping your price as your needs are filled. That is not market manipulation but you could argue that this is discriminatory. The jury would buy that. The trouble with that is that a smart Judge is going to look at that and say, "Hold your horses, that would have applications in every segment of this industry". If a bull buyer drops the price he's willing to pay as his needs are met, that is discriminatory. If a salebarn order buyer drops his price as his needs are met, that is discriminatory. You can't regulate this "socialism" on the packing industry and not have it apply to every other segment of this industry. That's where the Judge steps in and says, "NO CAN DO".

I can easily see how a jury could be convinced that dropping your price as your needs are met would qualify as discriminatory under the PSA but that is not the intent of the PSA. If you read the history of the PSA, the biggest motive was "price fixing" which is very anti competitive. If Tyson, Excel, and Swift got their heads together and set the price of live cattle, that would be a PSA violation extraordinaire.


Elementary: "This type of market situation does not send price signals down to producers that is helpful to maximize efficiency in the market. It creates deadweight losses. This is exactly why parts a) and b) of the PSA was written."

Every producer/feeder had the option of selling on the formula or the grid or they could have bid the grid on Angus Gene Net. When some producers did and other's didn't that was their tough luck but they still had other marketing options which will not allow a PSA violation to occur.

Judge Strom stated in his ruling that there was no PSA violation and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. He also sited similar court cases that reached the same conclusions based on the same market manipulation allegations.


Elementary: "If the testimony in the trial was that the buyers for the packers were discriminating against the cash market, and the jury was to be the judge of that, then there was evidence presented, the appellate courts just did not believe it. That is a big difference between a "mere scintella" of evidence and evidence through testimony."

The difference in what the jury saw and what Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw is that the discrimination of dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are filled in the formula market does not constitute a PSA violation.


Elementary: "Tyson had the ability to show this was not the case in their discovery and Mike from Alabama posted where they were asked in the trial for this evidence. They had plenty of opportunities to defend themselves with this asked for evidence and they did not present it. If you are caught trying to hide something in court, usually the people judging the issues pick that up. This wasn't even a judgement on someone not telling the truth, this was evidence that Tyson did not present when asked. Jurors see through this a lot of the time and that is why their decision, unless real mistakes can be pointed out by the judge, need to stand."

Tyson flat out admitted that as the captive supply price goes up the cash market goes down BUT THAT IS TYSON'S PRICE, NOT THE INDUSTRY PRICE. Producers/feeders still have other marketing options with Excel, Swift, USPB, and all of the various formulas and grids for each of them not to mention all of the level two packers like Omaha Beef, etc.

The stalemate that you and I could reach and agree to disagree on is whether ibp dropping their price as their needs are met constitutes a PSA violation of discrimination. I say absolutely not since this is a common business practice and a typical function of supply and demand which would have consequences in other areas of this industry as previously noted.

If ibp truly had the ability to hold down prices, PRICES WOULDN'T GO UP!

If IBP can only manipulate markets to the tune of $26 per head, they are doing a piss poor job of it IN THEIR BEST YEARS.


Elementary: "I think the law that is enumerated in Section 202 a and b is pretty clear. It only takes people like you and Agman who don't have reading comprehension skills to mess up the interpretation."

Hahaha! Listen to you. You are so damn arrogant for not having any clue what you are talking about. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit interpreted it, not Agman or I. I simply understand and agree with their interpretation. To suggest that dropping your price as your needs are met constitutes a PSA violation of discrimination opens the door wide open for similar lawsuits in every segment of this industry. Thank God we have intelligent enough Judges to understand the consequences of such stupidity. Wish I could say the same for the Judges that allowed the taking of private property for a local business.


Elementary: "Your efforts of asking a question and seemingly get a meaning out of it that was never there is amazing, but it shows your capacity for logic is degraded by your biases."

I have no bias other than the truth. Absolutely none! If anything, my bias would be against the packers since I have had some arm wrestling matches with them myself in pricing fat cattle. Either way, I am going to stand up for what is right regardless how unpopular it might be with the blamers in this industry.

On the other hand, your packer blaming anti corporate bias absolutely screams.


Elementary: "These court decisions have all of the attributes I have seen you and even Agman use in your diversionary tactics and use of evidence in a biased fashion. Agman likes to use his industry trivia that he probably works with on an everyday basis as something that makes him an expert on issues but by not answering my question I posed on consumer/packer/producer surplus and RPA questions, he shows his economic reasoning limits."

More cheap talk! Imagine that...........ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!


Elementary: "I should remind you that the operative parts of Section 202 contain economic reasoning that both you, Agman, and the appellate courts have all had a very lackluster showing on comprehension."

More cheap talk! Imagine that...........ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!


Bring something to the table besides your boring, empty discrediting disertations. You are so......without!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "If you sell on formula you CANNOT know what the cash price is that your cattle's price will be based on."

If you "bid the grid" through Angus Gene Net, you can know what your base price will be and still sell your cattle on the grid. Every producer/feeder has that option and they don't need the communist Captive Supply Reform Act to accomplish it.


I don't see where you contradicted anything that I stated. All you did is clarify it. This week's formula price is based on last week's weekly weighted average cash price. I know because I have sold cattle on the grid with a formula price.

Have you answered my questions regarding the CSRA yet? I think they were on one of the "socialism" posts. Explain yourself and answer them rather than R-CALFing me by making a statement without being held accountable for it.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
THE FORMULA CATTLE IN QUESTION THAT ARE DELIVERED THIS WEEK HAVE THEIR BASE PRICE ESTABLISHED FROM LAST WEEK'S WEIGHTED AVERAGE CASH PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!! THE CASH CATTLE DELIVERED THIS WEEK ARE BASED ON THIS WEEK'S CASH PRICE.


This is inaccurate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cash cattle are not delivered until the week after they are sold.

We sold on the cash market many times. Sell on Thursday or Friday (with price established. Deliver sometime Monday thru Friday the next week.

THE CASH CATTLE DELIVERED THIS WEEK WERE BOUGHT, PRICED, AND ESTABLISHED LAST WEEKS CASH MARKET.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH and Agman,

It seems that reality is getting in the way of your defenses. I am sure that is exactly what the jury saw.

Let us get these inconsistencies hashed out and stop jumping to conclusions, unless you are just scared.

Can the cash cattle and formula cattle be delivered for slaughter on the same day as OCM states and as SH has already admitted?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary: "Let us get these inconsistencies hashed out and stop jumping to conclusions, unless you are just scared."

Listen to you! Scared? OF WHAT???

Give me a break with your arrogance Elementary. It's sickening considering the fact that you never bring anything to the table to support your position. Naturally you immediately gravitate towards anyone that questions anything that Agman or I say which shows how truly lost and biased you are.


I can already see what is happening here.

Before we go any further, to avoid any diversions, I am going to make absolutely certain that we are all on the same page regarding the basis of the Pickett plaintiffs argument and the motive behind the Captive Supply Reform Act.

The Pickett Plaintiffs argument and the motive behind the Captive Supply Reform Act was/is that the price of the cash cattle was discriminated against in comparison to the price of the formula cattle delivered in the same week.

Do you agree with that statement Elementary? Yes or no?

Do you agree with that statement OCM? Yes or no?

A simple yes or no answer then I will address the issues of delivery and pricing that have already been brought up.

Let's set delivery and pricing on the table for one minute and make sure we are all on the same page regarding the "PERCEIVED" problem. I don't want anyone squirming out of this and that includes myself.

Scared........sheeeesh!

I'll get back to your question on delivery Elementary, let's make sure we have properly defined the "PERCEIVED" problem first.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The Pickett plaintiffs said contracts were being used to lower cash prices - which thus lowered prices that used the cash price as a base.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Both.

The "captive" part means the part of supply controlled by packers through a few different contractual mechanisms, out right ownership, and foreign supplies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary: "Both.

The "captive" part means the part of supply controlled by packers through a few different contractual mechanisms, out right ownership, and foreign supplies.


I see you are already looking for an out.


ANSWER "THIS" QUESTION ELEMENTARY!

The Pickett Plaintiffs argument and the motive behind the Captive Supply Reform Act was/is that the price of the cash cattle was discriminated against in comparison to the price of the formula cattle delivered in the same week.

Do you agree with that statement Elementary? Yes or no?



All the discussion to this point has been formula vs. cash and now you want to muddy the water with forward contracts?

I guess you are at least smart enough to see the walls when they are closing in around you.

Answer the question because I'm tired of playing your games.


Elementary: "Let us get these inconsistencies hashed out and stop jumping to conclusions,..."

Let us start with you! It's time for committment.


~SH~
 

Econ101

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

The "captive" part means the part of supply controlled by packers through a few different contractual mechanisms, out right ownership, and foreign supplies.


I see you are already looking for an out.


ANSWER "THIS" QUESTION ELEMENTARY!

The Pickett Plaintiffs argument and the motive behind the Captive Supply Reform Act was/is that the price of the cash cattle was discriminated against in comparison to the price of the formula cattle delivered in the same week.

Do you agree with that statement Elementary? Yes or no?



All the discussion to this point has been formula vs. cash and now you want to muddy the water with forward contracts?

I guess you are at least smart enough to see the walls when they are closing in around you.

Answer the question because I'm tired of playing your games.


Elementary: "Let us get these inconsistencies hashed out and stop jumping to conclusions,..."

Let us start with you! It's time for committment.


~SH~

It is part of it. Your question does not encompass the complexity that the answer necesitates. Now what other question do you have for me? That question could have been answered better by a litigant in the case. I am not.

Maybe you would like to ask another question.

If you are tired, SH, maybe you should go to bed.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Looks like Econ has been schooled finally. No more dissertations?

Jason, maybe you would like to try.

First let us point out that you have been all for giving Canadian taxpayer money to Tyson and Cargill. Second, let us point out that in regards to your fellow Canadians that work at Lakeside, you are against them if it reduces your costs no matter what the cost to them. Third, let us point out you believe you already have enough bidders when you have at least two (which of course, means that you would be against opening the Canadian border to cattle) and you have already pointed out that Canadians have more than two.

Jason, just because you reduce the costs of your individual operation, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to put up with your self centeredness.

Would you like any more schooling, Jason? What is your question?

As for you, SH, I am usually against a lot of little regulations because there are ways to get around all of them. I am much more in favor of a little more efficient justice in the system than continually defining fraud and abuse of market power. It is constantly changing. As soon as you make a rule up, someone figures out how to get around it. It is the battle between the lions and the foxes.

Do you have any more questions, SH?
 

Latest posts

Top