Question for Elementary Economics

[Jason]

Econ you have yet to answer one of my questions without dodging or diverting or rambling on how your pappy ate road kill.

Prove the large packers are guilty of fraud. You can't.

Answer SH on this thread don't divert to me.

 

[Econ101]

Econ you have yet to answer one of my questions without dodging or diverting or rambling on how your pappy ate road kill.

Prove the large packers are guilty of fraud. You can't.

Answer SH on this thread don't divert to me.

\

Jason, you are the one that popped on this thread with your little comment. I have already answered SH's question.

Yesterday, I believe it was, I heard what had happened to a man who had a lobotomy at the age of 12. One of his comments was that he felt as if he had no soul. He wanted to revisit the whole decision his parents made on getting him a lobotomy. One day you may feel the same.

I hope you get your operation reversed.

 

[Jason]

You must have had the lobotomy.

Bring some proof of fraud, manipulation or something else packers should be prosecuted for.

Oh yes this isn't the place to offer proof, you said that was court, but they can't find proof either...

 

[Murgen]

If the packers are doing something ilegal, then they would charged.

If small scale operators were doing the same thing ilegal, they would be charged and convicted.

What are large scale producers doing that is different than small scale producers, and how is it illegal?

 

[Econ101]

If the packers are doing something ilegal, then they would charged.

If small scale operators were doing the same thing ilegal, they would be charged and convicted.

What are large scale producers doing that is different than small scale producers, and how is it illegal?

Murgen, the case one these issues was brought and prosecuted within GIPSA. GIPSA at that time did not have the resources to put on an adequate case. JoAnn Waterfield was the one who argued that case in GIPSA and she was in the USDA Office of General Counsel (OGC) under then secretary Jim Baker under the Clinton administration. JoAnn lost the case in the administrative procedure that is available to the USDA. She of anyone should know the elements necessary to get a conviction yet she has not been helpful in requiring any of the information necessary or any of the other abuses that have been brought before GIPSA (She was promoted to the secretary of GIPSA after Jim Baker left after Clinton).

Why do you think r-calf has had the success it has had? They see the problems at the regulatory agencies and what is happening to them.

Since the heat has surfaced GIPSA has hired a new head to obviously take the heat off of Waterfield and her henchman, McBride at GIPSA. Both Waterfield and McBride were part of the 3 that has been making the decisions of some of these "tainted" studies that have come out of the USDA's captive supply of land grant university economists. I will be posting an example of the tactics used in those university studies shortly. They are part of the fraud. The dependence on these "independent" studies that Jake asked for (innocently) shows how deep these frauds are.

SH is sure to be busy.

Jason, you have proven everything anyone needs to know about you in your own postings. I do hope you get your operation reversed. Life is short, an eternity is forever. I will still be glad to respond to your posts as long as they are substantive. I will try not to use too many "hundred dollar words" but it may require that you do a little more reading.

 

[Sandhusker]

Murgen, "If the packers are doing something ilegal, then they would charged."

By who? Take a look at who is in charge of enforcing the rules and who they answer to. The fox isn't going to turn in a chicken thief.

 

[rkaiser]

Murgen - The bulk of the arguements here on ranchers are not based on illegal vs, legal. The problem is that society is making new laws every day that favour the mutinational, corporate welfare approach.

Do you like the way that small town Saskatchewan or small town Oklahoma are looking these days. The ones outside the Oil belts that is?

 

[Anonymous]

SH (previous): "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?"

Elementary (in response): "It is part of it. Your question does not encompass the complexity that the answer necesitates."

ROTFLMAO! What a completely predictable response.

How Clintonian !


Elementary:

"Now what other question do you have for me?"

Well if my question only encompasses part of the motive behind the plaintiff's case and the question does not encompass the complexity that the answer necesitates, why didn't you mention this before?

Before you said that the difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation. Now you are changing your story suggesting that this is only part of it.

Which way is it? Is it part of it as you say now, or all of it as you suggested before? If it is only part of it, what's the rest of it?

What's the rest of the story Elementary?

Anyone can make statements, it's crunch time to explain yourself and committ.

If the Pickett plaintiff's market manipulation argument was not based on a difference between the cash price and the formula price, what was it based on?

What I wouldn't give to drag your sorry ars on to the witness stand for cross examination on your statements.

Do you feel the walls closing in? Ready to run yet? Suppose it's time for another unrelated dissertation to divert the questions?



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "The Pickett plaintiffs said contracts were being used to lower cash prices - which thus lowered prices that used the cash price as a base."

Define contracts Sandman. Forward contracts or formula or both?

You and Elementary both support Pickett I would think you two would know what the Pickett case was based on.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH (previous): "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?"

Elementary (in response): "It is part of it. Your question does not encompass the complexity that the answer necesitates."

ROTFLMAO! What a completely predictable response.

How Clintonian !


Elementary:

"Now what other question do you have for me?"

Well if my question only encompasses part of the motive behind the plaintiff's case and the question does not encompass the complexity that the answer necesitates, why didn't you mention this before?

Before you said that the difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation. Now you are changing your story suggesting that this is only part of it.

Which way is it? Is it part of it as you say now, or all of it as you suggested before? If it is only part of it, what's the rest of it?

What's the rest of the story Elementary?

Anyone can make statements, it's crunch time to explain yourself and committ.

If the Pickett plaintiff's market manipulation argument was not based on a difference between the cash price and the formula price, what was it based on?

What I wouldn't give to drag your sorry ars on to the witness stand for cross examination on your statements.

Do you feel the walls closing in? Ready to run yet? Suppose it's time for another unrelated dissertation to divert the questions?



~SH~

Walls closing in? Ready to run? You mistake me for someone else, SH. I will have to say that you are imaginative in your delusions.

The case centers on the cash market being discriminated against. It was a price setter for the formula price. Because of this discrimination on a continuous basis, there was a lowering of the price paid to producers that amounted to a huge sum over time. Why do you think it is spelled out in the PSA? They enumerated some of the prohibitions on purpose.

If circumstances change, and there is a discrimination against another price setter then that would be a different case. Each case is seperate and distinct. There is a reason Jesus spoke in parables, as I have said before. Man has a way of twisting the truth with his definitions of words. You do it all the time.

Why would any economist argue with someone who thinks that imports are a net benefit to domestic producers? If you can't even get that one right you are in trouble.

If you have a point to make, then make it. I can't read your mind any more than I can read Agman's mind. It is too delusional.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "Why would any economist argue with someone who thinks that imports are a net benefit to domestic producers? If you can't even get that one right you are in trouble."

You are not an economist. You are someone who pretends to be an economist. I did not say that imports are a benefit to domestic producers. That is another damn lie! You are starting to get so desperate that you are lying in every post. It sickens me to see you talk about Jesus using parables when you are such a pathetic liar.

Show the readers where I said imports are a benefit to domestic producers? BRING IT! You can't because I never said it you pathetic phony!

I said imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim is a benefit to U.S. producers because it adds value to our 50/50 trim. You are too ignorant about this industry to understand it.

Elementary: "The case centers on the cash market being discriminated against. It was a price setter for the formula price. Because of this discrimination on a continuous basis, there was a lowering of the price paid to producers that amounted to a huge sum over time."

Since you are starting to squirm I'm just going to use your statement that a difference in the cash market and the formula market is proof of market manipulation.

You also stated that this week's cash price, if lowered, would affect next week's formula price.

How can a difference in the cash price and the formula price be proof of market manipulation when you admit that they are priced from two seperate weeks?

Are you suggesting that the supply and demand factors from week to week would not change the price of cash cattle?


Explain yourself!

In order for your position to have merit, you have to believe that the supply and demand factors that affect the price of boxed beef and invariably the price of fat cattle would not change from one week to the next.

You are so Busted!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: "Why would any economist argue with someone who thinks that imports are a net benefit to domestic producers? If you can't even get that one right you are in trouble."

You are not an economist. You are someone who pretends to be an economist. I did not say that imports are a benefit to domestic producers. That is another damn lie! You are starting to get so desperate that you are lying in every post. It sickens me to see you talk about Jesus using parables when you are such a pathetic liar.

Show the readers where I said imports are a benefit to domestic producers? BRING IT! You can't because I never said it you pathetic phony!

I said imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim is a benefit to U.S. producers because it adds value to our 50/50 trim. You are too ignorant about this industry to understand it.

Elementary: "The case centers on the cash market being discriminated against. It was a price setter for the formula price. Because of this discrimination on a continuous basis, there was a lowering of the price paid to producers that amounted to a huge sum over time."

Since you are starting to squirm I'm just going to use your statement that a difference in the cash market and the formula market is proof of market manipulation.

You also stated that this week's cash price, if lowered, would affect next week's formula price.

How can a difference in the cash price and the formula price be proof of market manipulation when you admit that they are priced from two seperate weeks?

Are you suggesting that the supply and demand factors from week to week would not change the price of cash cattle?


Explain yourself!

In order for your position to have merit, you have to believe that the supply and demand factors that affect the price of boxed beef and invariably the price of fat cattle would not change from one week to the next.

You are so Busted!



~SH~

So you asked Agman, did you?

 

[Anonymous]

QUIT SLITHERING ELEMENTARY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION!

HOW CAN A DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH PRICE AND THE FORMULA PRICE BE PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN YOU ADMIT THAT THEY ARE PRICED FROM TWO SEPERATE WEEKS?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS FROM WEEK TO WEEK WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF CASH CATTLE?

Walls closing in again?


You know damn well you can't explain this without looking like a complete idiot.

You are trapped now because you admitted that a lower cash price this week affects next weeks formula price. By admitting to that you have admitted that they are priced in seperate weeks. In light of that, how do you defend your position that the difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation?

Here's your shovel you phony!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

QUIT SLITHERING ELEMENTARY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION!

HOW CAN A DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH PRICE AND THE FORMULA PRICE BE PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN YOU ADMIT THAT THEY ARE PRICED FROM TWO SEPERATE WEEKS?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS FROM WEEK TO WEEK WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF CASH CATTLE?

Walls closing in again?


You know damn well you can't explain this without looking like a complete idiot.

You are trapped now because you admitted that a lower cash price this week affects next weeks formula price. By admitting to that you have admitted that they are priced in seperate weeks. In light of that, how do you defend your position that the difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation?

Here's your shovel you phony!



~SH~

If Tyson can lock up part of the supply via captive supplies with a lid on the price setters then the "two week difference" you suggest is just a lie. Just an excuse. Semantics. Red herring, fish, diverticuli. If you want to talk about this any further, I will answer you, but you will have to drop the name calling.

You have been made a fool in almost every discussion I have seen on this board. You bring up little meaninless arguments that you can not back up. You do not admit you are wrong unless Agman says it is so. Do you need some examples? If you are not a liar, which supposes that you know the real answer and say an untruth anyway, then you are just plain stupid. It has been shown time and time again on this forum by me and others.

I would love to have a substantive discussion on this forum but you are not the moderator or the judge. I really don't care what you think anymore. These meat industries are coming under the stranglehold of a few packers, it has been done in history before, and are helping them with you diverting posts. Can you bring something to this forum other than your judgements?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Show the readers where I said imports are a benefit to domestic producers? BRING IT! You can't because I never said it you pathetic phony!"

OK - you're distancing yourself from any notion imports benefit domectic producers. That makes sense - what follows is a contradiction that muddies the waters;

SH, "I said imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim is a benefit to U.S. producers because it adds value to our 50/50 trim. You are too ignorant about this industry to understand it."

Aren't the lean trimmings from Australia and N.Z. in the category of "imports"? You don't want anybody to think you believe imports help domestic producers, but then you say exactly that with the trim. :???:

I see a key - your use of "OUR" in the 50/50 trim. Maybe it would clear things up if you explained who "our" was. It can't be producers as that would mean the imports are benefiting them.

 

[agman]

QUIT SLITHERING ELEMENTARY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION!

HOW CAN A DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH PRICE AND THE FORMULA PRICE BE PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN YOU ADMIT THAT THEY ARE PRICED FROM TWO SEPERATE WEEKS?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS FROM WEEK TO WEEK WOULD NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF CASH CATTLE?

Walls closing in again?


You know damn well you can't explain this without looking like a complete idiot.

You are trapped now because you admitted that a lower cash price this week affects next weeks formula price. By admitting to that you have admitted that they are priced in seperate weeks. In light of that, how do you defend your position that the difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation?

Here's your shovel you phony!



~SH~

If Tyson can lock up part of the supply via captive supplies with a lid on the price setters then the "two week difference" you suggest is just a lie. Just an excuse. Semantics. Red herring, fish, diverticuli. If you want to talk about this any further, I will answer you, but you will have to drop the name calling.

You have been made a fool in almost every discussion I have seen on this board. You bring up little meaninless arguments that you can not back up. You do not admit you are wrong unless Agman says it is so. Do you need some examples? If you are not a liar, which supposes that you know the real answer and say an untruth anyway, then you are just plain stupid. It has been shown time and time again on this forum by me and others.

I would love to have a substantive discussion on this forum but you are not the moderator or the judge. I really don't care what you think anymore. These meat industries are coming under the stranglehold of a few packers, it has been done in history before, and are helping them with you diverting posts. Can you bring something to this forum other than your judgements?

Calling someone a liar...from you that is a real hoot. Where is the evidence you have of closed door meetings in the Pickett case to back your claim. Either you have the facts or you are the blatant liar. I will excuse ALL your other baseless and senseless accusations due to ignorance of the market place and economics. The shallowness of your intellect has been displayed in virtually every post you make. You fool no one but yourself with your meaningless, pointless and endless stream of unsupported allegations. Only ignorance of subject matter breeds the type of false accusations from you which you would label yourself intellectually superior. The fact is you have demonstrated that you could not find supporting facts to survive if you were the only mosquito at a nudist colony.

Can you bring something to this forum other than your judgments? You should dispense from asking SH that question. This forum would be better served if you asked that question of yourself. To date you have NOT supported ONE of your many and phony accusations.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary Economics: "If Tyson can lock up part of the supply via captive supplies with a lid on the price setters then the "two week difference" you suggest is just a lie. Just an excuse. Semantics. Red herring, fish, diverticuli."

Hahaha! You just made that up. That doesn't even make sense! You are so used to bullsh*tting your way around your ignorance that you just keep throwing sh*t against the wall until something sticks. You are so pathetic.

Elementary, you said the difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation. HOW CAN THAT BE when the cash price and formula price are based on seperate weeks? The supply and demand factors driving the price one week could easily change by the next week. Where did anyone say anything about a "two week" difference. There is only a "one week" difference. Another of your damn lies.

It's a cold hard fact that supply and demand factors that affect cattle markets change from one week to the next. It's also a cold hard fact that formula and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week are priced on seperate weeks. You can't argue that fact so like the true phony you are, you just toss out some rambling crap you made up and try to impress your mindless followers with it.

EXPLAIN WHY THE FORMULA PRICE AND CASH PRICE SHOULD BE THE SAME WHEN THEY ARE PRICED ON SEPERATE WEEKS AND QUIT DANCING???

Are the supply and demand factors that affect cattle prices the same from week to week? YES OR NO?

You can answer that simple yes or no question can't you?

Elementary: "You have been made a fool in almost every discussion I have seen on this board. You bring up little meaninless arguments that you can not back up. You do not admit you are wrong unless Agman says it is so. Do you need some examples? If you are not a liar, which supposes that you know the real answer and say an untruth anyway, then you are just plain stupid. It has been shown time and time again on this forum by me and others."

ROTFLMAO! You remind me of Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war. He was just as arrogant as you!

If you can't prove someone wrong, claim that you did anyway. LOL!

Yes, provide me one example where you proved me wrong on anything. JUST ONE! BRING IT you cheap talker! Show me where you have ever backed a position you have taken WITH SUPPORTING FACTS! JUST ONE!

You are the biggest phony that ever visited this site. Economics 101.....BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a joke!

You thought the packers graded their own cattle and you call me stupid?

You think a difference in the cash price and the formula price proves market manipulation and you call me stupid?

You are so certain the Pickett verdict was justified but you can't bring one stitch of supporting evidence and admit that you haven't read the court proceedings and you call me stupid?

You say Taylors theories were tested again and again when Taylor admitted under oath that his theories were not tested and you call me stupid?

You have left absolutely no doubt that you are a complete phony who is absolutely clueless about this industry.

Look at OCM. His views are totally polarized from mine but he can at least back some some of his views and make an intelligent argument in a civil manner. You never back anything. I can learn something from OCM and already have. All you do is mislead with your trumped up garbage "opinions" and "theories".



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandflea: "SH, "Show the readers where I said imports are a benefit to domestic producers? BRING IT! You can't because I never said it you pathetic phony!"

OK - you're distancing yourself from any notion imports benefit domectic producers. That makes sense - what follows is a contradiction that muddies the waters;

SH, "I said imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim is a benefit to U.S. producers because it adds value to our 50/50 trim. You are too ignorant about this industry to understand it."

Aren't the lean trimmings from Australia and N.Z. in the category of "imports"? You don't want anybody to think you believe imports help domestic producers, but then you say exactly that with the trim.

I see a key - your use of "OUR" in the 50/50 trim. Maybe it would clear things up if you explained who "our" was. It can't be producers as that would mean the imports are benefiting them."

I never said "imports are a benefit to producers" WHICH IMPLIES "ALL IMPORTS". All import do not benefit U.S. producers. On the other hand, imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand do benefit U.S. producers by adding value to our surplus 50/50 trim. There is no contradiction and you will not offer any proof to the contrary.

Elementary claimed I said "imports are a benefit to producers" which suggests all imports. That is a lie because I never said that. Imported lean trimming from Australia and New Zealand is the exception to that rule.

Nice try you "MASTER OF DECEPTION"!


"Our" 50/50 trim refers to U.S. 50/50 trim.


NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandflea: "SH, "Show the readers where I said imports are a benefit to domestic producers? BRING IT! You can't because I never said it you pathetic phony!"

OK - you're distancing yourself from any notion imports benefit domectic producers. That makes sense - what follows is a contradiction that muddies the waters;

SH, "I said imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim is a benefit to U.S. producers because it adds value to our 50/50 trim. You are too ignorant about this industry to understand it."

Aren't the lean trimmings from Australia and N.Z. in the category of "imports"? You don't want anybody to think you believe imports help domestic producers, but then you say exactly that with the trim.

I see a key - your use of "OUR" in the 50/50 trim. Maybe it would clear things up if you explained who "our" was. It can't be producers as that would mean the imports are benefiting them."

I never said "imports are a benefit to producers" WHICH IMPLIES "ALL IMPORTS". All import do not benefit U.S. producers. On the other hand, imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand do benefit U.S. producers by adding value to our surplus 50/50 trim. There is no contradiction and you will not offer any proof to the contrary.

Elementary claimed I said "imports are a benefit to producers" which suggests all imports. That is a lie because I never said that. Imported lean trimming from Australia and New Zealand is the exception to that rule.

Nice try you "MASTER OF DECEPTION"!


"Our" 50/50 trim refers to U.S. 50/50 trim.


NEXT!

~SH~

Too bad you wouldn't put your money where your mouth is. Get back on your merry-go-round, SH. Revisionism and deception are your tools.

Australian imports do nothing for the producers. They do add value for the packers. The imports actually hurt domestic producers but the packers are looking for their own pocketbook on that one.

It was probably a hit on consumer's dog food purchases as the 50/50 could have made better dogfood.

Next time you cook bacon, don't say you are helping out the cattle industry by using bacon grease instead of butter for seasoning. Some thing just will not fly.

 

[Anonymous]

MORE DIVERSION FROM THE ECONOMIC PHONY!


Elementary, you said the difference between the cash price and the formula price is proof of market manipulation. HOW CAN THAT BE when the cash price and formula price are based on seperate weeks? The supply and demand factors driving the price one week could easily change by the next week. Where did anyone say anything about a "two week" difference. There is only a "one week" difference. Another of your damn lies.

It's a cold hard fact that supply and demand factors that affect cattle markets change from one week to the next. It's also a cold hard fact that formula and cash cattle that are delivered in the same week are priced on seperate weeks. You can't argue that fact so like the true phony you are, you just toss out some rambling crap you made up and try to impress your mindless followers with it.

EXPLAIN WHY THE FORMULA PRICE AND CASH PRICE SHOULD BE THE SAME WHEN THEY ARE PRICED ON SEPERATE WEEKS AND QUIT DANCING???

Are the supply and demand factors that affect cattle prices the same from week to week? YES OR NO?

You can answer that simple yes or no question can't you?


Provide me one example where you proved me wrong on anything. JUST ONE! BRING IT you cheap talker! Show me where you have ever backed a position you have taken WITH SUPPORTING FACTS! JUST ONE!


Your diversion is obvious!


I don't care about your unsupported "OPINION" on Australian and New Zealand imports, you are wrong about that too. They do benefit U.S. producers by adding value to our surplus 50/50 trim. You are simply too ignorant of this industry to understand that while we add value to the chuck and round, we import cheap lean trimmings to add value to a virtually worthless product. Packers pay accordingly just as they do according to boxed beef prices. If they didn't, their competition would.



~SH~