Question for Elementary Economics

[Econ101]

SH:

Quote:
Conman: "On the perjury charge, am I to believe that you and Judge Strom make a conviction? The world as we know it by SH. You did lie about Mike C. being a perjurer. You might have that OPINION, but we all know your "burden of proof" is just what you make up in your own head while going around your merry-go-round."


I understand your desperation to attempt to save the credibility of Mike Callicrate but he lied under oath in Pickett which is perjury by definition. Not my definition, by the dictionary's definition. Just because he was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he did not lie under oath. In his instructions to the jurors, Judge Strom advised the jurors to disregard all or parts of Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue. I know that doesn't sit well with a packer blamer like you but you can't change what has been written in court and you can't change the fact that Mike tried to change his story to cover his butt.

No, SH, this just shows everyone that you have two standards of proof. One for the packers where you have to have a conviction that has to not only go through 12 jurors but also a few appellate judges who, by their own appellate briefs, do not understand the issues, and on the other hand, you convict someone (could be anyone) that does not agree with you without even a trial. This just shows how biased you are.

Just because Tyson was able to wiggle out of a jury verdict by getting the courts to make up stuff and ignore the law as written, does not mean that they are not guilty of price manipulation. I do understand your desperate attempt to argue for the packers and everyone else does too.

I believe in the presumption of innocense. If you don't have any proof to support your allegations, you should have to pay all court costs for wasting the courts time

Since we are talking about legal behind closed door tampering with the justice system here, Did you know about MRJ's alias and was it used for voting purposes on the poll? You still never answered my question on making up new log ins. Do you do it or know anyone who has (including MRJ)?

I will answer your other silly part of your post after you answer these questions. I see you are too scared to put your money where your mouth is. It doesn't surprise me.

Econ, you squeal like a stuck hog when anyone calls you any semblance of a "name", yet you do not hesitate to imply that I was using an alias for deceptive purposes. You do not hesitate to call others names by implication, if not outright.

You make outrageous, unproven charges against Tyson in a paragraph above, then in the next one, attempt to paint yourself as generously believing in "the presumption of innocense".


You offer innuendo and hints of "tapped phone lines", "behind closed doors deals" and more as "proof" of the evils of "corporate greed"....with no supporting facts.

You repeatedly make nasty charges about FORMER employees of NCBA with no basis in fact presented......and more!

I will give you a very gentle name to describe someone who does what you have done. You are attempting to be a manipulative jerk.......at best! And I say "attempting to be" because it is doubtful anyone with an iota of common sense or honesty would believe you!

For the record, when I realized the borrowed computer I was using identified my with another name, even though I consistently had used my initials to end my posts, I stated clearly that I was using a borrowed computer with a different "name" under the author line. I don't recall if I voted in any "poll" on that computer or not. I don't vote on all of them because too many are just ridiculous attempts to slam or smear someone or their ideas. That is more your style than mine!

MRJ

MRJ, the quote was SH's quote on presumption of innocense. I was mocking him.

The tapped phone line thing was brought one time by me. My critics have brought it up numerous times. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I am not asking you to and I didn't before.

As for all the "behind closed doors", Tyson, corporate greed, and all the other, that will come out in time.

Nasty charges on former NCBA members? I am not even affiliated with the organic movement and they have thier issues with the USDA all on their own. You have to admit that NCBA leadership has taken some big positions at the USDA and that there are a lot of people upset about how they are cow-towing to corporate interests instead of allowing the agency to be one for the people.

I will give you a very gentle name to describe someone who does what you have done. You are attempting to be a manipulative jerk.......at best! And I say "attempting to be" because it is doubtful anyone with an iota of common sense or honesty would believe you!

Is that what you call everyone who questions you or the people you support?

 

[Anonymous]

CONMAN,

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

You said the courts made up stuff.

1. WHAT DID THE COURTS MAKE UP? PROVE IT!

2. EXPLAIN MY "SO CALLED" DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO ARGUE FOR THE PACKERS. LET'S HEAR IT!

3. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF BEHIND DOOR TAMPERING? BRING IT!

Observe the Conman diversion dance folks.................

Conman: " The tapped phone line thing was brought one time by me. My critics have brought it up numerous times. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I am not asking you to and I didn't before."

Why would she believe it when you admitted later that it was the phone guy working on the phone line?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

CONMAN,

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

You said the courts made up stuff.

1. WHAT DID THE COURTS MAKE UP? PROVE IT!

2. EXPLAIN MY "SO CALLED" DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO ARGUE FOR THE PACKERS. LET'S HEAR IT!

3. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF BEHIND DOOR TAMPERING? BRING IT!

Observe the Conman diversion dance folks.................

Conman: " The tapped phone line thing was brought one time by me. My critics have brought it up numerous times. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I am not asking you to and I didn't before."

Why would she believe it when you admitted later that it was the phone guy working on the phone line?


~SH~

Thanks, SH, for going back to the numbering thing.

1) The courts made up the theory that in order to prove a P&S violation, there had to be a harm to competition (on the packer-wholesale or retail side). The law clearly has "or's" instead of "and's" in the enumerated prohibitions. Ors mean any or all are prohibited. Ands mean they all have to apply. Big difference. The producer surplus is just as important as the consumer surplus in the economic equation of supply and demand and price determination. This is what also was wrong about the quoted London case.

The courts also made up the "legitimate business justification" excuse. There might be a case for economic efficiency, but the packers want to control the term "efficiency" and only mean their efficiency rather than economic efficiency. There is a big difference here.

In addition, the appellate court used the judgement of the judge on over ruling the jurors. There better be a good reason for that and there was not in the appellate briefs. What judges believe, whether they are democrat or republican, Christian or Muslim or atheist, should not matter. The case was what mattered, not their personal belief. Judge Strom interjected his opinion and substituted it for the jury's. That is just made up justice. If he had good reasons he didn't share it in his decision.

The judge and the appellate court made up their own judgement about the quality of the evidence without specifically calling into question any of the major parts of the plaintiff's case. This was all made up.

2) On almost every point and every post. Do we need to make a poll for this one?

3) That will be had at a later date. I know you want it now, but there are more fish to catch. Can't give away every fishing secret. Let me just leave that expression as a euphemism for what is happening in regards to the political process and influence of favored corporate interests. It is well used and we all know what it means.

Why would she believe it when you admitted later that it was the phone guy working on the phone line?

That goes to the real concern many in office have over the Patriot Act, and rightly so. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

 

[Anonymous]

1) The courts made up the theory that in order to prove a P&S violation, there had to be a harm to competition (on the packer-wholesale or retail side). The law clearly has "or's" instead of "and's" in the enumerated prohibitions. Ors mean any or all are prohibited. Ands mean they all have to apply. Big difference.

The PSA directly addresses "anti competitiveness". If an action is "anti competitive" then it harms competition. Do I really need to explain that?

Second, the judge reviewed other court cases which also addressed this same issue where the jury reached the same conclusions as Judge Strom and the 11th circuit did. Who understands the law better, the jury or the Judge and the 11th Circuit?

Sometimes the jury gets it wrong and this was clearly one of those times because there was no evidence presented that proved market manipulation. THEORIES and OPINIONS are not evidence and someday you packer blamers are going to have to learn to accept that or you can just keep losing your court cases.

The courts also made up the "legitimate business justification" excuse. There might be a case for economic efficiency, but the packers want to control the term "efficiency" and only mean their efficiency rather than economic efficiency. There is a big difference here.

The "legitimate business practice" justification was relevant because producers willingly enter into these contracts. If they were truly a market manipulation tool, feeders would not use them.

In addition, the appellate court used the judgement of the judge on over ruling the jurors. There better be a good reason for that and there was not in the appellate briefs. What judges believe, whether they are democrat or republican, Christian or Muslim or atheist, should not matter. The case was what mattered, not their personal belief. Judge Strom interjected his opinion and substituted it for the jury's. That is just made up justice. If he had good reasons he didn't share it in his decision.

If a JUDGE cannot inject legal interpretations and other case law into a case, THEN THERE IS NO NEED FOR A JUDGE. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit understand the law and the intent of the PSA much better than the jurors who were being dazzled by Taylor's "UNTESTED THEORIES".

3) That will be had at a later date. I know you want it now, but there are more fish to catch. Can't give away every fishing secret. Let me just leave that expression as a euphemism for what is happening in regards to the political process and influence of favored corporate interests. It is well used and we all know what it means.

DIVERSION!


Just as I expected. More opinions, theories, and supposition with no supporting facts. Some things never change. ZZZZZZZZzzzzz!

Conman: "That goes to the real concern many in office have over the Patriot Act, and rightly so. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last."

MORE DIVERSION!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

1) The courts made up the theory that in order to prove a P&S violation, there had to be a harm to competition (on the packer-wholesale or retail side). The law clearly has "or's" instead of "and's" in the enumerated prohibitions. Ors mean any or all are prohibited. Ands mean they all have to apply. Big difference.

The PSA directly addresses "anti competitiveness". If an action is "anti competitive" then it harms competition. Do I really need to explain that?

Second, the judge reviewed other court cases which also addressed this same issue where the jury reached the same conclusions as Judge Strom and the 11th circuit did. Who understands the law better, the jury or the Judge and the 11th Circuit?

Sometimes the jury gets it wrong and this was clearly one of those times because there was no evidence presented that proved market manipulation. THEORIES and OPINIONS are not evidence and someday you packer blamers are going to have to learn to accept that or you can just keep losing your court cases.

The courts also made up the "legitimate business justification" excuse. There might be a case for economic efficiency, but the packers want to control the term "efficiency" and only mean their efficiency rather than economic efficiency. There is a big difference here.

The "legitimate business practice" justification was relevant because producers willingly enter into these contracts. If they were truly a market manipulation tool, feeders would not use them.

In addition, the appellate court used the judgement of the judge on over ruling the jurors. There better be a good reason for that and there was not in the appellate briefs. What judges believe, whether they are democrat or republican, Christian or Muslim or atheist, should not matter. The case was what mattered, not their personal belief. Judge Strom interjected his opinion and substituted it for the jury's. That is just made up justice. If he had good reasons he didn't share it in his decision.

If a JUDGE cannot inject legal interpretations and other case law into a case, THEN THERE IS NO NEED FOR A JUDGE. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit understand the law and the intent of the PSA much better than the jurors who were being dazzled by Taylor's "UNTESTED THEORIES".

3) That will be had at a later date. I know you want it now, but there are more fish to catch. Can't give away every fishing secret. Let me just leave that expression as a euphemism for what is happening in regards to the political process and influence of favored corporate interests. It is well used and we all know what it means.

DIVERSION!


Just as I expected. More opinions, theories, and supposition with no supporting facts. Some things never change. ZZZZZZZZzzzzz!

Conman: "That goes to the real concern many in office have over the Patriot Act, and rightly so. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last."

MORE DIVERSION!


~SH~

SH, I willingly bought a gun legally. That does not give me the right to shoot someone with it for my own personal gain. That is how the "legitimate business justification" is being used here.

Any real economist knows that competition on the producer side is just important as the consumer side. Your argument is a consumer surplus argument which is only half the argument. There is a thing in economics called the producer surplus. Both taken into account make up efficient markets. When packers (or any middlemen) make the argument that only consumer surplus is relevant, they ignore the value that producers bring to the table and allow middlemen like packers to take advantage of them. The advantages to the consumers are only temporary. Long term, it creates economic ineficiencies to the whole market.

Sometimes you have to learn a lesson twice. This may be one of those times due to the judges not knowing enough about the economics behind the law. The unfortunate thing is that the people in control (Tysons) will be able to take everyone to the bank and rob us all.

The legal interpetations of the law by Judge Strom in the Pickett case undid all of the economic protections afforded to help make the markets more efficient. Judge Strom nor the appellate court know not what they did-- or just bent over. Either way, we all lose.

 

[Anonymous]

Any real economist knows that competition on the producer side is just important as the consumer side. Your argument is a consumer surplus argument which is only half the argument. There is a thing in economics called the producer surplus. Both taken into account make up efficient markets. When packers (or any middlemen) make the argument that only consumer surplus is relevant, they ignore the value that producers bring to the table and allow middlemen like packers to take advantage of them. The advantages to the consumers are only temporary. Long term, it creates economic ineficiencies to the whole market.

Any legitimate economist would realize that when producers initiate marketing agreements with packers, set the terms of the agreements of those contracts, willingly enter into those contracts, and have other marketing alternatives available to them, THERE IS NO MARKET MANIPULATION!!!!

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation. That's why you lost in court and why your opinions on this subject are so empty.

When you can't back your position with facts or a logical explanation, you resort to phony babble like your empty statements above.



~SH~