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~
