Elementary: 1.) If criminals own guns, why don't they use them all the time? If they are not using them when they are not committing a crime does that exonerate them? What a useless argument.
Diversion from explaining what factors allow this "ALLEGED" market manipulation to occur.
You don't know what factors allow "SUPPOSED"
market manipulation to occur at some times and not at others so you divert. True to your deceptive form!
This is not murder or armed robbery we are talking about, this is buying vs. selling fat cattle. What kind of fairy tale imagination could draw a comparison between the two?
Oh, never mind, almost forgot who I was dealing with here. Silly me!
Elementary: 2.) You ignore market power.
Diversion from explaining how there can be market abuse when Tyson needs to get the cattle bought against Swift, Excel, and USPB along with many level two packers with numerous pricing mechanisms.
When ibp's profitability information was subpoenoed into court, their per head profits for this period of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was $26 per head. Go ask your local locker plants how many of them can slaughter cattle for $26 a head and still manipulate prices?
The market manipulation conspiracy theory is nothing more than a baseless allegation unsupported by facts. After your many presentations of theory, opinion, conjecture, and supposition, it remains a conspiracy theory unsupported by facts. You have no facts to back this theory. NONE! PURE SPECULATION and nothing more.
Let me repeat,
YOU HAVE NOT BROUGHT ONE STITCH OF PROOF TO BACK THIS MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORY OF YOURS, NOT ONE. NOR HAVE YOU CONTRADiCTED ANYTHING I HAVE STATED WITH FACTS TO THE CONTRARY, NOT ONE!
Elementary: 3.) Does the formula price EVER make the price in the market go up compared to the cash price?"
Diversion from the fact that any of the plaintiffs could have sold their cattle in the formula market rather than alleging market manipulation because the formula price was better than the cash price.
The formula price changes continually. It can be higher or lower than the cash market depending on which direction the market is moving. If you knew anything about what you speak, you'd know that too.
Elementry: "Tyson had ample opportunity to discount this claim backed by the evidence presented by the plaintiffs to disprove this accusation, and were even asked to provide this (I would presume) in the discovery process with the formula pricing payouts compared to what they were offering in the cash market and they declined to do that. The plaintiffs, even without this gun, proved Tyson's guilt with the powder burns on their hands in the form the plaintiff's witnesses. Tyson just wants to hide behind the no gun, no crime theory. Sometimes the preponderance of evidence requires no gun. It was the jury's decision to make that determination and they did."
The burden of proof is not on that accused, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Anyone who knows anything about law knows that. How many times have I told you that? You still don't get it.
Elementary: "In answer to the second part of the question 3): It is not the market participants with their purchasing habits to make sure Tyson/IBP follows the law. It is Tyson's responsibility. On one hand packer backers want to make the argument that even the plaintiffs stated that Tyson's had a legitimate reason for having captive supply. On the other hand Tyson wants to blame the producers for allowing them to use it to shoot the mareket. What a sham".
There was no proof of any law being broken.
Dropping your price to reflect your needs does not constitute market manipulation as the jury was led to believe. Judge Strom overruled the verdict as a matter of law and the 11th circuit upheld the decision. There was no PSA violation.
The packer blamers lost but you simply cannot accept that fact so you keep throwing out the same baseless allegations as if they had merit.
Nice job diverting all of my points because you didn't have an answer as if I could expect anything less from someone as "factually void" as you are.
Elementary: "The fraud is not that there is formuala pricing, but that formula pricing was used as a form of captive supply to thin the cash market. Any discrimination between the formula cattle and the cash price could substantiate these claims."
WAS USED TO THIN THE CASH MARKET???????
Formula pricing is not something packers initiate. They either have willing sellers or they don't have any formula cattle DO THEY?????
You act like this is something packers can initiate on their own. As most of the packer's needs are met in the formula market, naturally the price they offer for cash cattle will drop. SUPPLY AND DEMAND!
If the plaintiffs didn't like the price they were bid from Tyson, they should have sold to Excel or Swift or USPB. Nobody had a gun to their heads forcing them to sell to Tyson after Tyson lowered their cash price due to having their needs filled in the formula market. This is such bullsh*t!
As ibp's formula supply increased, their cash price decreased. A normal supply and demand reaction in the market that you packer blamers have somehow defined as market manipulation.
Elementary: " When GIPSA did not require that the beef industry show the payout sheets of formula pricing with independent testing to make sure that it was in fact correct (this goes to the sidebar discussion Mike brought up) and there was no evidence of the price setting cash market discrimination, they became a part of the fraud of incompetence or corruption also."
Yet another baseless conspiracy theory unsupported by fact presented by Elementary Economics.
Elementary: "If formula cattle are graded after the hide comes off then the answer to that question is quite simple. Anyone (or their representative) who has an interest in seeing this grading to make sure of its accuracy should be welcome in the plant. That would be anyone selling fat cattle."
"IF" FORMULA CATTLE ARE GRADED AFTER THE HIDE COMES OFF????
That's the whole premise behind grid pricing, why would you question "WHEN" they are graded? You are such a phony and you just proved it again.
The issue was never the grade of the formula cattle? More sh*t you threw against the wall.
You literally don't have a clue how this industry operates do you?
The graders are USDA inspectors and they are held accountable because they work for the government. They don't work for the packer or the producer and they are held accountable.
Elementary: "If cattle buyers did not know how cattle grade until after the hide comes off why in the world did they use the cash market as a price setter for the formula cattle?"
YOU DID IT AGAIN!
With that statement, you once again defined your ignorance of this industry. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU GRADE A CARCASS BEFORE THE HIDE COMES OFF?????? VIDEO IMAGING IS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT QUALITIY GRADE AND RIBEYE AREA!!!!
The base price has nothing to do with the discounts and premiums for quality. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A GRID PRICING SYSTEM?????
The base price is established then the carcass premiums and discounts are added or subtracted from that base price. What better means of establishing a base price than from the cash market? Prior to the premiums and discounts, the base price would be just like the cash market in that you don't know exactly how the cattle will grade and yield until they are graded.
These grids offer premiums and discounts for quality grade (choice, select, etc.), Yield grade (ribeye in relation to backfat), and carcass size.
Once again, you have left absolutely no doubt as to your ignorance of this industry with that one.
Elementary: "When that trim is combined with Australian or New Zealand imports, there is more ground beef on the market. When there is more ground beef on the market, there is more price pressure on beef. If you can't even get that one right there is really something wrong with your reasoning."
Elementary: "Imported beef is a substitute for domestic production. Period. When that substitute is used, the domestic producer gets less money. Period. Try to sell that one to any economist and you have a fool if they agree with you."
At least with this issue I can understand your confusion.
You have to look at the value of the various ground beef products. 50/50 Trim is worthless unless you blend lean ground beef with it to take it to at least a 70/30 level of 30% fat. The leaner it is, the more value it has.
50/50 is a stand alone product. You either lean it down or it's worth $.08 per pound. Your next challenge is to find a source of CHEAP lean trimmings. Why cheap? It has to be cheap or you cannot justify taking a product that is worth more (chuck and round) and grinding it up to add value to 50/50 trim. Cheap lean trimmings simply are not available in the U.S. to meet the supply of 50/50 trim. You either import it, or you reduce the value of 50/50 trim to dogfood because only a complete idiot would devalue the carcass by grinding the products that they have added value to.
If we can get to the point where you understand that you either find a cheap source of lean trimmings or 50/50 trim is worth $.08 per pound then we take the next step.
Obviously, if you take a product that is worth $.08 per pound and make it worth $1.00 a pound or more, you have added value to that product.
If the 50/50 trim is worth more due to the ability of a packer to add value to it by blending imported lean trimmings, then they pay accordingly for that product.
You are absolutely wrong on this issue Elementary as you are with most of your positions.
~SH~