• 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 SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You accidentally missed this;

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake?

You can answer too, Agman.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
You accidentally missed this;

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake?

You can answer too, Agman.

Different issue, why answer a hypothetical?

You are following a losing cause. The case is over and your side lost on all counts. Your interpretation of the law is totally irrelevant. You are neither a legal scholar nor a judge who saw all the evidence presented.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
If I were a betting man, I would bet that, in the long run, Tyson and Cargill will have a lot of cattle being produced on contract, plus they will continue to use marketing agreements. Contracts really aren't all that new, and they provide stability of supply. Stability of supply is very important to a company who wants to tie production programs to processing capacity and value-added marketing programs. The key here is maximum efficiency and productivity of assets employed. They have thought this way too long to quit now. I personally believe that they are moving slowly because that is what they have to do in beef, but they are moving in the direction described above. Look for broiler contract growers who also have cow-calf herds to become very interested before too long. Ask yourself, "If I wake up tomorrow and find that this system is now in place, what will I do?" Maybe they will have to get the law changed, but I still think this will happen.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Pointrider, the law does not really need to be changed. It needs to be enforced. GIPSA is not enforcing the law in poultry or beef. They are not smart enough. If the Pickett type cases were won and won efficiently, there would be no problem with the current system. Contracts are not necessarily the problem. The abuses of market power with respect to the contracts is the problem. GIPSA and the USDA are inefficient. Maybe that is where we need to save our tax dollars.

Part of the problem is that the producers are not being fully compensated for their losses on these issues due to legal costs and inefficiencies in our system of justice. The packers spent a lot of time making it that way. That is how they get away with so much. This government is catering to the people who are financing their political campaigns and leaving producers out in the cold. It stinks.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sandhusker has asked a question. Why will you not answer Agman and SH. Your points to packer defense do not hold up. Diverticuli.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman and Kindergarten Economics, I told both of you that I was done playing games with you.

If you are not willing to provide the proof of market manipulation, don't bother asking me any more stupid "apples to oranges" questions because I won't answer them.

Your diversion tactics to avoid providing any evidence to back your "market manipulation" / "abuse of power" allegations are obvious to anyone who has ever watched politics.

This whole issue centers around the evidence that is needed for a conviction to prove "market manipulation" or "abuse of power".

YOU HAVE OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but theory, opinion, and conjecture to back your position.


Kindergarten Economics: "The abuses of market power with respect to the contracts is the problem."

To WHICH YOU HAVE OFFERED ZERO PROOF.


HERE IS THE RELEVANT QUESTION TO THIS ISSUE THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY:

For the 16th time, what was the evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp that supported the plaintiff's "market manipulation" allegation that was believed by the jury?


Econ, don't you think that any and all readers can can see how obvious your diversion of this question is?

Without proof to support your allegation, you have no conviction.


Here's another question you cannot and will not answer:

If "captive supplies" are used to manipulate markets, why would feeders willingly enter them when they have the cash market as an alternative?

One would have to assume that if packers are using captive supplies to manipulate markets, feeders that willingly enter them would be just as guilty.


Nobody would answer my question regarding Enzi's comments either:

Enzi revealed his ignorance with those statements. The article was taken during the debate on the Johnson Amendment. Enzi correctly defines "captive supplies" as those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Then he goes on to suggest that captive supply contracts need a fixed base price. "Captive supplies", as Enzi correctly defined them, are forward contracts and packer owned cattle. Forward contracts have a base price based on the futures market. Enzi simply repeated the mantra of the R-CULT packer blamers without knowing any better. Many formula and grid pricing systems use a weekly weighted average base price but they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Anyone that understands this issue can plainly see that Enzi is repeating the R-CULT jargon and doesn't know what he's talking about. I would expect that from the R-CULT blamers but not from a Republican Senator from a western state.

FORMULA AND GRID CATTLE ARE NOT OWNED OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLED BY PACKERS FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS PRIOR TO SLAUGHTER.

In Pickett vs. ibp, the case incorrectly included formula/grid cattle in their definition of "captive supplies".

I'll ask you guys again, if the base price on those cattle is established from last weeks weekly weighted average of the cash market and delivered the following week for slaughter, where is the opportunity to manipulate markets?

Why can't anyone explain how market manipulation is occurring, IF IT'S "SUPPOSEDLY" OCCURING???

None of the packer blamers can answer these very relevant questions.


Kindergarten law also continues to place the burden of proof on Tyson or myself to prove their innocense. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS! THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER TO PROVE GUILT, NOT THE ACCUSED TO PROVE INNOCENSE. There is no such thing as a "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" in our laws.

Yet another example of how backwards Econ.'s approach to this issue is.


Forget the fact that the plaintiffs couldn't agree on a damages, forget the fact that they couldn't identify the class to receive damages, forget the fact that they couldn't tell the judge how they derived their damages, forget, for a minute, the fact of whether or not packers had a legitimate business reason for using "captive supply" arrangements , forget the fact that feeders initiated "captive supply" arrangements to sell their cattle on Grade and Yield.........forget all of that for a minute, WHERE IS THE PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION????

Econ. 101, you proved yourself a complete idiot when you stated that the difference between this week's cash price and last week's weekly weighted average cash price (Formula/grid price) was proof of market manipulation.

That is without question, one of the silliest things I have ever seen written on this site. It suggests that there is no relation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices. I don't know any cattleman that is that ignorant about their industry. Well, maybe a couple.

Until you can answer these questions you have both proven yourself losers in this debate and quite frankly, I'm done with it until you provide proof to back your "market manipulation" allegation.


All you can do is create an "ILLUSION" of "market manipulation" and blame the judge and blame the 11th Circuit when they saw through the smokescreen that the jury should have seen through.

Just the simple fact that feeders initiated these "captive supply" arrangements should have been a huge red flag.

Packers don't care how they get the cattle bought, just so they get the cattle bought.


Thanks for your intelligent viewpoint Pointrider.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here's another question that will go unanswered:

Why is it that the producers who sell their cattle as feeder calves to the feeders are more concerned about fat cattle marketing arrangements than the feeders who actually sell fat cattle?

Where's the logic in that?

Considering the fact that many of these same producers think they know more about marketing beef ("M"COOL) than those who actually market beef, I guess this level of arrogance shouldn't be surprising.

Since when did Johnny Smith and Pat Goggins, both representing the Livestock Marketing Police, assume the role of saving feeders from their own marketing arrangements? Their bias is to see fat cattle sold through their sale barns so they can carve another commission out of the pie.

Perhaps it's time to take action against Sale Barn Concentration?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH-
Here's another question you cannot and will not answer:

If "captive supplies" are used to manipulate markets, why would feeders willingly enter them when they have the cash market as an alternative?

What shell is the pea under? The cash market people obviously got burned enough to know the game you are playing, SH.

Just answer the question Sandhusker posed. Under oath the packers had to answer those questions in front of the jury. The verdict came in. Should have been end of case unless MATERIAL arguments were used instead of the dodgeball you play, SH and Agman. Answer Sandhuskers question. It is obvious from the appellate court's brief on the Robinson-Patman example that they knew a lot less about economics than the plaintiff's expert witness, yet they overturned the jury verdict based partly on that and partly on some made up requirement of proof they themselves made up on the London case.

This court needs to be examined for possible foul play (see the pun?).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For the 17th time, what was the evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp that supported the plaintiff's "market manipulation" allegation that was believed by the jury?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Once again per his habit, SH goes way off topic to avoid an uncomfortable situation. Why not answer the question?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
For the 17th time, what was the evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp that supported the plaintiff's "market manipulation" allegation that was believed by the jury?


~SH~


WARNING---THIS IS A SARCASTIC ANSWER.

The plaintiff's spent day after day in court in total silence. They didn't present any evidence whatsoever.

END SARCASTIC ANSWER


The market manipulation was the heart of their case. Get the point?

Answer Sandhusker's question.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
My question speaks to the absolute heart of the issue and the only way you packer blamers will ever earn a conviction is to present the proof to support your allegation.

Where is that proof?

Why do you continue to divert the question?

What are you so afraid of?

Econ may have made a complete fool out of himself with his "cash market" vs "captive supply" market comparison as proof but at least he tried. It may have been a "steer's attempt" to get the job done but he did try.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
And the one who calls others diverters continues to divert. Same song, different day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker: "And the one who calls others diverters continues to divert. Same song, different day."

Now Sandman resorts to talking to himself?

Nothing surprises me anymore!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Sandhusker: "And the one who calls others diverters continues to divert. Same song, different day."

Now Sandman resorts to talking to himself?

Nothing surprises me anymore!



~SH~

Sandhusker has a point, SH. Ask the right questions and you too will find the truth instead of hiding from it.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Similar issue, why the avoidance?

Similar does not equal the same now does it? I guess that was over you head. Stepped into a trap of your own making again!!!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Similar issue, why the avoidance?

Similar does not equal the same now does it? I guess that was over you head. Stepped into a trap of your own making again!!!!!

Almost all engineering, geometry, physics, chemistry, mathematics, sattalite systems, triangualation, trigonometry, and a whole host of other scientific and industrial truths are based on this concept.

And also radar guns.

Now you stepped into the trap.
 

Latest posts

Top