question for SH

[Econ101]

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?

That is funny Sandhusker here you are talking about being robbed at gunpoint. I was talking to someone in the US the other night and the comment "Nobody was putting a gun to anyones head to sign a forward contract" came up, and it wasn't me that said it I just agreed. Then I was told they had made out very well in their contracts over the years. By the conversation I got the feeling it would make them very unhappy if they couldn't sell their calves the way they wanted to because of some stupid lawsuit.

Hey Tam, There really is no problem with contracts, it is the abuse of market power that is the problem. The courts are too stupid (yes I said stupid) to be able to allow enforcement of the rules of the game. Like I tell my kids, if you can't play good together put away the cards. Did you not read my post to Jason explaining the scam? The little pea game played in the big city doesn't have to be crooked, but sometimes it is. We need to have efficient and fast enforcement when the rules are broken against the people who are breaking the rules. They were in the Pickett case.

No one is holding the gun to Canada's head on the border closing. Is that a good justification for closing the border?

The forward contracts were never the problem, it was the abuse of market power that was the problem. If you can not see that by now then you might be interested in the pea game next time you are in New York City.

 

[Sandhusker]

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?

That is funny Sandhusker here you are talking about being robbed at gunpoint. I was talking to someone in the US the other night and the comment "Nobody was putting a gun to anyones head to sign a forward contract" came up, and it wasn't me that said it I just agreed. Then I was told they had made out very well in their contracts over the years. By the conversation I got the feeling it would make them very unhappy if they couldn't sell their calves the way they wanted to because of some stupid lawsuit.

Tam, I guess you haven't noticed that the plaintiffs in Pickett were cash market sellers?

 

[blackjack]

...maybe the supposed experts on the board can explain why it is pretty much impossible to contract the commodity when it is down...but seem to have no problem making a contract when its on the way up... could it be somebody trying to influence the price...

 

[agman]

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?

That is funny Sandhusker here you are talking about being robbed at gunpoint. I was talking to someone in the US the other night and the comment "Nobody was putting a gun to anyones head to sign a forward contract" came up, and it wasn't me that said it I just agreed. Then I was told they had made out very well in their contracts over the years. By the conversation I got the feeling it would make them very unhappy if they couldn't sell their calves the way they wanted to because of some stupid lawsuit.

Hey Tam, There really is no problem with contracts, it is the abuse of market power that is the problem. The courts are too stupid (yes I said stupid) to be able to allow enforcement of the rules of the game. Like I tell my kids, if you can't play good together put away the cards. Did you not read my post to Jason explaining the scam? The little pea game played in the big city doesn't have to be crooked, but sometimes it is. We need to have efficient and fast enforcement when the rules are broken against the people who are breaking the rules. They were in the Pickett case.

No one is holding the gun to Canada's head on the border closing. Is that a good justification for closing the border?

The forward contracts were never the problem, it was the abuse of market power that was the problem. If you can not see that by now then you might be interested in the pea game next time you are in New York City.

The shell game is your opinion of events. That opinion is generated without any real working knowledge of the beef industry and never having read the testimony per you own admission. Your lack of knowledge of the beef industry is very apparent by some of the posts you have made. Unfortunately you have not demonstrated anything factual regarding this case to anyone on this forum. You have expressed numerous opinions and accusations without any factual backing. You have provided a multitude of literary and legal verbiage all absent of facts per this case.

You have failed to answer my question regarding Taylor's testimony-why?

 

[Econ101]

That is funny Sandhusker here you are talking about being robbed at gunpoint. I was talking to someone in the US the other night and the comment "Nobody was putting a gun to anyones head to sign a forward contract" came up, and it wasn't me that said it I just agreed. Then I was told they had made out very well in their contracts over the years. By the conversation I got the feeling it would make them very unhappy if they couldn't sell their calves the way they wanted to because of some stupid lawsuit.

Hey Tam, There really is no problem with contracts, it is the abuse of market power that is the problem. The courts are too stupid (yes I said stupid) to be able to allow enforcement of the rules of the game. Like I tell my kids, if you can't play good together put away the cards. Did you not read my post to Jason explaining the scam? The little pea game played in the big city doesn't have to be crooked, but sometimes it is. We need to have efficient and fast enforcement when the rules are broken against the people who are breaking the rules. They were in the Pickett case.

No one is holding the gun to Canada's head on the border closing. Is that a good justification for closing the border?

The forward contracts were never the problem, it was the abuse of market power that was the problem. If you can not see that by now then you might be interested in the pea game next time you are in New York City.

The shell game is your opinion of events. That opinion is generated without any real working knowledge of the beef industry and never having read the testimony per you own admission. Your lack of knowledge of the beef industry is very apparent by some of the posts you have made. Unfortunately you have not demonstrated anything factual regarding this case to anyone on this forum. You have expressed numerous opinions and accusations without any factual backing. You have provided a multitude of literary and legal verbiage all absent of facts per this case.

You have failed to answer my question regarding Taylor's testimony-why?

What question?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Tam, I guess you haven't noticed that the plaintiffs in Pickett were cash market sellers?"

WRONG!

Mike Callicrate has sold cattle on the formula and grid.

The $100 bet still stands Sandman if you feel lucky!

randy: "You don't blame anyone hey SH? Almost every post you make is BLAMING Rcalf."

I'm simply pointing out the facts to correct R-CULT's lies and deception. I'm not blaming them for anything.

In contrast, you blame the packers for trying to keep the Canadian border closed when they were opposed to it's closing.

randy: "If you and your arrogant partner Agman want to ignore and even make the majority of primary producers in our two countries out to be useless and ignorant that's your choice. I choose to try to find a way to help these family farms survive."

That's a damn lie!

I have never said that packer blamers are useless. Ignorant of the facts ON SOME ISSUES, YES but not useless.

Your blaming of packers for trying to keep the Canadian border closed is not helping anyone survive. It's simply misleading people by stating things that are untrue just like you did in your statement above regarding the word "useless".

Quit lying Randy!

Randy: "Cargill and Tyson have huge feeder inventories here in Canada, just like some of your more SH minded States."

What percentage of Canada's fat cattle are packer owned?

You don't even know do you?

Either present the number or admit that you don't know.

Randy: "Unless these feedlot guys have some connection to the packers on a contract level, they are fools to bid against them for feeders."

If the packers are paying more for feeder cattle than the feeders are, doesn't that mean more money for the producer?

Or does "LESS MONEY" mean "MORE MONEY" in your conspiracy driven world?

Randy: "Packers love it when dumbass feelot guys refuse their one and only bid for the week. They simply kill their own cattle and buy the dumbass's cattle next week at a lower bid. (I call them dumbasses in all kindness, these are truely the capitalist looking for change)."

The real dumbass here is someone who says packers have "HUGE" inventories of fat cattle in Canada WITHOUT REPORTING THOSE NUMBERS and someone who thinks that packer owned fat cattle can be killed based on factors other than WHEN THEY ARE RIPE.

Keep typing Randy!

Randy: "You are so bloody focused on defending the packers SH, that you cannot open your mind to alternatives. Your own primary producers are failing rapidly under the current system, and you see no need to change."

I'm bloody focused on PRESENTING THE DAMN TRUTH!!!

I'm tired of all the baseless conspiracy theories and bullsh*t allegations that have no truth to them. Nobody benefits from lies and conspiracy theories.

I cannot open my mind to alternatives?????

ANOTHER DAMN LIE!

I was a huge promoter of both Northern Plains Premium Beef and US Premium Beef and have stated so repeatedly SO QUIT LYING!

There is nothing I want more than for producers to own and control their financial destiny by either owning interest in their own packing company or working out a custom kill arrangement with existing packers. If owning the product from pasture to plate is not opening my mind to alternatives, I don't know what the hell is.

To the contrary, you are so full of packer blame that you cannot accept the truth and you only see what you want to see.

You dislike me because I rain on your packer blaming parade by prestenting the truth. Truth which you cannot refute with facts to the contrary.

You are a typical packer blaming conspiracy theorist. All emotion and no facts.

Randy: "Never a straight answer to anyone on this board, never an honest opinion (unless you honestly ONLY want to defend packers)...."

I couldn't be more straight forwarded. You lied twice in this post alone yet you claim that I don't present an honest opinion? What a hypocrite!

If you think you can contradict anything I have stated here with facts to the contrary, BRING IT!

You won't because you can't so you'll make another volley of empty statements. That's what packer blamers do best.


In your follow up post you are also wrong that Tyson and Cargill wanted the border to remain closed. THEY OPPOSED IT'S CLOSING FROM THE BEGINNING because it was not in their best interests to find their NW packing plants caught short of cattle even if they had more cattle than slaughter capacity in Canada.

THEY NEED CATTLE IN ALL THEIR PLANTS.


Blame away Randy!



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

:clap:

You're the hero SH.

Keep talking to yourself, as you so eloquently say.

Truth and honesty in every word I say.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Cargill and Tyson have huge feeder inventories here in Canada, just like some of your more SH minded States."

Randy, For a second time, what percentage of Canada's fat cattle are packer owned?

You made the "HUGE INVENTORY" allegation, now step up to the plate and present the facts to support this allegation.

Observe.....................


~SH~

 

[Jason]

I would like to know how many cattle Tyson and Cargill are feeding as well.

Supplies were at 11% a couple years ago but I don't know if that number has increased.

One thing I do know is that very few feedlots actually closed during this BSE crisis. I heard of 2 or 3, and at least 1 of them was in serious trouble before May 20/03

Since the border has re-opened I have also seen much rebuilding of pens in feedlots. The pits are full, combines and trucks are rolling, and there is a whack of corn to be silaged yet.

Randy alludes to Cargill buying many companies, Better Beef is the only one I am aware of.

In a post way back on this thread Randy complains about a $150 basis difference on American bids compared to Canadian. The fact that the Canadian dollar is at 15 year highs compared to the US, the cost of fuel is 30% higher than a couple months ago, and Agman had already pegged the basis at 8 cents ($80/cwt) US funds, pretty much expalins that.

No one yet has been able to explain why prices go up if the packers control all, no one has explained how prices will benefit if packers are banned form owning cattle before slaughter.

 

[rkaiser]

Sorry SH , don't have time to check it out. In fact with numbered companies etc., it might be impossible.

Cheer each other on Jason and SH, I've got business for a couple of days.

Just wondering SH, why you personally don't integrate yourself with your holier than now Cargil or Tyson. What's good for the rest of us dumb ass ranchers, not good enough for you?

Chow.

 

[Econ101]

I would like to know how many cattle Tyson and Cargill are feeding as well.

Supplies were at 11% a couple years ago but I don't know if that number has increased.

One thing I do know is that very few feedlots actually closed during this BSE crisis. I heard of 2 or 3, and at least 1 of them was in serious trouble before May 20/03

Since the border has re-opened I have also seen much rebuilding of pens in feedlots. The pits are full, combines and trucks are rolling, and there is a whack of corn to be silaged yet.

Randy alludes to Cargill buying many companies, Better Beef is the only one I am aware of.

In a post way back on this thread Randy complains about a $150 basis difference on American bids compared to Canadian. The fact that the Canadian dollar is at 15 year highs compared to the US, the cost of fuel is 30% higher than a couple months ago, and Agman had already pegged the basis at 8 cents ($80/cwt) US funds, pretty much expalins that.

No one yet has been able to explain why prices go up if the packers control all, no one has explained how prices will benefit if packers are banned form owning cattle before slaughter.

Jason, when there is only one buyer there is still a supply and demand curve.

If there is an elastic supply curve, meaning that price changes makes quantity changes, there is less monopsony (market) power. In beef, in the short run, the cattle are "ripe" for only a short time. This makes the supply curve much more inelastic and gives the buyer more market power. Think of this concept like drinking water. Water is inelastic in the short run. If you are out for 3 days you might die (look at New Orleans). In the very short run the supply can be inelastic. In the long run, there is a lot of water and you can get it almost anywhere. It is pretty cheap. It is elastic in the long run. Ripe beef follows this concept. There is still a demand and supply curve interaction even if there is market power being exerted.

 

[Jason]

when there is only one buyer there is still a supply and demand curve.

If there is an elastic supply curve, meaning that price changes makes quantity changes, there is less monopsony (market) power. In beef, in the short run, the cattle are "ripe" for only a short time. This makes the supply curve much more inelastic and gives the buyer more market power. Think of this concept like drinking water. Water is inelastic in the short run. If you are out for 3 days you might die (look at New Orleans). In the very short run the supply can be inelastic. In the long run, there is a lot of water and you can get it almost anywhere. It is pretty cheap. It is elastic in the long run. Ripe beef follows this concept. There is still a demand and supply curve interaction even if there is market power being exerted.

If that is true, then the price only rises based on low supplies of 'ripe' fat cattle.

If that were true, the feedlots, not the packers would have all the control and could just raise the price indefinately by holding calves back and feathering the supply.

We all know that can't happen as there is a price/ quality function that the consumer will not pass. If the cost of a certian cut goes beyond what the consumer will pay, it has to be featured or it spoils.

So that leads us to understand that all money in the system is based on what consumers will pay for a finished product.

The retailers will pay wholesale for the finished product at a rate they think they can make "x" profit margin on.

The fabricators will pay the packers boxed price at a rate they think they can make "y" profit on selling to the retailer.

The packers then pay feeders based on what boxed beef is selling for plus "z" profit margins.

Feeders pay ranchers based on what fats sell for less their profit margin.

When 1 or more levels of this chain miss their market, ie pay too much for what they can sell, they lose money and have to reduce their price. If there is more consumer demand then the supplies are drawn up and initial profits may be relatively large but then decline as the consumer dollar is passed down the line.

The rancher has no one to pass the costs on to, so some complain they are being ripped off. Ranchers need to understand the entire chain as much or more than other parts of it. Retailers really could care less what a rancher does unless his customers start asking for that information.

Ranchers that are uninformed about what happens after they sell their calves are more likely to be upset by the seeming gap in prices.

 

[Econ101]

when there is only one buyer there is still a supply and demand curve.

If there is an elastic supply curve, meaning that price changes makes quantity changes, there is less monopsony (market) power. In beef, in the short run, the cattle are "ripe" for only a short time. This makes the supply curve much more inelastic and gives the buyer more market power. Think of this concept like drinking water. Water is inelastic in the short run. If you are out for 3 days you might die (look at New Orleans). In the very short run the supply can be inelastic. In the long run, there is a lot of water and you can get it almost anywhere. It is pretty cheap. It is elastic in the long run. Ripe beef follows this concept. There is still a demand and supply curve interaction even if there is market power being exerted.

If that is true, then the price only rises based on low supplies of 'ripe' fat cattle.

If that were true, the feedlots, not the packers would have all the control and could just raise the price indefinately by holding calves back and feathering the supply.

We all know that can't happen as there is a price/ quality function that the consumer will not pass. If the cost of a certian cut goes beyond what the consumer will pay, it has to be featured or it spoils.

So that leads us to understand that all money in the system is based on what consumers will pay for a finished product.

The retailers will pay wholesale for the finished product at a rate they think they can make "x" profit margin on.

The fabricators will pay the packers boxed price at a rate they think they can make "y" profit on selling to the retailer.

The packers then pay feeders based on what boxed beef is selling for plus "z" profit margins.

Feeders pay ranchers based on what fats sell for less their profit margin.

When 1 or more levels of this chain miss their market, ie pay too much for what they can sell, they lose money and have to reduce their price. If there is more consumer demand then the supplies are drawn up and initial profits may be relatively large but then decline as the consumer dollar is passed down the line.

The rancher has no one to pass the costs on to, so some complain they are being ripped off. Ranchers need to understand the entire chain as much or more than other parts of it. Retailers really could care less what a rancher does unless his customers start asking for that information.

Ranchers that are uninformed about what happens after they sell their calves are more likely to be upset by the seeming gap in prices.

You are right about a lot of what you said but not all. The complaint that the Pickett plaintiffs had is that their cash market was being passed over regardless of whether the market wanted "ripe" cattle or not. This had the effect of lowering the cash market on the whole. As the cash market declined the price paid for "captive supplies" declined even with market conditions or yield/grade were taken into account. The answer to whether that happened or not was in Tyson's payments to the captive supply with the "grid" factors and "market" factors as opposed to what they paid for the same items in the cash market. Tyson declined to disclose those "grid" and "market" factors at trial. If grid pricing and quality considerations had been disclosed then the relationship between the two could easily have been confirmed and the case determined.

It is similar to the tobacco companies disclosing their research on whether tobacco was addictive. Of course they knew it was addictive. They even formulated their cigs to take advantage of this property of tobacco. It was their burden to prove that it was not in light of all of the evidence that science presented. Similarly it was Tyson's burden to prove that they were not buying captive supplies in the manipulative manner that was claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs proved it lowered the cash market. That was not in doubt even by the court.

Keep listening to SH and Agman, learn all you can from them but do not let them think for you. Always think for yourself.

 

[Jason]

You are right about a lot of what you said but not all. The complaint that the Pickett plaintiffs had is that their cash market was being passed over regardless of whether the market wanted "ripe" cattle or not. This had the effect of lowering the cash market on the whole. As the cash market declined the price paid for "captive supplies" declined even with market conditions or yield/grade were taken into account. The answer to whether that happened or not was in Tyson's payments to the captive supply with the "grid" factors and "market" factors as opposed to what they paid for the same items in the cash market. Tyson declined to disclose those "grid" and "market" factors at trial. If grid pricing and quality considerations had been disclosed then the relationship between the two could easily have been confirmed and the case determined.

It is similar to the tobacco companies disclosing their research on whether tobacco was addictive. Of course they knew it was addictive. They even formulated their cigs to take advantage of this property of tobacco. It was their burden to prove that it was not in light of all of the evidence that science presented. Similarly it was Tyson's burden to prove that they were not buying captive supplies in the manipulative manner that was claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs proved it lowered the cash market. That was not in doubt even by the court.

So where is my scenario wrong? Were the Pickett plaintiffs banned from accessing the grids and the suposed higher prices?

The cash market could actually have been higher than the formula cattle if the breakdown you ask for was presented.

It has been agreed that the formula cattle tended to be overweight and marketed on grids to reduce the dock. Feeders were calling the shots on those contracts.

You keep jumping back to the story that just because each week there wasn't harm to the markets that proves there was harm? That doesn't even make sence. If the packers have the power to manipulate the markets why don't they? Because any market as big as the cattle market rebounds harshly if someone tries to manipulate it. They get burned worse than they benefit if they try to manipulate it.

Pickett claimed the cash market was passed over even though there was demand for 'ripe' cattle. This doesn't add up. If there was capacity and profit to be made the packers would buy everything available. If the plaintiffs made a mistake and held out for higher prices than the packers were willing to pay based on boxed beef prices and their costs, then they made a business error and should suffer as anyone else does when they make a bad choice. Pickett mis read the market.

From what I can gather he is still in business, so the market didn't hurt him too badly. If he isn't, other in the same area are so it shows better descisions on his part would have kept him in business.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "Sorry SH , don't have time to check it out."

Imagine that!

Randy: "Just wondering SH, why you personally don't integrate yourself with your holier than now Cargil or Tyson. What's good for the rest of us dumb ass ranchers, not good enough for you?"

You're sucking your thumb again.

I fed cattle for a total source verified branded beef program so that dog won't hunt.

Who said integrating with Tyson and Cargill was the only option?

Econ. 101: "The complaint that the Pickett plaintiffs had is that their cash market was being passed over regardless of whether the market wanted "ripe" cattle or not."

They complained about a lot of things. That doesn't make those complaints legitimate.

Feeders present an asking price and packers present their bids. Whether or not these two get together is determined by what packers are willing to pay and what feeders are willing to accept.

Whenever beef prices start to decline, the feedyards start holding cattle which increases total beef production. That is what is known as feedlots "NOT BEING CURRENT". When total beef production increases and demand remains stable, prices decrease.

This is a typical supply and demand relation. It's been that way since the beginning of the cattle feeding game. Everytime cattle prices fall, conspiracy theorists blame packer concentration, captive supplies, and imports.

Want to see how valid this conspiracy theory is?

What was the level of captive supplies when fat cattle prices hit $116?

Hmmmm???

If captive supplies were reducing fat cattle prices, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the captive supplies must have been reduced when fat cattle prices were $116?

You won't touch that one either.

Econ. 101 (cont.): "This had the effect of lowering the cash market on the whole."

What lowered the cash market was an increase in supply and a decrease in beef demand. Same two factors that have always lowered prices.

That is a unrefuted fact!

Econ. 101: " As the cash market declined the price paid for "captive supplies" declined even with market conditions or yield/grade were taken into account."

Market conditions were not taken into account. The supply was increasing and the demand was decreasing.

YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED ONE STITCH OF PROOF THAT NORMAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE IMPACT OF CAPTIVE SUPPLIES.

To the contrary, you have stated that the price difference between the cash market and the captive supply market was all that was needed to prove market manipulation. THEN YOU CHANGED YOUR STORY.

You just make it up as you go!

Econ. 101: "The answer to whether that happened or not was in Tyson's payments to the captive supply with the "grid" factors and "market" factors as opposed to what they paid for the same items in the cash market."

Formula and grid base prices are priced on last weeks weekly weighted average cash price.

This weeks cash price is this weeks price?

Now if supplies are increasing and demand is decreasing the boxed beef prices will fall. If boxed beef prices fall, so do fat cattle prices.

During a falling market, of course the formula and grid cattle prices will be higher than the cash prices BECAUSE THE FORMULA/GRID PRICE IS LAST WEEKS PRICE AND THE CASH PRICE IS THIS WEEKS PRICE IN A FALLING MARKET.

This is such a "no-brainer".

Econ. 101: "Tyson declined to disclose those "grid" and "market" factors at trial. If grid pricing and quality considerations had been disclosed then the relationship between the two could easily have been confirmed and the case determined."

Econ. 101: "Similarly it was Tyson's burden to prove that they were not buying captive supplies in the manipulative manner that was claimed by the plaintiffs.

SAY IT WITH ME....

THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!
THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE ACCUSER, NOT THE ACCUSED!!!

Ross Perot: "are you getting this? Am I going too fast"?

Econ. 101: The plaintiffs proved it lowered the cash market."

The plaintiffs proved that PRICES WERE LOWER, they did not prove WHAT LOWERED THE PRICE.

They proved nothing because Taylor didn't have any more than you have. "THEORIES", "SPECULATION", "CONJECTURE", and "OPINION".

NO FACTS!

Econ. 101: "Keep listening to SH and Agman, learn all you can from them but do not let them think for you. Always think for yourself."

I agree totally! Consider everything you hear then do the research and find the facts for yourself and you'll see just like I did who is telling the truth and who isn't.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Jason: "Were the Pickett plaintiffs banned from accessing the grids and the suposed higher prices?

EXACTLY!

They had the same opportunity to forward contract their cattle or sell them on the grid last week for this weeks delivery.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

I really think SH is still in grade ten. He just loves it when someone on this site sets him/herself up by making their opionion know with more than ten or fifteen words.

SH goes to work. Cut and paste the parts that pi55 him off, leave out anything that makes his case look bad, and go to work on the name calling; liar, hypocrite, blamer. Just the way a grade ten student would do.

The one I love the best lately is the hypocrite label. Why would anyone who defends everthing that the mutlinational packers do as right and good want to align himself with anything but those very packers. Sounds hypocrytical to me. If there is not a thing wrong with Cargill and Tyson's business practices SH, why jump ship. Why try something else? Careful SH, we've been here before. The balance beam is very very narrow. You will need to think about this one so you don't say a word about blaming the packers for your decision. Something grade ten students don't do well.

Should be enough words on this one for you to pick a few out for your grade ten mentality.

Everyone is a liar except SH. Only SH tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Jason, what I really said, or meant to say, was that the packers were passing on the cash market even when they could get the same thing on the cash market cheaper than what they could get on captive supplies. Sometimes it included more fats, and sometimes more leans. By applying this strategy, the cash sellers were necessarily forced into having more fats. Since the captive supply price is not a market price maker, THIS STRATEGY was market manipulation.

Like SH and Agman point out, the only way to conclusively prove this is if Tyson/IBP disclosed what factors it was paying the captive supplies and then comparing that to what it was paying in the cash market for the same thing. When that question came up, they declined to answer and thus hide behind the lack of evidence theory and burden of proof requirements. The jury saw through this. This was what the appellate courts hung their hat on. When an alibi does not stand up in court because one does not present it, there is a legitimate verdict.

Also, it was the JURY's job to assess the points of evidence, not the judge's or appellate judge's. The appellate process can not trump the jury's decisions in this matter based on their own conclusions (Strom) and then quoting(11th Circuit) their own conclusions as a justification for trumping the jury. It is a circular argument. If there was a problem in the math of Dr. Taylor, let them say that in their decision so that it could be examined. The court did not do that. Instead, all of the people like you and I have to get into argument with people like SH and Agman. They claim they have seen the arguments and we have not so they have to be right.

The trap Dr. Taylor could fall into, which he hasn't so far to my knowledge, is that he reveals evidence in the trial that is privileged to prove his case to anyone outside of the system. This evidence is privileged but could be released if the defendant's chose to do so as the discovery came from them. Agman and SH know this and that is why they keep asking everyone to present this evidence so that Taylor could immediately be discredited, not on the evidence, but on rules of the court.

Since you are on the packer side SH and Agman, why don't you get the discovery evidence out. If the packers agree to this discovery information getting out then there is no problem with the above situation. PROVIDE the evidence, Agman, and stop hiding behind your empty arguments. SHOW US YOUR HAND FIRST, IT IS YOUR TURN.
[/quote]

 

[Jason]

Jason, what I really said, or meant to say, was that the packers were passing on the cash market even when they could get the same thing on the cash market cheaper than what they could get on captive supplies. Sometimes it included more fats, and sometimes more leans. By applying this strategy, the cash sellers were necessarily forced into having more fats. Since the captive supply price is not a market price maker, THIS STRATEGY was market manipulation.

So by paying MORE for contract cattle, they were manipulating the market down. Right, yeah, I buy that. Producers that had fats could contract them, they never decreased the amount of contract cattle by paying MORE for those cattle.

So again feeders had the market power in your scenario. If they contracted more fats there would be less available as cash cattle, the price would climb as the supply is cut, and IBP would have paid even more driving the contract cattle higher.

Pickett and friends couldn't figure that out and kept dumping fats to keep the fat price low. You say they never engaged contracts. So they were responsible for the market conditions, not IBP.

 

[Mike]

Pickett Trial Testimony;
QAttorney) So, one of the - one of the considerations in setting price is your inventory, isn't it?
ATyson Buyer) Yes sir.
Q:And as your inventory of cattle goes up, the price you offer goes down?
A:That can happen............
Q:If you're long on cattle, you don't need to buy as many, so you offer less money, don't you?
A:That's correct.

Given that Tyson regularly contracted an excess to their slaughter needs, the above testimony is admittance of manipulation.

The buyer also admitted that Tyson could buy all of the cattle it needs in the cash market as sufficient numbers are available there. (Deposition-9/12/00)