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~