question for SH

[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.

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.

Since the captive supply cattle were based on the cash price, the market as a whole went down when the packers chose the captive supplies over the cash price for the same product adjusted for yield/grade. Captive supplies in this scenario never made the market.

I had this same disagreement with a stock broker once. I think it was Merril Lynch. I put an order in to sell a stock at the market. My stock was not sold at the market, it was sold through the inventory that Merril Lynch had with its customers. They picked the spread between their own customers and the market price had little to do with the trade. When I found out, I was livid. I had lost out on some money because of the way they traded my stock. I immediately fired the broker. My stock was not enough to influence the market but someone else's obviously was. There was a legal action taken against the broker and everyone who had traded with the broker was in a class that could ask for damages. This is exactly the scenario that was played in the Tyson-IBP price manipulation game with a few industry specific variances.

These are old games that are being played again. By the way, the stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street. Sometimes it pays to revisit the lessons learned in the big city.

 

[Jason]

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)

So Tyson buys more cattle than they can kill.?! They just throw the excess out? If that statement was true they would never buy in the cash market and so never pay less for cattle via that route.

Does a feedlot ever bid more for cattle when they are at capacity? Rather they look at overloading their capacity if cheap enough cattle come along.

Since the captive supply cattle were based on the cash price, the market as a whole went down when the packers chose the captive supplies over the cash price for the same product adjusted for yield/grade. Captive supplies in this scenario never made the market.

I had this same disagreement with a stock broker once. I think it was Merril Lynch. I put an order in to sell a stock at the market. My stock was not sold at the market, it was sold through the inventory that Merril Lynch had with its customers. They picked the spread between their own customers and the market price had little to do with the trade. When I found out, I was livid. I had lost out on some money because of the way they traded my stock. I immediately fired the broker. My stock was not enough to influence the market but someone else's obviously was. There was a legal action taken against the broker and everyone who had traded with the broker was in a class that could ask for damages. This is exactly the scenario that was played in the Tyson-IBP price manipulation game with a few industry specific variances.

Your problem in the stock market was preferential trading, and is illegal. There has never been a ban on cash sellers signing a contract. Tyson never set the cash price. Even if they benefited from a lower cash market, it wasn't their fault...look at Mike's post.

 

[Mike]

SH Posted on Mar 28, 2005 8:24 P.M.

Quote: "Bruce Bass, head cattle buyer for IBP testified that he informed their 75 cattle buyers four times daily as to the supply of captive supply. He then told his buyers the number of cattle to buy on the spot market and what they should give. Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."

Of course! Because the plaintiffs themselves had sold ibp forward contract cattle, they had less cattle to buy???

We have found this last statement to be false. All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff". Please disregard this statement.

The statement in the box is pertinent to your argument Jason.

 

[rkaiser]

Ever try to lock up some commercial freezer or cooler space in Calgary Jason. Cargill and Tyson have HUGE inventory on both sides of the slaughter floor here in Canada and most likely on the US side as well.

Jason -

So Tyson buys more cattle than they can kill.?! They just throw the excess out?

Jason

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.

Had to chuckle at this second quote of yours from a while back. Read it again Jason and you might see why the laugh.

 

[Econ101]

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)

So Tyson buys more cattle than they can kill.?! They just throw the excess out? If that statement was true they would never buy in the cash market and so never pay less for cattle via that route.

Does a feedlot ever bid more for cattle when they are at capacity? Rather they look at overloading their capacity if cheap enough cattle come along.

Since the captive supply cattle were based on the cash price, the market as a whole went down when the packers chose the captive supplies over the cash price for the same product adjusted for yield/grade. Captive supplies in this scenario never made the market.

I had this same disagreement with a stock broker once. I think it was Merril Lynch. I put an order in to sell a stock at the market. My stock was not sold at the market, it was sold through the inventory that Merril Lynch had with its customers. They picked the spread between their own customers and the market price had little to do with the trade. When I found out, I was livid. I had lost out on some money because of the way they traded my stock. I immediately fired the broker. My stock was not enough to influence the market but someone else's obviously was. There was a legal action taken against the broker and everyone who had traded with the broker was in a class that could ask for damages. This is exactly the scenario that was played in the Tyson-IBP price manipulation game with a few industry specific variances.

Your problem in the stock market was preferential trading, and is illegal. There has never been a ban on cash sellers signing a contract. Tyson never set the cash price. Even if they benefited from a lower cash market, it wasn't their fault...look at Mike's post.

So you are not so wet behind the ears, your evidence shows that. Same story, different name. This was a very clever shell game set up, I must admit. Game theorists must have made some money coming up with this one or some smart (but not ethical) economist.

There is no ban on Merril Lynch or Dean Witter having orders either. It is only when they abuse these orders that they break the law and sometimes get caught. That is exactly what happened in Pickett. Section 202 a) and b) of the PSA is about preferential treatment as it applies to livestock. Same game, different industry. Appellate decisions on Pickett with "legitimate business justification" being an excuse for claims of efficiency are just as illigitimate. The stock trading companies could have the excuse that it is more efficient to trade their stocks in house than going to the street, but they lost that argument. Corporate efficiency is no excuse for:
(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect; or........

 

[Sandhusker]

Jason, "So Tyson buys more cattle than they can kill.?! They just throw the excess out? If that statement was true they would never buy in the cash market and so never pay less for cattle via that route."

That statement was made as sworn testimony, it had better be true.

 

[Jason]

This is funny, the arguement changes each time a question is asked.

Randy the statement "If that were true...." means there is a caveate on the rest of the sentence. I was showing where Econ says one thing that proves something we all know doesn't happen.

Econ, no I am not wet behind the ears. Not many people could have survived the operation I inherited with its accociated problems and disadvantages. How did I survive? Not by blaming and whining, but by working and learning.

Based on the last few posts, Tyson (IBP) controls the cash market but never buys there, but buys there when it is convienient, but only contracts cattle for the next week when the price is advantageous, but doesn't know next weeks price because they are setting it this week with the cattle they don't buy in the cash market. Unless they find that the cash market is cheaper than the contracts they have set for next week so they then raise the cash bids but lower the cash average, and this only happens for 1 hour on 1 day a week.

Go back and read your posts plus the posts of those who you agree with. 17 different options with only 1 common thread, packers are evil....

Sandhusker, obviously with the contradictions in testamony even between people who worked for IBP, how were 12 jurors supposed to figure out what really happened? The judge had to throw this one out because no one could even prove how IBP was still in business, let alone manipulate the markets to their advantage.

 

[Econ101]

This is funny, the arguement changes each time a question is asked.

Randy the statement "If that were true...." means there is a caveate on the rest of the sentence. I was showing where Econ says one thing that proves something we all know doesn't happen.

Econ, no I am not wet behind the ears. Not many people could have survived the operation I inherited with its accociated problems and disadvantages. How did I survive? Not by blaming and whining, but by working and learning.

Based on the last few posts, Tyson (IBP) controls the cash market but never buys there, but buys there when it is convienient, but only contracts cattle for the next week when the price is advantageous, but doesn't know next weeks price because they are setting it this week with the cattle they don't buy in the cash market. Unless they find that the cash market is cheaper than the contracts they have set for next week so they then raise the cash bids but lower the cash average, and this only happens for 1 hour on 1 day a week.

Go back and read your posts plus the posts of those who you agree with. 17 different options with only 1 common thread, packers are evil....

Sandhusker, obviously with the contradictions in testamony even between people who worked for IBP, how were 12 jurors supposed to figure out what really happened? The judge had to throw this one out because no one could even prove how IBP was still in business, let alone manipulate the markets to their advantage.

Congratulations on your surgery. Some of the best fighters have been people with disabilities or physical challenges.

I did not say the things in your post you claimed I said. Never is a big word and I try to stay away from it because I believe in God. If I use it, it is for emphasis only. Please don't misquote or misunderstand me again on that one. I did not ever say, nor did the plaintiffs say, that the market power of Tysons was absolute. It is big, but not absolute. With more captive supply and inelasticity of supply it is magnified. The plaintiffs argured that Tyson discriminated against the cash market and that the cash market was what set the price. They did this, the plaintiffs claimed, independent of the factors (yield/quality spreads) you and SH claim are reasons the captive supplies should be higher. More captive supplies thinned the cash market out and was easier to manipulate.

All packers are not evil. Even the industrialists that were considered "Robber Barons" were not necessarily evil. What they did and how they distorted markets to take advantage of them was determined to be against society's interests and they were outlawed in the anti-trust laws following the robber baron's actions in the 1800s. Those laws and their efficient enforcement is what has allowed the United States to become the super economy it is today. The PSA is just such a law. It should be enforced.

You must not know the Pickett arguments and what is behind price determination behind captive supply or how it influences overall price.

[/quote]

 

[agman]

This is funny, the arguement changes each time a question is asked.

Randy the statement "If that were true...." means there is a caveate on the rest of the sentence. I was showing where Econ says one thing that proves something we all know doesn't happen.

Econ, no I am not wet behind the ears. Not many people could have survived the operation I inherited with its accociated problems and disadvantages. How did I survive? Not by blaming and whining, but by working and learning.

Based on the last few posts, Tyson (IBP) controls the cash market but never buys there, but buys there when it is convienient, but only contracts cattle for the next week when the price is advantageous, but doesn't know next weeks price because they are setting it this week with the cattle they don't buy in the cash market. Unless they find that the cash market is cheaper than the contracts they have set for next week so they then raise the cash bids but lower the cash average, and this only happens for 1 hour on 1 day a week.

Go back and read your posts plus the posts of those who you agree with. 17 different options with only 1 common thread, packers are evil....

Sandhusker, obviously with the contradictions in testamony even between people who worked for IBP, how were 12 jurors supposed to figure out what really happened? The judge had to throw this one out because no one could even prove how IBP was still in business, let alone manipulate the markets to their advantage.

The testimony and records at trial showed clearly that IBP is the largest buyer of cash cattle in the U.S. The records also revealed that they purchase cash cattle everyday of the week including Sunday. Additionally , the records show that in the spring of 1994 when the plaintiffs accused IBP of withdrawing totally from the market for a period of four week they actually bought more cash cattle than then their normal weekly average cash purchases. So much for the fairy tales from the plaintiffs. Yet , they still try to rationalize why they should have won the case. Accusations, myth, and lies did not cut it in the courtroom; truth prevailed and rightfully so.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

The testimony and records at trial showed clearly that IBP is the largest buyer of cash cattle in the U.S. The records also revealed that they purchase cash cattle everyday of the week including Sunday. Additionally , the records show that in the spring of 1994 when the plaintiffs accused IBP of withdrawing totally from the market for a period of four week they actually bought more cash cattle than then their normal weekly average cash purchases. So much for the fairy tales from the plaintiffs. Yet , they still try to rationalize why they should have won the case. Accusations, myth, and lies did not cut it in the courtroom; truth prevailed and rightfully so.

Interesting, but I don't see the connection to Pickett's arguments. The brokerage company I used as an example traded the stock I sold "at the market" every day that trading happened also. They still got caught and still had to pay. Maybe you could elaborate. The question was one of discriminating against the cash market, not that they were not in it.

 

[Jason]

Congratulations on my SURGERY????

The operation I inherited is a farm/ranch with too much debt in a normally drought prone area. I was not refering to inheriting a medical procedure....I don't even know how a person could inherit such a thing.

Econ you'll have to go back and regroup now that it's been shown IBP/Tyson were heavier in the cash market at a period you claimed they pulled back from it to manipulate it.

Every time a feedlot buys a set of calves, they manipulate the price of calves. Every time a consumer buys a steak they manipulate the price of beef. Every time cattle die it manipulates the price of cattle.

Your rationale has been that Tyson/IBP should do business in a way that affects no one else. That is NOT the intent of the PSA, nor is it even possible.

If packers could manipulate the market no one has proven it. Why don't they do it all the time, or at least enough so they never lose money?

 

[Mike]

Jason:

If packers could manipulate the market no one has proven it.

Pickett proved it to a jury of 12. Unanimously.

They voted 72 times...........YES.

The only "No" vote was; "Did the defendent's use of captive supply depress the cash market price for fed cattle by IBP by an equal percentage for each year of the class period?

Looks like they were smart enough to know that Tyson pulled back at times.

 

[Econ101]

Congratulations on my SURGERY????

The operation I inherited is a farm/ranch with too much debt in a normally drought prone area. I was not refering to inheriting a medical procedure....I don't even know how a person could inherit such a thing.

Econ you'll have to go back and regroup now that it's been shown IBP/Tyson were heavier in the cash market at a period you claimed they pulled back from it to manipulate it.

Every time a feedlot buys a set of calves, they manipulate the price of calves. Every time a consumer buys a steak they manipulate the price of beef. Every time cattle die it manipulates the price of cattle.

Your rationale has been that Tyson/IBP should do business in a way that affects no one else. That is NOT the intent of the PSA, nor is it even possible.

If packers could manipulate the market no one has proven it. Why don't they do it all the time, or at least enough so they never lose money?

Sorry Jason, I thought you had a lobotomy. My mistake. I did not inherit my farm, I bought it with money I made; no inheritance here.

No, everytime a feedlot buys calves they do not necessarily manipulate the market. If the auction is not rigged then they participate in it. There is a big difference. The way captive supplies affect the cash market, there can be manipulation. Pickett proved it to the 12 jurors. Judge Strom, nor the appellate courts went into the econometric analysis, probably because they did not understand it or were told not to. I don't really know why but they showed they did not have the aptitude necessary to overturn the evidence presented by Dr. Taylor and the analysis of that data. If Taylor had made some real mathematical, econometric, or other obvious mistake, they did not point it out. They just called him names. They even went on to make major mistakes regarding the Robinson-Patman Act. I am tired of name calling by SH and his likes. Debate on the points, not that b.s. they bring to the table. I have done that.

I believe in litteral interpretation of the PSA. You have attacked me before, saying that it is an old law, that it may not apply now. You did not even know at the time you said that statement what the law was!!!! You probably do not even know what "producer surplus" means. To an economist these are not $100 words, they are well defined terms describing the supply/demand equilibrium and all of the producers on the supply curve. I am sorry you do not understand this. I hope that you always are on supply curve below the point of equilibrium. By your last post, whoever you inherited your farm was not. Full enforcement of this law will not necessarily make your operation profitable, but it will help keep market power from taking all your profits out of your operation.

If Tyson/IBP was heavy into the cash market because they let it "overripe", and I don't know if that was the case or not, there could be evidence of price manipulation.

Yes, Pickett did prove it, in a court of law where it counts in America. 12 jurors said so. Do you want to produce any evidence to the contrary or are you just taking the word of packer backers like SH and Agman? The burden of proof is on you. I am willing to listen. If you do not have the evidence needed to support your claims, then they are empty. Tell me where Taylor was wrong with his numbers. Tell me what you base your beliefs on. Tell me why Taylor should be dismissed as a "nut". You don't even have the discovery data to look at. Agman says he has looked at it and done his own regression analysis, yet he will not show it. Post the discovery information on the internet for a real review by real critics and swear to it under penalty of perjury. Stop hiding behind nothing. Even the emperor found out he had no clothes one day.

In closing, I hope you can get your operation reversed.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy: "If there is not a thing wrong with Cargill and Tyson's business practices SH, why jump ship. Why try something else?"

First off Randy, I slept through another of your never ending evaluations because I could sooooooo give a rip what you think of me. Can you understand that? Your opinion of me is absolutely meaningless so why waste your time with evaluations of me? I doubt anyone else needs your opinion of me to form their own.

Your inability to contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary is all I need to know.

Why try something new you ask?

There is no greater incentive for producers to improve their product then when they own that product from pasture to plate.

In the existing system, when progressive producers (non blamers) try to receive more for their product through formulas and grids (value based marketing), the socialized cattle marketing advocates are pissing and moaning about some baseless captive supply conspiracy theory. So the poor cattle receive more than they should and the good cattle receive less than they should in the "socialized" cash market.

This "socialized cattle marketing" disincentive wouldn't happen with producers who owned the product from pasture to plate. This would be the "ULTIMATE CAPTIVE SUPPLY".

Secondly, when you own an interest in a packing company you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves and nobody SHOULD accuse you of manipulating your own market. I say SHOULD because blamers always find something to bench about.

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

Still sucking your thumb huh?

Econ. 101: "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."

Another absolutely ridiculous statement.

WEEK TO WEEK MARKETS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME DUE TO SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS MAINLY BOXED BEEF PRICES.

This weeks boxed beef market might be lower than last weeks boxed beef market which means fat cattle prices will fall accordingly. When this happens, feeders tend to hold out for more money. That's what you define as "market manipulation" which is absolutely ridiculous.

Econ. 101: "By applying this strategy, the cash sellers were necessarily forced into having more fats."

That doesn't even make sense.

How can they have more fats than what they always had?

They either sell them or they hold out for more money.

Econ. 101: "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."

THAT WOULDN'T TELL YOU A DAMN THING!

This weeks cash market, reflective of boxed beef prices, is not last weeks market, reflective of boxed beef prices.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THIS???????

Fat cattle prices are driven by beef and beef by product prices which fluctuate according to supply and demand.

You're still on this stupid theory that this weeks price and last weeks prices should be the same and that's absolutely insane.

You remind me of the OJ defense, they just kept throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what might stick too. In your case, you keep throwing the same sh*t against the wall that will never stick.

Econ. 101: "When an alibi does not stand up in court because one does not present it, there is a legitimate verdict."

Hahaha!

Do you even stop to think about what you type???

If a defense is not presented, it has no affect on the case.

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

IBP DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE, THE PACKER BLAMERS HAVE TO PROVE IBP GUILTY!

How many times do you have to be told that? This is basic law!

Nobody is going to gain a conviction based on something that was never presented and nobody is going to get a "FAIR" conviction based on theories.

Econ. 101: " 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."

Judge Strom did address Dr. Taylor's faulty math.

Dr. Taylor awarded damages higher than ibp's total profits for that time period. What more evidence was needed of Taylor's ignorance.

Econ. 101: "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."

That's not why we are right. We are right because the plaintiff's never had any evidence to back their position, only "theories". Judge Strom saw it and so did the 11th Circuit.

Econ. 101: "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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dr. Taylor might have this evidence that he didn't present in court but if he presents it now, he could be discredited for releasing privelaged information??????

ROTFLMAO!

This just keeps getting better and better. What a great source of entertainment.

Econ. 101: "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."

Your "presumption of guilt" dog will not hunt!

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

Bullsh*t!

Dropping your price as your needs are filled is a typical buying procedure, not market manipulation.

If that was the case, every feeder could be sued by producers when his price drops as his needs are filled. Same ridiculous argument.

Everyone of these cash market sellers has the same formula/grid and forward contract marketing options as anyone else.

This market manipulation conspiracy theory is absolutely bogus.

Econ. 101: "Since the captive supply cattle were based on the cash price, the market as a whole went down when the packers chose the captive supplies over the cash price for the same product adjusted for yield/grade. Captive supplies in this scenario never made the market."

CHOSE THE CAPTIVE SUPPLY OVER THE CASH PRICE????

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The captive supply cattle are already sold and scheduled for delivery so how can they be CHOSE over the cash market?

THEY ARE ALREADY SOLD BY THE FEEDER AND BOUGHT BY THE PACKER!

Another ridiculous statement!

ADJUSTED FOR GRADE AND YIELD???

How do they adjust for grade and yield when the grade and yield is not known until the cattle are killed? How can you adjust for what you don't even know yet.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and deeper!

Why do you insist on portraying your ignorance to the world?

Mike: "We have found this last statement to be false. All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff". Please disregard this statement."

Mike Callicrate has sold cattle on the grid/formula to Monfort.

Your dog won't hunt!

Quote: "Bruce Bass, head cattle buyer for IBP testified that he informed their 75 cattle buyers four times daily as to the supply of captive supply. He then told his buyers the number of cattle to buy on the spot market and what they should give. Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."

So what?

As ibp's needs are filled, they drop their price?

Is this some revolutionary finding for you Mike?

Mike is buying herd sires and as his needs are met he drops his price. MARKET MANIPULATION! "BOOK 'EM DANO"!

Econ. 101: "The plaintiffs argured that Tyson discriminated against the cash market and that the cash market was what set the price. They did this, the plaintiffs claimed, independent of the factors (yield/quality spreads) you and SH claim are reasons the captive supplies should be higher. More captive supplies thinned the cash market out and was easier to manipulate."

Grade and Yield is not relevant in comparing captive supply cattle with the cash cattle because nobody knows how the cash cattle will grade and yield until they are killed. That is common sense.

Falling cash cattle prices due to falling boxed beef prices is not market manipulation.

Dropping your price as your needs are filled is not market manipulation.

Price fixing by numerous packers getting their heads together to determine a price IS MARKET MANIPULATION.


You still got nothing Econ.!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Randy: "If there is not a thing wrong with Cargill and Tyson's business practices SH, why jump ship. Why try something else?"

First off Randy, I slept through another of your never ending evaluations because I could sooooooo give a rip what you think of me. Can you understand that? Your opinion of me is absolutely meaningless so why waste your time with evaluations of me? I doubt anyone else needs your opinion of me to form their own.

Your inability to contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary is all I need to know.

Why try something new you ask?

There is no greater incentive for producers to improve their product then when they own that product from pasture to plate.

In the existing system, when progressive producers (non blamers) try to receive more for their product through formulas and grids (value based marketing), the socialized cattle marketing advocates are pissing and moaning about some baseless captive supply conspiracy theory. So the poor cattle receive more than they should and the good cattle receive less than they should in the "socialized" cash market.

This "socialized cattle marketing" disincentive wouldn't happen with producers who owned the product from pasture to plate. This would be the "ULTIMATE CAPTIVE SUPPLY".

Secondly, when you own an interest in a packing company you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves and nobody SHOULD accuse you of manipulating your own market. I say SHOULD because blamers always find something to bench about.

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

Still sucking your thumb huh?

Econ. 101: "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."

Another absolutely ridiculous statement.

WEEK TO WEEK MARKETS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME DUE TO SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS MAINLY BOXED BEEF PRICES.

This weeks boxed beef market might be lower than last weeks boxed beef market which means fat cattle prices will fall accordingly. When this happens, feeders tend to hold out for more money. That's what you define as "market manipulation" which is absolutely ridiculous.

Econ. 101: "By applying this strategy, the cash sellers were necessarily forced into having more fats."

That doesn't even make sense.

How can they have more fats than what they always had?

They either sell them or they hold out for more money.

Econ. 101: "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."

THAT WOULDN'T TELL YOU A DAMN THING!

This weeks cash market, reflective of boxed beef prices, is not last weeks market, reflective of boxed beef prices.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THIS???????

Fat cattle prices are driven by beef and beef by product prices which fluctuate according to supply and demand.

You're still on this stupid theory that this weeks price and last weeks prices should be the same and that's absolutely insane.

You remind me of the OJ defense, they just kept throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what might stick too. In your case, you keep throwing the same sh*t against the wall that will never stick.

Econ. 101: "When an alibi does not stand up in court because one does not present it, there is a legitimate verdict."

Hahaha!

Do you even stop to think about what you type???

If a defense is not presented, it has no affect on the case.

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

IBP DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENSE, THE PACKER BLAMERS HAVE TO PROVE IBP GUILTY!

How many times do you have to be told that? This is basic law!

Nobody is going to gain a conviction based on something that was never presented and nobody is going to get a "FAIR" conviction based on theories.

Econ. 101: " 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."

Judge Strom did address Dr. Taylor's faulty math.

Dr. Taylor awarded damages higher than ibp's total profits for that time period. What more evidence was needed of Taylor's ignorance.

Econ. 101: "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."

That's not why we are right. We are right because the plaintiff's never had any evidence to back their position, only "theories". Judge Strom saw it and so did the 11th Circuit.

Econ. 101: "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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dr. Taylor might have this evidence that he didn't present in court but if he presents it now, he could be discredited for releasing privelaged information??????

ROTFLMAO!

This just keeps getting better and better. What a great source of entertainment.

Econ. 101: "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."

Your "presumption of guilt" dog will not hunt!

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

Bullsh*t!

Dropping your price as your needs are filled is a typical buying procedure, not market manipulation.

If that was the case, every feeder could be sued by producers when his price drops as his needs are filled. Same ridiculous argument.

Everyone of these cash market sellers has the same formula/grid and forward contract marketing options as anyone else.

This market manipulation conspiracy theory is absolutely bogus.

Econ. 101: "Since the captive supply cattle were based on the cash price, the market as a whole went down when the packers chose the captive supplies over the cash price for the same product adjusted for yield/grade. Captive supplies in this scenario never made the market."

CHOSE THE CAPTIVE SUPPLY OVER THE CASH PRICE????

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The captive supply cattle are already sold and scheduled for delivery so how can they be CHOSE over the cash market?

THEY ARE ALREADY SOLD BY THE FEEDER AND BOUGHT BY THE PACKER!

Another ridiculous statement!

ADJUSTED FOR GRADE AND YIELD???

How do they adjust for grade and yield when the grade and yield is not known until the cattle are killed? How can you adjust for what you don't even know yet.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and deeper!

Why do you insist on portraying your ignorance to the world?

Mike: "We have found this last statement to be false. All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff". Please disregard this statement."

Mike Callicrate has sold cattle on the grid/formula to Monfort.

Your dog won't hunt!

Quote: "Bruce Bass, head cattle buyer for IBP testified that he informed their 75 cattle buyers four times daily as to the supply of captive supply. He then told his buyers the number of cattle to buy on the spot market and what they should give. Bass also testified that during some weeks IBP owned as much as 190% of its kill needs, nearly double what they'd need for their slaughter plants the following week. When that happened Bass told his buyers to lower their bids for cash cattle."

So what?

As ibp's needs are filled, they drop their price?

Is this some revolutionary finding for you Mike?

Mike is buying herd sires and as his needs are met he drops his price. MARKET MANIPULATION! "BOOK 'EM DANO"!

Econ. 101: "The plaintiffs argured that Tyson discriminated against the cash market and that the cash market was what set the price. They did this, the plaintiffs claimed, independent of the factors (yield/quality spreads) you and SH claim are reasons the captive supplies should be higher. More captive supplies thinned the cash market out and was easier to manipulate."

Grade and Yield is not relevant in comparing captive supply cattle with the cash cattle because nobody knows how the cash cattle will grade and yield until they are killed. That is common sense.

Falling cash cattle prices due to falling boxed beef prices is not market manipulation.

Dropping your price as your needs are filled is not market manipulation.

Price fixing by numerous packers getting their heads together to determine a price IS MARKET MANIPULATION.


You still got nothing Econ.!



~SH~

4 has to be numerous? How big was your family growing up?

Cattle buyers don't know how cattle will yield and grade when looking at them within a smidgen? Put them back in the slaughter houses then.

SH, your mother should have hit you in the head and fed your milk to the pigs. The cattle industry would be a lot better off.

 

[ocm]

~SH~, you still think formula and grid are the same thing. You'll not make any progress until you get that one straightened out.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "Cattle buyers don't know how cattle will yield and grade when looking at them within a smidgen? Put them back in the slaughter houses then."

Easy for you to say since you are so incredibly ignorant of all facets of this industry.

Econ. 101: "SH, your mother should have hit you in the head and fed your milk to the pigs. The cattle industry would be a lot better off."

Gosh, is that original?

Bet you sat up all night thinking of that one didn't you?

Absorbing an insult from you is not unlike being run over by a Tonka truck.

You find your childish insults easier than contradicting anything I have stated with facts to the contrary don't you?

As if this industry would be better off with a bunch of whiny packer blaming conspiracy theorists like you that think your phone is tapped.

What a dandy you are.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Formula pricing and grid pricing are the same OCM.

Did you change the meaning of that the same way you guys have changed the meaning of "captive supplies" to include formula/grid cattle?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH--

Quote:
Mike: "We have found this last statement to be false. All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff". Please disregard this statement."


Mike Callicrate has sold cattle on the grid/formula to Monfort.

Your dog won't hunt!

SH--,

Can a person not be in two classes at the same time? Sometimes you might be a cash seller and sometimes you might be a grid/formula seller.

If there was a legal action against a company, you could be in either, both or none of the classes. This goes to show how really stupid your arguments really are. You have repeated this allegation more than once as proof that your arguments are winners. You have no credibilty. You are a hawker.

If this is the kind of proof you use in making your arguments then no wonder you are incapable of "getting it". It is obvious to me that your mother or someone hit you in the head. They just didn't follow up on the milk part probably because you squeeled so loud like you do on this forum. I wouldn't blame them though. I would do almost anything to make you shut up too. I would love to discuss points with you but sometimes a fella has to stop talking to a brick wall when he finds it is one short of a full load.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "Can a person not be in two classes at the same time? Sometimes you might be a cash seller and sometimes you might be a grid/formula seller."

Of course they can be both. That's not the point!

If you had any ability to comprehend what you are reading you would know that's not the point. There is 2 issues here.


First, Mike stated:

"All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff"."

That was the statement I was responding to.

All the plaintiffs were not cash sellers. Like you said, some were both.

Second issue is the issue of hypocrisy of claiming that formula/grid cattle are used as market manipulation WHEN YOU HAVE WILLINGLY ENTERED INTO THOSE AGREEMENTS YOURSELF.

That's like R-CULT members buying "SUPPOSEDLY" high risk Canadian cattle anticipating the opening of the Canadian border. Leo McDonnell defended that hypocrisy.

How can you "allege" market manipulation when you willingly participated in selling cattle on the formula/grid that you are sueing against?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Econ. 101: "This goes to show how really stupid your arguments really are. You have repeated this allegation more than once as proof that your arguments are winners. You have no credibilty. You are a hawker."

I'm sure to someone who has been brainwashed by the packer blaming doctrine for as long as you have and to someone who is as totally ignorant on these issues as you are, my arguments would appear stupid

Saying they are stupid is so much easier than proving it which you failed to do.

Econ. 101: "It is obvious to me that your mother or someone hit you in the head. They just didn't follow up on the milk part probably because you squeeled so loud like you do on this forum. I wouldn't blame them though. I would do almost anything to make you shut up too. I would love to discuss points with you but sometimes a fella has to stop talking to a brick wall when he finds it is one short of a full load."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I swear they must send all you blamers to the same schools.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT!

Blaming 101!

Anything to avoid having to bring something relevant to the table to refute what has been presented.

A sure sign of defeat I might add!


I'll let your easily refuted, absolutely ridiculous statement that a difference in this weeks cash price and last weeks average cash price is proof of market manipulation and your "burden of proof falling on the accused" position, define your depth of intellect on this issue. Nobody has to look any further than that to see what a joke you are.

No wonder you have reached the desperate level you have of resorting to squeeling pig analogies.

If you had anything you could take my quote and prove me wrong with facts to the contrary. You don't have anything so you make statements and resort to your current depth of discrediting desperation.

You are really starting to bore me.



~SH~