Questions for OCM on "captive supplies".

[Econ101]

SH, Does the captive supply set up a Nash equilibrium and that Azzam already admitted (proof you asked for) a negative correlation between captive supply and price?

Did the cattlemen prove to 12 jurors that they were paid less for their cattle for equivilent quality?

Was there market power, price leadership and price signaling?

All of those were parts of the elements of the case that had to be made. The appellate decision conceded the main element, the negative correlation. No evidence was quoted in the appellate decisions that denied those points, only judgements by the judges. Why did they have jurors anyway? You seem to want judges to decide everything instead of 12 jurors. That is far worse than the "socialism" you throw out. It is FASCISM. Fascism is okay if you are the party in charge by your reasoning; it just doesn't work for a free society.

Cash cattle prices are driven by normal supply and demand factors within the market. Always have been, always will be. None of your bogus market manipulation conspiracy theories will change that. Pickett lost becasue they couldn't prove market manipulation and neither can you.

Pickett didn't lose on the merits of the case, they were just ignored by the appellate judges. Show me where the merits were in the briefs.

 

[Econ101]

SH,

There are markes that are very very thinly traded and set the price for the whole market. From time to time there are schemes to try to obfiscate normal supply and demand equilibrium in those markets. Thin markets do not necessarily mean there is market manipulation. It has to be shown. My "ifs" are just that. Every case is different and the facts of the particular case are different. The jury is to decide the "ifs". They did. You are not the jury and you just have an OPINION. I left that opinion where it belongs--with the jury--unless there are REAL reasons for overturning the verdict, it should stand. Please point them out in the briefs if you can. Please leave OPINIONS to the jury, however, as they were the ones who had the responsibility of rendering the verdict.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "SH, Does the captive supply set up a Nash equilibrium and that Azzam already admitted (proof you asked for) a negative correlation between captive supply and price?"

Dropping your price as your needs are met is a normal process of supply and demand. Not all packer's needs are met simultaneously. Another fact you chose to ignore in pursuit of your baseless conspiracy theories.

Kindergarten: "Did the cattlemen prove to 12 jurors that they were paid less for their cattle for equivilent quality?"

That does not prove market manipulation. That proves that Tyson will drop their price as their needs are met just like order buyers in the sale barn do.

The quality argument is relative to the choice/select spread at the time. Overly fat cattle that marble better in a narrow choice/select spread are not necessarily higher quality cattle.

Kindergarten: "Was there market power, price leadership and price signaling?"

God only knows what your definition of those terms is.

As the supply goes up and demand remains stable, the price goes down.

As the supply goes down and demand remains stable, the price goes up.

As demand increases and the supply remains stable, the price goes up.

As demand decreases and the supply remains stable, the price goes down.

Define that however you want!

Kindergarten: "The appellate decision conceded the main element, the negative correlation."

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation. Never will be!

Kindergarten: "No evidence was quoted in the appellate decisions that denied those points, only judgements by the judges."

It was not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense, it was the packer blamer's responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt.

Kindergarten: "Why did they have jurors anyway?"

Why have judges if the jury knows all that needs to be known about the law?

Why do they have an appeals process anyway if the jurors always get it right?

Did OJ's jury get it right? Perhaps OJ will find Nicole's killer on one of many golf courses.

Kindergarten: "You seem to want judges to decide everything instead of 12 jurors."

The judge needs to intervene when the jury can't understand the evidence. The judge knows more about the law than the jury. The 11th circuit upheld the judge's decision. That's all that needs to be known.


The Judge's ruling stated that there was no PSA violation and you have failed to prove otherwise.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

vv

 

[Econ101]

SH:

The judge needs to intervene when the jury can't understand the evidence. The judge knows more about the law than the jury. The 11th circuit upheld the judge's decision. That's all that needs to be known.


The Judge's ruling stated that there was no PSA violation and you have failed to prove otherwise.


~SH~

And they legislated from the bench to get to that decision. They proved in their briefs they don't know the economic concepts behind the ruling.

 

[Anonymous]

The judges proved in their briefs that they totally understood that the plaintiff's case was based on nothing more than a bunch of bullsh*t baseless conspiracy theories.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The judges proved in their briefs that they totally understood that the plaintiff's case was based on nothing more than a bunch of bullsh*t baseless conspiracy theories.


~SH~

My reply is a quote from the man who traps himself:

When are you going to back your positions with substance?



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

You are a funny guy! You pretend to know so much about the Pickett case yet by your own admission you didn't even read the testimony.

Unlike you, I have read a large part of the testimony, the judges ruling, and the judges instructions to the jury which they couldn't even understand. The substance you are obviously not looking for is in Judge Strom's ruling. NO PSA VIOLATION, PERIOD!

Your packer blaming side lost. Get over it!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

If I remember correctly most, if not all, of the jurors were college educated professionals. I find it hard to believe they did not understand the judge's instructions.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I find it hard to believe they did not understand the judge's instructions."

Of course you do because it doesn't support your packer blaming bias.

When are you going to back your allegation that I lied about the losses in Boise and Pasco being greater than the profits at Lakeside? You said when someone calls someone a liar around Cody, NE, they better be able to back it. Why do you set a standard for others you are unwilling to live by yourself? A pathetic hypocrite like you thinks you can continually challenge what anyone says, call them a liar, and make them defend their position when you never back anything yourself, EVER.

Either back your allegation that I lied or prove to everyone what a parasite you really are by continuing to divert.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I already retracted my statement, SH, what more do you want?

Since you failed miserably in your attempts to prove your statement and I have retracted my accusation of you lying, please tell us; were you mistaken or did you simply not know what you were talking about? Isn't that how you categorize fallacies of NCBA members?

 

[Tommy]

SH...Did OJ's jury get it right? Perhaps OJ will find Nicole's killer on one of many golf courses.


Did the judge overturn the jury's decision in that case Scott? Did it go to an apeals court? OJ is a free man because of the jury. They may get it wrong sometime, but why have them sit and hear evidence if their decision is going to be overturned by one judge?

SH...Why have judges if the jury knows all that needs to be known about the law?

Why have juries if the presiding judge can overturn their decision?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I already retracted my statement, SH, what more do you want?"

You never retracted your statement. First you claimed I lied, now you just claim that I am wrong. Either way, you backed neither position and now you're dancing.

You only half ash retracted the word "lie" so you didn't feel obligated to back your position. Typical of your slimy ways. Your retraction is worthless as is your half assed apology.

What more do I want? You said I lied and you said I was wrong. I want you to prove that I am wrong or admit that you don't know whether I am wrong or not. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. Back your position. You won't because you can't. You will continue to dance instead.

You are nothing more than a parasite that makes others prove that they didn't lie.

Tommy: "Did the judge overturn the jury's decision in that case Scott? Did it go to an apeals court? OJ is a free man because of the jury."

Judges need to overrule verdicts that they know are not just.

When the Pickett plaintiff's key witness and the jurors are so incompetant that they can come up with damages that are more than Tyson's profits for that time period WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW THEY DERIVED AT THOSE DAMAGES, the judge needs to intervene.

When the Judge can see that the plaintiff's key witness is not following the law by needing to have tested his theories, the Judge needs to intervene.

When the Judge can see that a witness has lied under oath, he needs to intervene.

If the Judge does not have the legal authority to oversee the case, there is no sense in even having a judge. Isn't the judge there to make sure the law is interpreted correctly? Why have a judge if he isn't there to interpret the law? Considering all the losses that R-CULT has endured in the court room, I can understand why you would look at it the way you do.

Tommy: "They may get it wrong sometime, but why have them sit and hear evidence if their decision is going to be overturned by one judge?"

Because most of the time the jurors do get it right. In Pickett they got it wrong because Taylor's "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" were not facts and there was no evidence presented to support a PSA violation.

Tommy: "THE JUDGE apparently felt that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to remove all doubt."

In the OJ case, the prosecution did make a lot of mistakes.

In the case of Pickett, the Judge could plainly see the jury got it wrong and his decision was upheld by the circuit court judges.

Another loss for R-CULT!

In the case of Pickett, the judge clearly saw that a PSA violation did not occur because he understands the law. The plaintiffs certainly didn't. They don't even understand that dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Your retraction is worthless as is your half assed apology."

My retraction and apology have the same value as the proof you provided. It's as good as you have coming to you and as genuine and heartfelt as you're going to get.

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Judges need to overrule verdicts that they know are not just.

They better have good reason to overule a jury. Those good reasons were missing from both the ruling from Strom's court and the appellate court. Where is the evidence for overturning the verdict? I saw and pointed out the made up reason regarding the mistake of turning an "or" into an "and". I also saw the incorrect inkle regarding the Robinson-Patman Act example.

What more is there than obvious liberal legislating judges who cow tow to packers and large political campaign contributors? Those facts have already been posted by me.

Is it not enough to say that Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committe who presides over judicial appointments had Frank Perdue, one of the large chicken magnates with ties to the mafia as a client before he became governor of Pennsylvania to spread doubt over the independence of the current judicial system for farmers? Did the 11th circuit not use the poultry case as a case to leap to its bogus non-literal interpretation of the law? Where is the beef? It is in the chicken.

 

[Anonymous]

Keep dancing around having to back your allegation Sandman. I would expect nothing less from a parasite like you.

Kindergarten: "Those good reasons were missing from both the ruling from Strom's court and the appellate court."

Those good reasons were in the judge's ruling.

Kindergarten: "Where is the evidence for overturning the verdict?

You still don't get it. That's not the question that needs to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT JUSTIFIED THE VERDICT".

Kindergarten: "What more is there than obvious liberal legislating judges who cow tow to packers and large political campaign contributors?"

Oh listen to you! The Judges decision didn't support your packer blaming bias so now you have to come up with some baseless conspiracy theory to justify the judge's decision. That opinion is just as worthless as the rest of your unsupported opinions.

Kindergarten: "Is it not enough to say that Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committe who presides over judicial appointments had Frank Perdue, one of the large chicken magnates with ties to the mafia as a client before he became governor of Pennsylvania to spread doubt over the independence of the current judicial system for farmers? Did the 11th circuit not use the poultry case as a case to leap to its bogus non-literal interpretation of the law? Where is the beef? It is in the chicken."

What you pull out of your packer blaming hat is nothing short of amazing.

BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Quote:
Kindergarten: "Is it not enough to say that Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committe who presides over judicial appointments had Frank Perdue, one of the large chicken magnates with ties to the mafia as a client before he became governor of Pennsylvania to spread doubt over the independence of the current judicial system for farmers? Did the 11th circuit not use the poultry case as a case to leap to its bogus non-literal interpretation of the law? Where is the beef? It is in the chicken."


What you pull out of your packer blaming hat is nothing short of amazing.

BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND!



~SH~

Do you have facts to the contrary? Are you trapped? You probably do need to beware of the conspiring mind. Sandhusker conspired to trap you and you trapped yourself. Can you take the deal?