R-Calf on RFDTV

[Anonymous]

Your brainless example does not apply. Tyson was not running in the red at the time. EVEN STEERS CAN TRY!

Another example of just how backwards this case was is that Taylor and the Jury both came up with totally different damage figures and neither could explain how those damages were derived and both were in excess of ibp's profits.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Your brainless example does not apply. Tyson was not running in the red at the time. EVEN STEERS CAN TRY!

Another example of just how backwards this case was is that Taylor and the Jury both came up with totally different damage figures and neither could explain how those damages were derived and both were in excess of ibp's profits.


~SH~

You don't know Tyson wasn't runnng in the red without playing games. Your little world demands that be a fact, but we've seen your little world isn't the same as the real world. Why not stick to the facts and truth you pretend to embrace?


Now you claim Taylor and jury had different figures, but neither could explain how they come up with those figures? One word for you, SH - HORSESHIT. Oooops, maybe that is two words. If they came up with a figure, I"m sure either could of shown the math. The idea that 12 mostly college educated professionals and one ecomomics professor could not explain their math is rediculous.

 

[Econ101]

Your brainless example does not apply. Tyson was not running in the red at the time. EVEN STEERS CAN TRY!

Another example of just how backwards this case was is that Taylor and the Jury both came up with totally different damage figures and neither could explain how those damages were derived and both were in excess of ibp's profits.



~SH~

SH, in every market power play, there is a deadweight loss by definition. That means that the gains to one side are ALWAYS less than what the competitive market equilibrium. You show how much you need to ask the wizard your question and be successful every time you post.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You don't know Tyson wasn't runnng in the red without playing games. Your little world demands that be a fact, but we've seen your little world isn't the same as the real world. Why not stick to the facts and truth you pretend to embrace?"

The Pickett era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was a time when packer margins had improved due to excessive supplies for the demand.

Want to try to prove me wrong or would you like to resort to your typical slime ball discrediting tactics?

Any bets anyone?


Yet another exmple of your "QUESTION EVERYTHING WHILE DISPROVING NOTHING" tactics.

Sandbag: "Now you claim Taylor and jury had different figures, but neither could explain how they come up with those figures? One word for you, SH - HORSESHIT. Oooops, maybe that is two words. If they came up with a figure, I"m sure either could of shown the math. The idea that 12 mostly college educated professionals and one ecomomics professor could not explain their math is rediculous."

Dr. Taylor testified that in his opinion, the damages
to the cash market as a whole was an amount slightly in excess of
$2.1 billion. He had prepared an exhibit (Exhibit 1221),
reflecting how he arrived at that figure. However, that exhibit
is of no help in devising a formula by which damage to individual
class members can be calculated. The jury obviously disagreed
with his calculations, returning a verdict of $1,281,690.00.2
The manner in which the jury derived that dollar amount is
currently unknown, and it would be impermissible for the Court to
3 The Court notes that IBP's average cattle cost is
virtually identical to the USDA average market price, indicating
that the defendant paid the same amount for its cattle as the
-13-
speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount
to be the correct calculation of damages.


NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Mike]

and it would be impermissible for the court to speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount
to be the correct calculation of damages.

SH, you said the judge asked the jury to explain how the damages were calculated, and you said they couldn't.

Now you're saying the judge wasn't permitted to ask?

 

[Sandhusker]

You just don't agree with Dr. Taylor. It appears to me that he was able to explain how he arrived at this figures (1221).

You are also stretching saying the jury could not explain how they came up with their figures. All you've shown is that Strom didn't know - but then again, Strom has shown himself a rocket scientist in economics as well.

This is consistant with one of your primary patterns - make a statement and "prove it" with facts that don't apply to your statement. Just like substituting slaughter numbers for profits, substituting your views in place of Fielding's direct quote, etc....

You're a dandy.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "You don't know Tyson wasn't runnng in the red without playing games. Your little world demands that be a fact, but we've seen your little world isn't the same as the real world. Why not stick to the facts and truth you pretend to embrace?"

The Pickett era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation was a time when packer margins had improved due to excessive supplies for the demand.

Want to try to prove me wrong or would you like to resort to your typical slime ball discrediting tactics?

Any bets anyone?


Yet another exmple of your "QUESTION EVERYTHING WHILE DISPROVING NOTHING" tactics.

Sandbag: "Now you claim Taylor and jury had different figures, but neither could explain how they come up with those figures? One word for you, SH - HORSESHIT. Oooops, maybe that is two words. If they came up with a figure, I"m sure either could of shown the math. The idea that 12 mostly college educated professionals and one ecomomics professor could not explain their math is rediculous."

Dr. Taylor testified that in his opinion, the damages
to the cash market as a whole was an amount slightly in excess of
$2.1 billion. He had prepared an exhibit (Exhibit 1221),
reflecting how he arrived at that figure. However, that exhibit
is of no help in devising a formula by which damage to individual
class members can be calculated. The jury obviously disagreed
with his calculations, returning a verdict of $1,281,690.00.2
The manner in which the jury derived that dollar amount is
currently unknown, and it would be impermissible for the Court to
3 The Court notes that IBP's average cattle cost is
virtually identical to the USDA average market price, indicating
that the defendant paid the same amount for its cattle as the
-13-
speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount
to be the correct calculation of damages.


NEXT!


~SH~

There you go again with the theory that if everyone is cheating then it is okay. It just lowers the common denominator. It shows collusive activity. This judge didn't know what he was talking about, SH, and neither do you.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "SH, you said the judge asked the jury to explain how the damages were calculated, and you said they couldn't.

Now you're saying the judge wasn't permitted to ask?'

How did "it would be impermissible for the court to speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount to be the correct calculation of damages" transform into "the judge wasn't permitted to ask"???

That's quite a leap Mike!

Sandbag: "You just don't agree with Dr. Taylor. It appears to me that he was able to explain how he arrived at this figures (1221).

You are also stretching saying the jury could not explain how they came up with their figures. All you've shown is that Strom didn't know - but then again, Strom has shown himself a rocket scientist in economics as well."

The jury didn't agree with Taylor or they wouldn't have come up with their own damages would they?

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for the conspiring mind.

The jury didn't accept Taylor's calculations so they dropped it by a "BILLION" dollars (hahaha - real consistency) then they couldn't explain how they arrived at that figure, how to calculate what each class member was entitled to, or EVEN IDENTIFY WHO WAS IN THE CLASS to receive damages. The whole case was a joke.

Conman: "There you go again with the theory that if everyone is cheating then it is okay. It just lowers the common denominator. It shows collusive activity. This judge didn't know what he was talking about, SH, and neither do you."

Hahaha! You thinking you can judge who does and who doesn't know what they are talking about. Now that's funny!

I'm glad you are so much more versed on market manipulation than Judge Strom and the 11th circuit. LOL! You're such a joke!

There is no proof of anyone cheating, NONE!

If there was, you would BRING IT and the Pickett plaintiffs would have won their case. You conspiracy theorists lost because you had nothing to back your position just as you don't here.

You can't "bring it" because it doesn't exist so you have to create the "ILLUSION" that it does exist. Poor little Conman. Only Sandbag is left to hold his hand.




~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike: "SH, you said the judge asked the jury to explain how the damages were calculated, and you said they couldn't.

Now you're saying the judge wasn't permitted to ask?'

How did "it would be impermissible for the court to speculate as to the basis upon which the jury found that amount to be the correct calculation of damages" transform into "the judge wasn't permitted to ask"???

That's quite a leap Mike!

Sandbag: "You just don't agree with Dr. Taylor. It appears to me that he was able to explain how he arrived at this figures (1221).

You are also stretching saying the jury could not explain how they came up with their figures. All you've shown is that Strom didn't know - but then again, Strom has shown himself a rocket scientist in economics as well."

The jury didn't agree with Taylor or they wouldn't have come up with their own damages would they?

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for the conspiring mind.

The jury didn't accept Taylor's calculations so they dropped it by a "BILLION" dollars (hahaha - real consistency) then they couldn't explain how they arrived at that figure, how to calculate what each class member was entitled to, or EVEN IDENTIFY WHO WAS IN THE CLASS to receive damages. The whole case was a joke.

Conman: "There you go again with the theory that if everyone is cheating then it is okay. It just lowers the common denominator. It shows collusive activity. This judge didn't know what he was talking about, SH, and neither do you."

Hahaha! You thinking you can judge who does and who doesn't know what they are talking about. Now that's funny!

I'm glad you are so much more versed on market manipulation than Judge Strom and the 11th circuit. LOL! You're such a joke!

There is no proof of anyone cheating, NONE!

If there was, you would BRING IT and the Pickett plaintiffs would have won their case. You conspiracy theorists lost because you had nothing to back your position just as you don't here.

You can't "bring it" because it doesn't exist so you have to create the "ILLUSION" that it does exist. Poor little Conman. Only Sandbag is left to hold his hand.




~SH~

SH, Taylor's numbers were calculations of how much off the market was from its equilibrium had the collusive market manipulation not happened. You do correctly state that the markets are higher now and that cattlemen are benefitting from that increase, however, now consumers are paying the higher prices for beef but more importantly for the substitutes of beef of which Tyson has the largest position of any company in the world. May be half of that 2.1 billion should be given back to consumers. The problem with that conclusion is that the cattlemen that were victims of the market fraud may not be the same ones who are benefitting now.

The courts have long had a history of being able to understand the economic losses due to the exercise of market power. They are judges, not economists. That is why the prohibitions were ENUMERATED. You just want to allow the courts to ignore those enumerated prohibitions with the kind of inaccuracies in logic we have all heard from you on this site. I do not.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, Taylor's numbers were calculations of how much off the market was from its equilibrium had the collusive market manipulation not happened."

Taylor's numbers were as phony as his theories. Even the jury didn't buy them.

Conman: "The problem with that conclusion is that the cattlemen that were victims of the market fraud may not be the same ones who are benefitting now."

Nobody was a victim of market fraud. Everyone had numerous marketing alternatives available to them from numerous packers. The market manipulation conspiracy is nothing but bullsh*t!

Conman: "The courts have long had a history of being able to understand the economic losses due to the exercise of market power. They are judges, not economists.'

The brightest ag economists in this industry do not support your bogus market manipulation conspiracy theories.

Taylor hadn't even tested his phony theories which is a requirement by law. This whole case was a joke.

There was no proof of an excercise of market power, NONE!

YOU GOT NOTHING CONMAN!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The jury didn't accept Taylor's calculations so they dropped it by a "BILLION" dollars (hahaha - real consistency) then they couldn't explain how they arrived at that figure, how to calculate what each class member was entitled to, or EVEN IDENTIFY WHO WAS IN THE CLASS to receive damages. The whole case was a joke. "

The joke is your post, SH. Just because you or Judge Strom disagree with their findings does NOT mean they couldn't explain how they arrived at the figure. Maybe the "they" you talk about is judge? It certainly isn't the jury.

 

[Econ101]

The brightest ag economists in this industry do not support your bogus market manipulation conspiracy theories.

Taylor hadn't even tested his phony theories which is a requirement by law. This whole case was a joke.

There was no proof of an excercise of market power, NONE!

YOU GOT NOTHING CONMAN!


~SH~

Yes they do, SH. They are waiting for the USDA to be cleaned out before they say anything.

Taylor tested for his numbers many times. You wouldn't even be able to come up with a "test" that was accurate if you tried. You wouldn't even recoginize it.

The wizard is waiting.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Just because you or Judge Strom disagree with their findings does NOT mean they couldn't explain how they arrived at the figure. Maybe the "they" you talk about is judge? It certainly isn't the jury."

HAHAHA!

The jury dropped the damages by $1 "BILLION" so obviously they didn't agree with Taylor's phony numbers either. No greater evidence of what a three ring circus this was exists than the fact that Taylor and the Jury came up with seperate damages and the jury couldn't explain how those damages were derived, didn't have a formula for assessing damages to individuals in the class, nor could they identify the class members.

They filed a "CLASS ACTION" lawsuit without knowing who the class was. Hahahaha! So typical of packer blamers!

Conman: "Yes they do, SH. They are waiting for the USDA to be cleaned out before they say anything.'

Of course.............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Another baseless allegation you can't support.

Conman: "Taylor tested for his numbers many times. You wouldn't even be able to come up with a "test" that was accurate if you tried. You wouldn't even recoginize it."

BUSTED AGAIN FOR LYING!

Taylor admitted under oath that he had not tested his theories. You couldn't have been caught any more red handed in yet another lie.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Just because you or Judge Strom disagree with their findings does NOT mean they couldn't explain how they arrived at the figure. Maybe the "they" you talk about is judge? It certainly isn't the jury."

HAHAHA!

The jury dropped the damages by $1 "BILLION" so obviously they didn't agree with Taylor's phony numbers either. No greater evidence of what a three ring circus this was exists than the fact that Taylor and the Jury came up with seperate damages and the jury couldn't explain how those damages were derived, didn't have a formula for assessing damages to individuals in the class, nor could they identify the class members.

They filed a "CLASS ACTION" lawsuit without knowing who the class was. Hahahaha! So typical of packer blamers!

Conman: "Yes they do, SH. They are waiting for the USDA to be cleaned out before they say anything.'

Of course.............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Another baseless allegation you can't support.

Conman: "Taylor tested for his numbers many times. You wouldn't even be able to come up with a "test" that was accurate if you tried. You wouldn't even recoginize it."

BUSTED AGAIN FOR LYING!

Taylor admitted under oath that he had not tested his theories. You couldn't have been caught any more red handed in yet another lie.



~SH~

His theories of what, SH? Of doing the math? Of his econometric expertiese? Mathematics is full of "theories". You can take them for what they are and use them to analyze data. You do not have to test them over again. If you want to check your work, you can do it over again and see if you got the right answer. Taylor did that and also tested for many other variables that could have been at play. Maybe you don't know what testing is or if it is an appropriate question given the analysis. Lying? It was not Taylor's job to test every eonomic theory. Maybe that is why the judges were confused.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "His theories of what, SH? Of doing the math? Of his econometric expertiese? Mathematics is full of "theories". You can take them for what they are and use them to analyze data. You do not have to test them over again. If you want to check your work, you can do it over again and see if you got the right answer. Taylor did that and also tested for many other variables that could have been at play. Maybe you don't know what testing is or if it is an appropriate question given the analysis. Lying? It was not Taylor's job to test every eonomic theory. Maybe that is why the judges were confused."

Taylor was asked if he had tested his market manipulation theories. The question was in regards to whether Taylor's theories had been tested to their application within the cattle industry. He said NO! The Judge asked him to repeat his answer because he couldn't believe that the plaintiff's entire case was based on baseless untested theories.

The judges weren't confused at all. They saw the bullsh*t before them for what it was.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "His theories of what, SH? Of doing the math? Of his econometric expertiese? Mathematics is full of "theories". You can take them for what they are and use them to analyze data. You do not have to test them over again. If you want to check your work, you can do it over again and see if you got the right answer. Taylor did that and also tested for many other variables that could have been at play. Maybe you don't know what testing is or if it is an appropriate question given the analysis. Lying? It was not Taylor's job to test every eonomic theory. Maybe that is why the judges were confused."

Taylor was asked if he had tested his market manipulation theories. The question was in regards to whether Taylor's theories had been tested to their application within the cattle industry. He said NO! The Judge asked him to repeat his answer because he couldn't believe that the plaintiff's entire case was based on baseless untested theories.

The judges weren't confused at all. They saw the bullsh*t before them for what it was.



~SH~

SH, you idiot, convincing the jury was the test. The plaintiffs prevailed. The damages were not even the settlement, as the judge said. It was the determination of the harm that was done to the market. The market is not just cattle producers, it is also consumers. Consumers paid the price in the form of higher beef, poultry, and pork prices. It would make total sense for the jury to half the verdict in favor of cattlemen. The other half belongs to consumers.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

The consumers are not forced to buy beef at higher prices when they have many protein sources to choose from. One more thing you are wrong about. Keep trying!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman,

The consumers are not forced to buy beef at higher prices when they have many protein sources to choose from. One more thing you are wrong about. Keep trying!


~SH~

Econ did not say consumers were forced to buy anything. He just said that the prices they paid for beef were higher than they should of been.

Your reading comprehension skills are nonexistant. It's no wonder you see lies and decepton in everything you read.

 

[Anonymous]

How sweet! One phony defending another!

Sandbag: "He just said that the prices they paid for beef were higher than they should of been."

He's wrong! Consumers have many protein choices. If consumers are paying more for beef IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, not because some phony imagined market manipulation conspiracy forced their prices higher as Conman has eluded to.

Besides that, he contradicts himself again because he previously stated that higher prices were due to "tightened supplies", now he's claiming it was "market manipulation" that led to the higher prices.

Like I said, liars can't keep their stories straight and you'd be well advised not to try to defend a blatant liar just because he's singing your blaming song.

~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

How sweet! One phony defending another!

Sandbag: "He just said that the prices they paid for beef were higher than they should of been."

He's wrong! Consumers have many protein choices. If consumers are paying more for beef IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, not because some phony imagined market manipulation conspiracy forced their prices higher as Conman has eluded to.

Besides that, he contradicts himself again because he previously stated that higher prices were due to "tightened supplies", now he's claiming it was "market manipulation" that led to the higher prices.

Like I said, liars can't keep their stories straight and you'd be well advised not to try to defend a blatant liar just because he's singing your blaming song.

~SH~

Whatever.............. :roll: