R-Calf on RFDTV
- Thread starter feeder
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag,
Unless Vicker's competition is equally as inefficient with the same line of pumps that Vickers was inefficient with, Vicker's loss would be their competitions gain. Same in the packing industry.
Blah blah blah!
Until you provide proof of market manipulation, there is none! Empty statements prove nothing.
Your unsupported theories and empty statements are no proof of market manipulation.
~SH~
Unless Vicker's competition is equally as inefficient with the same line of pumps that Vickers was inefficient with, Vicker's loss would be their competitions gain. Same in the packing industry.
Blah blah blah!
Until you provide proof of market manipulation, there is none! Empty statements prove nothing.
Your unsupported theories and empty statements are no proof of market manipulation.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Sandbag, Unless Vicker's competition is equally as inefficient with the same line of pumps that Vickers was inefficient with, Vicker's loss would be their competitions gain. Same in the packing industry."
Give it up, SH. Every post you make shows how much you don't know. You said a company would not sacrifice one line for another, I showed you where I was involved in exactly that. Then you claim Tyson wouldn't do that because of competition and I reminded you that Vickers had competition, too. Now you try inefficiencies? I can head that one off just like the rest of your ignorant stabs, as well. The line we robbed equipment from actually had efficiency numbers go up just a tad because of lapping times. I'd explain it, but you aren't interested in the truth - you're gig is to defend packers no matter what the topic.
What are you going to throw at me now? It's not the same because Tyson's meat is red and Vickers pumps are blue?
Give it up, SH. Every post you make shows how much you don't know. You said a company would not sacrifice one line for another, I showed you where I was involved in exactly that. Then you claim Tyson wouldn't do that because of competition and I reminded you that Vickers had competition, too. Now you try inefficiencies? I can head that one off just like the rest of your ignorant stabs, as well. The line we robbed equipment from actually had efficiency numbers go up just a tad because of lapping times. I'd explain it, but you aren't interested in the truth - you're gig is to defend packers no matter what the topic.
What are you going to throw at me now? It's not the same because Tyson's meat is red and Vickers pumps are blue?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Listen smartass, just because I toyed with your stupid logic for awhile doesn't mean your point had validity, it just meant I was bored. Don't flatter youself because this comparison is just as lame as most of your comparisons. Tyson is not comparable to your Vickers example in any way shape or form. You said Vickers slowed production on one product to pick up production on another. TYSON NEVER SLOWED THEIR SLAUGHTER PRODUCTION ON CATTLE IN ORDER TO OFFSET THAT WITH POULTRY AND PORK PRODUCTION. WHERE'S THE COMPARISON?? There is no comparison.
To suggest that Tyson would allow beef profits to slip so pork and poultry could benefit is just one more example of an endless list of factually void conspiracy theories.
NEXT!
~SH~
To suggest that Tyson would allow beef profits to slip so pork and poultry could benefit is just one more example of an endless list of factually void conspiracy theories.
NEXT!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You didn't toy with me - you were hoping you could show there could be no parallels and I shot you down each time you bumped your head and tried a new door. The facts are a company sacrificed the profitability of one product because they made up for it and more with another. No conspiracy, just good business and a fact - exactly the type of thing you term a "factually void conspiracy theory" because you can't understand it and don't want to understand.
You're a dandy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
That must have been when your mom woke you up for work huh?
HOW AND WHEN did Tyson sacrifice the profitability of beef for the benefit of poultry and pork and WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT WHEN THEY DIDN'T REDUCE THEIR SLAUGHTER COSTS OR THEIR PURCHASE OF SLAUGHTER CATTLE?????
Explain it Sandbag! Prove that you can actually back a position with supporting facts for once. Your relentless empty statements get sickening.
Profit margins vary due to the lag time between the purchase of fat cattle and the sale of boxed beef. There is a time lapse between when fat cattle are purchased and when the boxed beef from those cattle are sold. Profit margins also vary slightly due to the availability of cattle in relation to the available slaughter capacity within the industry.
Did you comprehend those facts? Can you acknowledge them? I can assure you that you will not disprove them.
NEXT!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "HOW AND WHEN did Tyson sacrifice the profitability of beef for the benefit of poultry and pork and WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT WHEN THEY DIDN'T REDUCE THEIR SLAUGHTER COSTS OR THEIR PURCHASE OF SLAUGHTER CATTLE????? Explain it Sandbag! Prove that you can actually back a position with supporting facts for once. Your relentless empty statements get sickening. "
If you could stay on topic without tangenting off and/or putting words in my mouth, you would realize I made no such allegations. You said a company would not sacrifice one segment for the benefit of another, and I proved you wrong. That was it. I think I backed my position very well, but you can be sickened if you want.
If you could stay on topic without tangenting off and/or putting words in my mouth, you would realize I made no such allegations. You said a company would not sacrifice one segment for the benefit of another, and I proved you wrong. That was it. I think I backed my position very well, but you can be sickened if you want.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Wrong LIAR!
I said Tyson would not sacrifice beef profits to the benefit of poultry and pork. You drifted off into an unrelated topic LIKE ALWAYS.
HOW IRONIC that you would accuse me of exactly what you did within the same post where you accuse me.
You're such a pathetic little parasite.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Excuuuuse, me, SH. That certainly changes the entire meaning... :roll: :lol: :lol:
Regardless, I gave you a real life example of a company sacrificing one line for another to achieve a greater overall benefit. If you choose to ignore your only bias (truth) :roll: , and discount my example, fine by me.
And I'm a pathetic big parasite. I've got probably 20 lbs. on you and I'll bet you another $100 I can take you in the 40 as well.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
You and Conman were the ones who suggested that Tyson would allow beef profits to suffer occasionally to the benefit of poultry and pork as a form of market manipulation. Another baseless conspiracy theory. My position is that you are full of sh*t as usual. Tyson will not sacrifice beef profits to the benefit of poultry and pork. Your Vickers exampe would be comparable to Tyson sacrificing one PRODUCT to the benefit of another. Your original argument was that Tyson was sacrificing one ENTITY (beef processing) to the benefit of another (pork and poultry processing). THE TWO ARE NOT COMPARABLE!
I have no doubts you could beat me in the 40. Bully for you!
How would you know what I weigh. Have you hired spies now?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Not a conspiracy, just business. Be a fool if you choose, fine with me.
~SH~ said:
"Profit margins also vary slightly due to the availability of cattle in relation to the available slaughter capacity within the industry. "
Can you say "tight supplies"? Maybe you and agman can have another pow wow on that one.
When Tyson discriminates against the cash market for the formula, grid, or other markets, they are sacrificing a "better deal" on the cash market to get a better deal with the market as a whole with a market power play.
Yes, SH, I do think that Tyson would sacrifice a better deal on the cash market to get a better deal on the market as a whole with an implicit collusive act with other market pariticipants that was obviously a part of the "swing" I described in the cattle markets. Pickett proved it to a jury of 12. Tyson could not refute it with the discovery asked for by Pickett attorneys. It was as much a scam on Pickett as you are on this board.
Jason
Well-known member
Sandhusker and Conman both agreed no collusion was proven in Pickett now Conman says there was proven to 12 jurors an "implicit collusive act".
Nice try.
Nice try.
The law did not require that proof for the plaintiffs to prevail. The judges made up that requirement on their own by interpreting "or"s as "and"s. That requirement was made up completely out of thin air by the 11th circuit and was made up after both the London trial and the Pickett trials were over and completed. It was an example of the best justice money and influence can buy.
We are not a nation of laws anymore, we are a nation of corporations. This hipocrisy is being noticed around the world.
Just because Pickett did not prove this in the trial (because it was not a requirement) does not mean that collusion did not occur. To say as much is a non sequitur; a fallacy in logic.
While you may relish and excuse this development in the U.S. ldgal system, Jason, I do not. It is a road towards fascism.
We are not a nation of laws anymore, we are a nation of corporations. This hipocrisy is being noticed around the world.
Just because Pickett did not prove this in the trial (because it was not a requirement) does not mean that collusion did not occur. To say as much is a non sequitur; a fallacy in logic.
While you may relish and excuse this development in the U.S. ldgal system, Jason, I do not. It is a road towards fascism.
