Read the Fine Print!

[Sandhusker]

SH, "R-CULT "KEPT" them in that situation as long as they could find someone to believe their BSE "fear mongering" lies. "

But you said nobody finds R-CALF credible. You flip-flop on this everytime the wind changes direction.

Which one of these statements should we use to add to your "record of accuracy"?

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher: "So, you are saying the price of cattle follow the boxed beef IF there is not an over supply of cattle?"

Quit taking what I have stated out of context.

I explained that the Canadian situation was different.

Thanks IN PART to R-CULT for keeping the Canadian border closed, Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity so cattle prices were not going to be reflective of BOXED BEEF PRICES IN CANADA.

My reference to cattle prices following boxed beef prices was in the U.S., not Canada.

Why would I be talking about Canada when I live in the U.S. you goof ball?

Sandman: "But you said nobody finds R-CALF credible. You flip-flop on this everytime the wind changes direction."

I said the media did not find R-CULT credible.

I said the 9th Circuit did not find R-CULT credible.

Judge Cebull was the only one who found R-CULT credible until he was slam dunked by the 9th Circuit and USDA.

The only flip flop is in your conspiring mind.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

SH

Thanks IN PART to R-CULT for keeping the Canadian border closed

Are you now saying that the packer led USDA was partially responsible for the border being closed SH?

Are you next going to come out and say that Cargill and Tsyon made out very well from a closed border? :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Rancher: "So, you are saying the price of cattle follow the boxed beef IF there is not an over supply of cattle?"

Quit taking what I have stated out of context.

I explained that the Canadian situation was different.

Thanks IN PART to R-CULT for keeping the Canadian border closed, Canada had more cattle than slaughter capacity so cattle prices were not going to be reflective of BOXED BEEF PRICES IN CANADA.

My reference to cattle prices following boxed beef prices was in the U.S., not Canada.

Why would I be talking about Canada when I live in the U.S. you goof ball?

Sandman: "But you said nobody finds R-CALF credible. You flip-flop on this everytime the wind changes direction."

I said the media did not find R-CULT credible.

I said the 9th Circuit did not find R-CULT credible.

Judge Cebull was the only one who found R-CULT credible until he was slam dunked by the 9th Circuit and USDA.

The only flip flop is in your conspiring mind.


~SH~

Your statements you make in your arguments are not statements that should be trusted. They have all sorts of caveats. This is just one example. The problem in the arguments is that IBP wants to be seen in its arguments as the consumer, but they are not the consumer. They are just middle men. This example of the Canadian boxed beef price and Canadian cattle price illustrates this point exactly.

Based on the above real life and present fact, you can not use the price of boxed beef as an excuse as to where the cash price should be. These companies are international companies and they can not use pure domestic arguments to win their case when they are global.

 

[Anonymous]

RK: "Are you now saying that the packer led USDA was partially responsible for the border being closed SH?"

USDA closed the border when BSE was discovered in Canada. R-CULT kept the border closed with their injunction.

What do you fail to understand about that?


You still cannot explain the AMI filing suit against USDA to open the border can you?

I suppose in your packer blaming conspiring mind that was just a "smoke screen" to create a Sandhusker "ILLUSION" of wanting to open the border right?

I dont' suppose Cargill and Tyson had any packing plants in the NW that relied on Canadian cattle did they?

You can't argue either point because you are nothing more than a typical packer blamer that cannot see the truth.

RK: "Are you next going to come out and say that Cargill and Tsyon made out very well from a closed border?"

They would have had to make enough extra in Canada to pay for inoperable plants in the U.S.

Kindergarten: "Your statements you make in your arguments are not statements that should be trusted. They have all sorts of caveats. This is just one example."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!

More discrediting statements from the factually void.

Kindergarten: "The problem in the arguments is that IBP wants to be seen in its arguments as the consumer, but they are not the consumer. They are just middle men."

Another ridiculous statement from Kindergarten Economics.

ibp has always been a middleman.

Econ. 101: "This example of the Canadian boxed beef price and Canadian cattle price illustrates this point exactly."

It illustrates no point you have made because you haven't made a point.

Kindergarten Econ.: "Based on the above real life and present fact, you can not use the price of boxed beef as an excuse as to where the cash price should be."

What the hell do you think drives cattle prices in the U.S. if not boxed beef prices?

WHY DON'T YOU BACK YOUR STUPID ASSERTIONS WITH SOME LOGIC FOR ONCE?

Kindergarten Econ.: "These companies are international companies and they can not use pure domestic arguments to win their case when they are global."

What they gained in Canada with more cattle than slaughter capacity, they lost in the U.S. with more slaughter capacity than cattle.

You STILL have nothing!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

RK: "Are you now saying that the packer led USDA was partially responsible for the border being closed SH?"

USDA closed the border when BSE was discovered in Canada. R-CULT kept the border closed with their injunction.

What do you fail to understand about that?


You still cannot explain the AMI filing suit against USDA to open the border can you?

I suppose in your packer blaming conspiring mind that was just a "smoke screen" to create a Sandhusker "ILLUSION" of wanting to open the border right?

I dont' suppose Cargill and Tyson had any packing plants in the NW that relied on Canadian cattle did they?

You can't argue either point because you are nothing more than a typical packer blamer that cannot see the truth.

RK: "Are you next going to come out and say that Cargill and Tsyon made out very well from a closed border?"

They would have had to make enough extra in Canada to pay for inoperable plants in the U.S.

Kindergarten: "Your statements you make in your arguments are not statements that should be trusted. They have all sorts of caveats. This is just one example."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!

More discrediting statements from the factually void.

Kindergarten: "The problem in the arguments is that IBP wants to be seen in its arguments as the consumer, but they are not the consumer. They are just middle men."

Another ridiculous statement from Kindergarten Economics.

ibp has always been a middleman.

Econ. 101: "This example of the Canadian boxed beef price and Canadian cattle price illustrates this point exactly."

It illustrates no point you have made because you haven't made a point.

Kindergarten Econ.: "Based on the above real life and present fact, you can not use the price of boxed beef as an excuse as to where the cash price should be."

What the hell do you think drives cattle prices in the U.S. if not boxed beef prices?

WHY DON'T YOU BACK YOUR STUPID ASSERTIONS WITH SOME LOGIC FOR ONCE?

Kindergarten Econ.: "These companies are international companies and they can not use pure domestic arguments to win their case when they are global."

What they gained in Canada with more cattle than slaughter capacity, they lost in the U.S. with more slaughter capacity than cattle.

You STILL have nothing!


~SH~

Yes, SH, I know. Having you is like having nothing.

Everything is about supply and demand. That is what a market is made of. You are the one that claimed that the cash price is based on boxed beef prices. It was just proven that your statements are not to be trusted. Have you looked up the monopsony model in an economics textbook yet? Maybe you will learn the answer you asked before. Maybe not.

It is obvious that you are used to making statements that are not accurate and that your reasoning is often flawed. You have proven this to be the case time and time again when people actually test what you have said, even by a relative newcomer to this forum like me. A jury had the responsibility of seeing through the testimony and the witnesses. If the packer witnesses were all like you, I can see why they came to the conclusions they did.

You SH-- Hawker, you.

 

[Murgen]

How is there only one buyer, and how has keeping the border closed to Canadian live cattle brought the Us closer to this situation?

 

[Econ101]

How is there only one buyer, and how has keeping the border closed to Canadian live cattle brought the Us closer to this situation?

Murgen, Yours is a different argument. I am probably more sympathetic to Canadian cattlemen's position than you think. Your problem shows exactly what happens when a packer with geographic monopsony or oligopsony loses competition (from U. S. plants) for your product (Canadian live cattle). I would argue for competitive markets everywhere or if efficiencies of scale do exist, a real close eye on parts a) and b) of the P&S.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten Econ.: "Everything is about supply and demand. That is what a market is made of."

YA THINK????

Kindergarten Econ.: "You are the one that claimed that the cash price is based on boxed beef prices."

You didn't realize that?

What did you think was the primary driver behind cash cattle prices? Captive supply prices? LOL!

Kindergarten Econ.: "It was just proven that your statements are not to be trusted."

No, it was stated by you that my statements cannot be trusted. You haven't proven anything.

You are the idiot that thinks a difference between last week's cash price and this week's cash price is proof of market manipulation.

You cemented your ignorance with that one so it's only natural you would retaliate for looking like such a fool.

At least OCM can make credible arguments and for that he has earned a degree of respect. You should really yield your time to him.

Your "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" are boring the hell out of me.

Kindergarten Econ.: "It is obvious that you are used to making statements that are not accurate and that your reasoning is often flawed."

It is obvious that you are used to saying that my statements are not accurate and that my reasoning is often flawed rather than proving it.

Cheap talk from the depths of ignorance.

Kindergarten Econ.: "You have proven this to be the case time and time again when people actually test what you have said, even by a relative newcomer to this forum like me."

The only thing you have proven is your inability to prove anything.


Here's your chance again, bring something I have stated and the facts that prove me wrong.

You won't because you can't.

You don't have a clue what drives cattle prices.

My willingness to acknowledge an opposing point that has merit proves that I am more interested in the truth than always being right.

You, Sandman, and OT can be dead to rights time and time again and never acknowledge an opposing viewpoint. Instead you divert. You don't have the same level of integrity that you expect from others.

Kindergarten Econ.: "A jury had the responsibility of seeing through the testimony and the witnesses."

The judge had the responsibility to step in when the jury failed to understand the evidence presented and the 11th circuit supported the judges position unanymously on all counts.

Kindergarten Econ.: "If the packer witnesses were all like you, I can see why they came to the conclusions they did."

If all the plaintiff's arguments were as empty as yours, it's no wonder the Judge threw the verdict out.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The judge had the responsibility to step in when the jury failed to understand the evidence presented and the 11th circuit supported the judges position unanymously on all counts.

SH--

It is really funny that the judge and the appellate courts both did not understand the evidence presented. By the way, it was only 3 judges in the 11th ciruit. And oh, the jury verdict was unanimous out of 12. That appellate court just made up law in another case and then used that justification to have the "legitimate business reason" written in case law. They acted like congress writing that much into a law that clearly is void of that defense.