Real Cost of Hamburger

[Econ101]

SH, did the housewife that bought that aussie meat skip over the domestic meat? Agman has posted his figures that as supply increases 1% that prices decrease by 1.68%. If the inverse is true, then for every 1% increase in Aussie meat as part of the whole market, there was a corresponding 1.68% drop in the price of the whole market. Which is it?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, did the housewife that bought that aussie meat skip over the domestic meat?"

No, the houswife would have bought chicken or pork if the aussie beef blended with our trim was not priced at $1.50 per pound.

Since we are operating in a global market, imports are not our competition, competitive meats are.

Conman: "Agman has posted his figures that as supply increases 1% that prices decrease by 1.68%. If the inverse is true, then for every 1% increase in Aussie meat as part of the whole market, there was a corresponding 1.68% drop in the price of the whole market. Which is it?"

You answer the question you keep diverting before I answer any more of your questions. You don't run this show.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH, did the housewife that bought that aussie meat skip over the domestic meat?"

No, the houswife would have bought chicken or pork if the aussie beef blended with our trim was not priced at $1.50 per pound.

Since we are operating in a global market, imports are not our competition, competitive meats are.

Conman: "Agman has posted his figures that as supply increases 1% that prices decrease by 1.68%. If the inverse is true, then for every 1% increase in Aussie meat as part of the whole market, there was a corresponding 1.68% drop in the price of the whole market. Which is it?"

You answer the question you keep diverting before I answer any more of your questions. You don't run this show.


~SH~

Schroeder uses a .02 percent substitution number for poultry over beef for every 1% increase in price in his March 2002 "Managing for Today's Cattle Market and Beyond" article on his Focus on Beef Demand.

You do the math (if you can). Come back and post after you get the answer.

 

[Anonymous]

Diversion!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, the answer I give you depends on the depth that you understand the issue. Obviously shallow is the answer.

Do you want a little help with the math? Maybe Agman can help you out.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Why can't you figure out that packers have to bid higher than the next packer to get the cattle bought and what they can pay is based on what they receive for the beef and beef by-products? The most obvious economic factors escape your pathetic conspiring mind."

Canada proves you wrong and me right. You can keep your lame excuses - they paid the least they could get away with independent of what they were making and always will.

Do we have a bet yet, or will the "H" in SH stand for hypocrite?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, the answer I give you depends on the depth that you understand the issue. Obviously shallow is the answer."

Diversion!

Sandbag: "Canada proves you wrong and me right."

What has happened to Canadian fat cattle prices since the border opened and the cattle numbers are once again equal with the slaughter capacity in both the U.S. and Canada?

Sandbag: "You can keep your lame excuses - they paid the least they could get away with independent of what they were making and always will."

Of course, a packer blamer like you can't accept the truth. You can continue to bathe in your packer conspiracies and ignore the fact that packers have to pay more than other packers to get the cattle bought.

That simple concept is simpy too much for the conspiring mind to accept.

Sandbag: "Do we have a bet yet, or will the "H" in SH stand for hypocrite?"

You refused to accept the terms because you knew that you couldn't prove I lied. You run scared when I called your bluff.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Factually void, SH? Full of cheap talk?

Please tell me why you demand other people to provide facts on their statements, but you demand others prove you wrong? Why is that, SH?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Please tell me why you demand other people to provide facts on their statements, but you demand others prove you wrong? Why is that, SH?"

That doesn't even make sense. If others provided facts to back their statements, that would prove me wrong.

You never back your positions, EVER. All you ever do is offer cheap talk and demand proof from others.

I request you and Conman to back CERTAIN positions simply to prove that you can't and you never let me down. DIVERT, DENY, DISCREDIT, & DECEIVE! That's Conman and your MO. You continually demand proof of others yet you never back a single position ever when questioned. In contrast, I provided proof when you claimed that I lied. You didn't accept the proof I offered. Did you provide anything to the contrary or simply discredit what I provided? We all know the answer to that one.

You run scared when I offered you another chance to back your mouth. You are nothing more than a parasite who wants everyone else to prove their arguments in a feeble efffort to find the weaknesses in their arguments rather than the strength in your own.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Please tell me why you demand other people to provide facts on their statements, but you demand others prove you wrong? Why is that, SH?"

That doesn't even make sense. If others provided facts to back their statements, that would prove me wrong.

You never back your positions, EVER. All you ever do is offer cheap talk and demand proof from others.

I request you and Conman to back CERTAIN positions simply to prove that you can't and you never let me down. DIVERT, DENY, DISCREDIT, & DECEIVE! That's Conman and your MO. You continually demand proof of others yet you never back a single position ever when questioned. In contrast, I provided proof when you claimed that I lied. You didn't accept the proof I offered. Did you provide anything to the contrary or simply discredit what I provided? We all know the answer to that one.

You run scared when I offered you another chance to back your mouth. You are nothing more than a parasite who wants everyone else to prove their arguments in a feeble efffort to find the weaknesses in their arguments rather than the strength in your own.



~SH~

Mathematics is full of proofs. It is just something you don't understand.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "That doesn't even make sense. If others provided facts to back their statements, that would prove me wrong"

You know exactly what I mean - quit dummying up. You demand others provide proof of their statements to the point of ridicule and name calling, but you refuse to do the same. Why don't you practice what you preach?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You demand others provide proof of their statements to the point of ridicule and name calling, but you refuse to do the same"

I provided the proof for the statement that you called a lie. You refused to accept it. Did you provide proof to the contrary? Did you provide the proof that I lied? HELL NO! All you provided was a critique of what I provided. Typical of your parasitic ways!

You never back ANYTHING yet always want others to back EVERYTHING!

You will never be able to prove that I lied. All you can do is create the "ILLUSION" that I lied which is par for your deceptive ways.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "You demand others provide proof of their statements to the point of ridicule and name calling, but you refuse to do the same"

I provided the proof for the statement that you called a lie. You refused to accept it. Did you provide proof to the contrary? Did you provide the proof that I lied? HELL NO! All you provided was a critique of what I provided. Typical of your parasitic ways!

You never back ANYTHING yet always want others to back EVERYTHING!

You will never be able to prove that I lied. All you can do is create the "ILLUSION" that I lied which is par for your deceptive ways.


~SH~

You provided the proof? Really? HOW MUCH DID LAKESIDE MAKE WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED? If you had provided the proof, you would be able to answer that - but you can't. YOU CAN'T!

Who is providing illusions and deception?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "HOW MUCH DID LAKESIDE MAKE WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED?"

Why would you ask that question if you knew I was lying? If you knew I was lying you wouldn't have to ask that question. You'd just provide the proof. YOU CAN'T!

BUSTED AGAIN!

Hahaha!

I'm so glad everyone can see what a couple of phonys you and Conman are.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "HOW MUCH DID LAKESIDE MAKE WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED?"

Why would you ask that question if you knew I was lying? If you knew I was lying you wouldn't have to ask that question. You'd just provide the proof. YOU CAN'T!

BUSTED AGAIN!

Hahaha!

I'm so glad everyone can see what a couple of phonys you and Conman are.


~SH~

I know you're lying because that information isn't avaliable. I also know you're lying because providing those numbers would be a great way to shut me up and prove me wrong - which you would love to do - but you don't do it because you can't!

LIAR LIAR LIAR

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I know you're lying because that information isn't avaliable."

You can't prove that I lied! I provided the proof and you wouldn't accept it.

Anyone with any common sense knows that two plants running at 35% of capacity are going to be losing more money than a plant, with the same capacity as the other two, that is running at 100% capacity and absorbing the costs of SRM removal. The phone call to the Tyson representative confirmed it.

You won't accept that but you offer nothing to contradict it.

Sandbag: "LIAR LIAR LIAR"

Prove it cheap talker!



If that information is not available, why did you accept the $100? What proof was your willingness to accept the $100 based on Sandbag?

Perhaps this might jar your memory:

Sandbag to Agman: "Thank you for your honesty Agman"

You %@&*!*^%@!&* phony!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "I know you're lying because that information isn't avaliable."

You can't prove that I lied! I provided the proof and you wouldn't accept it.

Anyone with any common sense knows that two plants running at 35% of capacity are going to be losing more money than a plant, with the same capacity as the other two, that is running at 100% capacity and absorbing the costs of SRM removal. The phone call to the Tyson representative confirmed it.

You won't accept that but you offer nothing to contradict it.

Sandbag: "LIAR LIAR LIAR"

SH, your tell is showing.

Prove it cheap talker!



If that information is not available, why did you accept the $100? What proof was your willingness to accept the $100 based on Sandbag?

Perhaps this might jar your memory:

Sandbag to Agman: "Thank you for your honesty Agman"

You %@&*!*^%@!&* phony!



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Did you think I needed to read what I wrote again Conman?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "I know you're lying because that information isn't avaliable."

You can't prove that I lied! I provided the proof and you wouldn't accept it.

Anyone with any common sense knows that two plants running at 35% of capacity are going to be losing more money than a plant, with the same capacity as the other two, that is running at 100% capacity and absorbing the costs of SRM removal. The phone call to the Tyson representative confirmed it.

You won't accept that but you offer nothing to contradict it.

Sandbag: "LIAR LIAR LIAR"

SH, your tell is showing.

Prove it cheap talker!



If that information is not available, why did you accept the $100? What proof was your willingness to accept the $100 based on Sandbag?

Perhaps this might jar your memory:

Sandbag to Agman: "Thank you for your honesty Agman"

You %@&*!*^%@!&* phony!



~SH~

The statement and bet was on profits and you bring numbers on capacity - not the same thing.

LIAR LIAR LIAR

 

[Econ101]

SH, keep going on that yellow brick road. You are not there yet.