agman said:
Econ101 said:
Companies can always come up with "legitimate business reasons" for using market power. Should "legitimate business reasons" be a defense for shooting SH? Market power plays make the companies more money and construct barriers to entry for their businesses. They always make it harder for "honest" companies to compete. That is the reason the PSA was written!!!
It is unfortunate that the judges have added this extra hurdle in implementing the efficiencies of the free market system. It makes our economy more inefficient and creates deadweight losses. To the extent that the government is influenced by big companies so that they can get away from the efficient implementaion of acts like the PSA, our country is becoming more fascist.
When marke power (buying power) is exerted to depress the markets, the choice is not between socialism and captialism. The choice is between capitalism and fascism. Both socialism and fascism have deadweight losses to the economy. Only capitalism maximizes an economy.
SH and Agman, why haven't you taken me up on discussing the court's obvious error in thier Robinson-Patman example? They have showed their ignorance of economic principles and their inability to intelligently judge Dr. Taylor's credibility yet Taylor's credibility was the basis for their decision. They raised Daubert issues where those issues had already been sorted out. Why is the appellate court allowed so much leeway when it comes to metering out justice when they are obviously economically illiterate? Go ask Cornyn and Spector. They know the answers.
Why should anyone take you up on your question? You have continually made accusations without providing any supporting evidence. You just make another accusation and go on. You have yet to answer one question. You have made these accusations without even seeing any of the testimony. I credit you for that admission.
I would urge you and all readers on this forum to read Judge Strom's ruling, the reasoning and the case law which was provided fro overturning the jury verdict. Plaintiffs provided no evidence and the jurors could not even explain how they came up with the proposed damage estimate. BTW, their estimate was approximately one-half of Dr Taylor's estimate. Who was wrong, Dr Taylor or the jury?
I would like you to answer just one question. Why could Dr Taylor not show any negative price impact from "captive supply" during 1999-2000? We had near record numbers of cattle on feed and and a high levels of "captive supply". I will dispense from paying any attention to your usual legal and literary gibberish that impresses no one but perhaps yourself.
I might also add the Daubert issues were not a concern until after cross examination by the defense took place. It was during cross exam that the inadequacy of his research was revealed.
The jurors had the chance to see the cross examination and see that the points the defendents made up were diverticuli that could be used to divert the focus on the real issues of the cae. That is why cross examiniation is done in front of the jury. In our country, 12 people have the duty to see the truth, not just one judge.
There does not have to be a constant negative price impact over every year of "captive supply" for the plaintiffs to win their case. That was just an argument that Tyson made that the jury did not accept. It was not the judge's trial, it was a trial in America with 12 jurors. If you are embezzling money over a period of 9 years, the prosecution never has to prove that the embezzlment was constant or that it was the same every year for them to win a conviction. They never have to prove a reason that some years the accountant decided on not embezzling. Maybe some years he was a good accountant. That does not excuse him from the years he embezzzled. You might have a point if the plaintiffs argued that captive supplies were the reason for the manipulation. The plaintiffs just said they were a vehicle for the manipulation. Your reasoning is repeated but refuted every time. Stop bringing up the same old empty argument.
I brought up the question of what was in the marketing contract pricing structure to see if there was a possibility that there was extra value in "captive supplies" but that evidence was not entered into the trial. Empty.
Tyson chose to not provide that evidence. The jury saw through this charade.
On your point of business justification, it was pointed out that Tyson could have recieved all of its supply from the cash market without captive supplies. To keep up the kill schedule for efficiency they did not need "captive supplies".
Companies can always come up with "legitimate business reasons" for using market power. Should "legitimate business reasons" be a defense for shooting SH? Market power plays make the companies more money and construct barriers to entry for their businesses. They always make it harder for "honest"
The jurors had the chance to see the cross examination and see that the points the defendants made up were diverticuli that could be used to divert the focus on the real issues of the case. That is why cross examination is done in front of the jury. In our country, 12 people have the duty to see the truth, not just one judge.
Again, There does not have to be a constant negative price impact over every year of "captive supply" for the plaintiffs to win their case. That was just an argument that Tyson made that the jury did not accept. It was not the judge's trial; it was a trial in America with 12 jurors. If you are embezzling money over a period of 9 years, the prosecution never has to prove that the embezzlement was constant or that it was the same every year for them to win a conviction. They never have to prove a reason that some years the accountant decided on not embezzling. Maybe some years he was a good accountant. That does not excuse him from the years he embezzled. You might have a point if the plaintiffs argued that captive supplies were the reason for the manipulation. The plaintiffs just said they were a vehicle for the manipulation. Your reasoning is repeated but refuted every time. Stop bringing up the same old empty argument.
Agman and SH--Hawker, answer my question on the Robinson-Patman example the court used or do you not understand it? It really shows the competence of the court and the real people who are at the USDA helping write the court's opinion.
