SH - Help me understand!

[Mike]

All this back and forth with you asking for proof of manipulation by Tyson really has me confused.


FROM THE DECISION OF THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:

Page 30

F.
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."

ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE!

"While talk about the independence of cattle farmers has emotional appeal, the PSAwas not enacted to protect the independence of producers from market forces.It was enacted to prevent unfair practices, price fixing and manipulation, and monopolization."

On one hand the Court agrees that marketing agreements have caused the cash price to be lower. On the other hand they say that the plaintiffs lacked proving the anti-competitive justifications that aren't even in their explanation of the PSA.

Do you really not see how some would question the outcome of this trial?

 

[Econ101]

This decision was a decision meant to keep the political contributions to the chairs of the ag. committees. These politicians sold out the American farmer.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "On one hand the Court agrees that marketing agreements have caused the cash price to be lower. On the other hand they say that the plaintiffs lacked proving the anti-competitive justifications that aren't even in their explanation of the PSA.

Do you really not see how some would question the outcome of this trial?"

Of course I do. Some need someone or something to blame for their lack of profitability. Packers have always been an easy target for blamers.

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction.

There is no confusion about that to anyone with any common sense.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike: "On one hand the Court agrees that marketing agreements have caused the cash price to be lower. On the other hand they say that the plaintiffs lacked proving the anti-competitive justifications that aren't even in their explanation of the PSA.

Do you really not see how some would question the outcome of this trial?"

Of course I do. Some need someone or something to blame for their lack of profitability. Packers have always been an easy target for blamers.

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction.

There is no confusion about that to anyone with any common sense.


~SH~

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is market manipulation and not normal supply and demand reaction given the structure of the market.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is market manipulation and not normal supply and demand reaction given the structure of the market."

Now we are back to "IS MARKET MANIPULATION" from "COULD BE" again.

You are such a phony!

What company that buys raw products does not lower their price as their needs are met?

Market manipulation my @ss!


~SH~

 

[Mike]

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction.

Having the ability to lower your price at ANYTIME would be absolute market manipulation.

The problem comes in when you can't reject an offer because they might be overripe by waiting for the next bid. It's not that way when selling bulls in an auction. You can always buy him back and sell him at a later date. Breeding bulls don't become overripe in just a few weeks.

The Judges also wrote: "that by using marketing agreements Tyson has withdrawn a large amount of demand from the cash market, thereby substantially decreasing price pressure there."

"A reduced cash market price benefits Tyson in two ways. First Tyson is able to obtain the cattle that it still purchases on the cash market at a lower price. Second, because the price Tyson pays for marketing agreement cattle is pegged to the average cash market price, it pays less for those cattle too."

 

[Anonymous]

Good grief Mike, listen to yourself!

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK TYSON IS THE ONLY FAT CATTLE BUYER OUT THERE?

Unless you can prove that there is no competition between all the packers and prove that they are fixing the price, your arguments have no validity.

If Tyson tries to lower their price below the competition, WHO DO YOU SUPPOSE THE FEEDERS ARE GOING TO SELL TO?

USE YOUR HEAD!

How do you explain fat cattle prices moving 60% in one year WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR MARKET MANIPULATION ARGUMENTS?

For crying out loud fat cattle prices moved from the upper 60's to $117 within a year?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MARKET MANIPULATION THEN?

This is so damn elementary!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "DO YOU HONESTLY THINK TYSON IS THE ONLY FAT CATTLE BUYER OUT THERE?"

Do you honestly think the other buyers don't know what Tyson is bidding? How stupid do you think they are?

 

[Econ101]

Good grief Mike, listen to yourself!

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK TYSON IS THE ONLY FAT CATTLE BUYER OUT THERE?

Unless you can prove that there is no competition between all the packers and prove that they are fixing the price, your arguments have no validity.

If Tyson tries to lower their price below the competition, WHO DO YOU SUPPOSE THE FEEDERS ARE GOING TO SELL TO?

USE YOUR HEAD!

How do you explain fat cattle prices moving 60% in one year WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR MARKET MANIPULATION ARGUMENTS?

For crying out loud fat cattle prices moved from the upper 60's to $117 within a year?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MARKET MANIPULATION THEN?

This is so damn elementary!



~SH~

Use this argument to tell the Canadians that they still have two buyers for their boxed beef and try to close the U.S. market off to Canadian boxed beef. See how far you get with that one.

Market manipulation proofs do not require the proof you say. Some of us do not live in the SH world you expouse. Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and you can not deny that. You have not denied any of the econometric analysis of Dr. Taylor. All of that was done with the discovery from the the trial. Deny the actual evidence if you can. Put up or shut up.

Slides down the supply curve eventually have to be corrected. The market made that correction. When that happened, Tyson made out big time in their poultry and swine operations. What they lost in additional sales of boxed beef due to higher prices, they more than made up for in the poultry an pork sectors.

It is elementary, SH-- Hawker. (Your use of nicknames comes back at you).

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Do you honestly think the other buyers don't know what Tyson is bidding? How stupid do you think they are?"

Of course they know what Tyson is bidding AND IF THEY WANT TO GET THE CATTLE BOUGHT THEY HAVE TO BID MORE THAN TYSON OR THEY DON'T GET THE CATTLE BOUGHT!

How damn elementary!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "Do you honestly think the other buyers don't know what Tyson is bidding? How stupid do you think they are?"

Of course they know what Tyson is bidding AND IF THEY WANT TO GET THE CATTLE BOUGHT THEY HAVE TO BID MORE THAN TYSON OR THEY DON'T GET THE CATTLE BOUGHT!

How damn elementary!


~SH~

If they know the biggest cattle buyer isn't going over $66, why would they?

How damn elementary!

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Use this argument to tell the Canadians that they still have two buyers for their boxed beef and try to close the U.S. market off to Canadian boxed beef. See how far you get with that one."

Pickett was not about the Canadian situation.

DIVERSION!

"RED HERRING"!

Kindergarten: "Market manipulation proofs do not require the proof you say. Some of us do not live in the SH world you expouse. Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and you can not deny that. You have not denied any of the econometric analysis of Dr. Taylor. All of that was done with the discovery from the the trial. Deny the actual evidence if you can. Put up or shut up."

That's all you have at this point isn't it? THE JURY BELIEVED IT, THE JURY BELIEVED IT!

Well JUDGE STROM DIDN'T AND NEITHER DID THE 11TH CIRCUIT.

So I guess that puts us in a standoff huh?

Provide the evidence and let's see how it holds up under scrutiny. That's the only way to make your case.

YOU WON'T!

You'll continue to parrot your same, THE JURY BELIEVED IT, THE JURY BELIEVED IT because that's all you got.

Kindergarten: "Slides down the supply curve eventually have to be corrected. The market made that correction. When that happened, Tyson made out big time in their poultry and swine operations. What they lost in additional sales of boxed beef due to higher prices, they more than made up for in the poultry an pork sectors."

Pickett was not about poultry and pork, it was about beef.

DIVERSION!

"RED HERRING"!


NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Use this argument to tell the Canadians that they still have two buyers for their boxed beef and try to close the U.S. market off to Canadian boxed beef. See how far you get with that one."

Pickett was not about the Canadian situation.

DIVERSION!

"RED HERRING"!

Kindergarten: "Market manipulation proofs do not require the proof you say. Some of us do not live in the SH world you expouse. Pickett proved it to 12 jurors and you can not deny that. You have not denied any of the econometric analysis of Dr. Taylor. All of that was done with the discovery from the the trial. Deny the actual evidence if you can. Put up or shut up."

That's all you have at this point isn't it? THE JURY BELIEVED IT, THE JURY BELIEVED IT!

Well JUDGE STROM DIDN'T AND NEITHER DID THE 11TH CIRCUIT.

So I guess that puts us in a standoff huh?

Provide the evidence and let's see how it holds up under scrutiny. That's the only way to make your case.

YOU WON'T!

You'll continue to parrot your same, THE JURY BELIEVED IT, THE JURY BELIEVED IT because that's all you got.

Kindergarten: "Slides down the supply curve eventually have to be corrected. The market made that correction. When that happened, Tyson made out big time in their poultry and swine operations. What they lost in additional sales of boxed beef due to higher prices, they more than made up for in the poultry an pork sectors."

Pickett was not about poultry and pork, it was about beef.

DIVERSION!

"RED HERRING"!


NEXT!


~SH~

Pickett is about poultry and pork for Tyson as much as anything else. If you do not know this then you know very little about the structure of the industry. Your credibility is hitting negative numbers. Even the London case that was used for the appellate court's decision was a poultry case that the Broiler Council, of which Tyson is a member, wrote an amicus brief. You are mistaken on the facts here, SH. Do I have to show you this?

What did Mike C. lie about?

Did you get the packers to release their discovery evidence yet?

You SH-- Hawker, you.

 

[agman]

Mike: "On one hand the Court agrees that marketing agreements have caused the cash price to be lower. On the other hand they say that the plaintiffs lacked proving the anti-competitive justifications that aren't even in their explanation of the PSA.

Do you really not see how some would question the outcome of this trial?"

Of course I do. Some need someone or something to blame for their lack of profitability. Packers have always been an easy target for blamers.

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction.

There is no confusion about that to anyone with any common sense.


~SH~

Lowering your offering price when most of your needs are met is market manipulation and not normal supply and demand reaction given the structure of the market.

I can see you have most certainly run a business in your lifetime!! Tenure does not cut it in the business world in case you have not figured that one out.

 

[agman]

All this back and forth with you asking for proof of manipulation by Tyson really has me confused.


FROM THE DECISION OF THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:

Page 30

F.
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using agreements."

ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE!

"While talk about the independence of cattle farmers has emotional appeal, the PSAwas not enacted to protect the independence of producers from market forces.It was enacted to prevent unfair practices, price fixing and manipulation, and monopolization."

On one hand the Court agrees that marketing agreements have caused the cash price to be lower. On the other hand they say that the plaintiffs lacked proving the anti-competitive justifications that aren't even in their explanation of the PSA.

Do you really not see how some would question the outcome of this trial?

The court did not agree, they merely made a statement referencing Dr Taylor. Mike, why do constantly omit the comments from the court on page 13 footnote #7.

Taylor proved nothing. When, by his own admission under oath, he failed to test his own theories as to how captive supply would/could lower prices his prior conclusion was meaningless and failed the Daubert standard that hypotheses must be tested for validity. Taylor proved absolutely nothing except that his own conclusion could not be or was not verified. He clearly failed the Daubert standard as established by the courts despite what you and others fail to acknowledge.

There is little wonder why upon the previous revelation during cross exam Judge Strom stated "I think your expert witness (Taylor) is nuts". If there were not solid evidence to support that statement from Judge Strom the plaintiffs would have had a perfect case for a mistrial. Why is there no attempt at that recourse from the lawsuit happy lawyers? Answer: The plaintiff's attorneys know their expert witness got shredded. You are continuing to defend a defenseless position.

 

[Sandhusker]

Once again, I'd like to point out that in ANY trial, if the jury returns a unanimous verdict, it's a pretty safe bet that the winning side's expert witness did not have their testimony shredded.

 

[agman]

Once again, I'd like to point out that in ANY trial, if the jury returns a unanimous verdict, it's a pretty safe bet that the winning side's expert witness did not have their testimony shredded.

Wrong again Sanhusker, that is presicely why the LAW allows for a judge to overturn a jury verdict. It was very evident that the jury did NOT understand the results of the testimony and the judges instructions-case is over. Need your be reminded that this case was filed in Alabama in a jurisdiction where juries have clearly demonstrated their willingness to rule for plaintiffs and against corporations.

Are you now going to argue there is no law giving the judge the authority to overturn a jury verdict? It might behoove you to learn what that law states and why the court/judge is given that latitiude.

 

[agman]

This decision was a decision meant to keep the political contributions to the chairs of the ag. committees. These politicians sold out the American farmer.

Sounds like your brain is tapped as well as your phone. That is just another of your unsupported claims after you get clobbered in court for the same reason-all accusations and no facts. I guess some folks just never learn the pitfalls of their ways.

Have you talked to any Martians lately? You are a real prize. In all your verbiage you have yet to provide one bit of factual support for your claims.

 

[Mike]

agman wrote:

It was very evident that the jury did NOT understand the results of the testimony and the judges instructions-case is over

Ok, which way is it? Tyson said afterwards the case was "simple" and "not that complicated". :???: We know that 2/3's of the jury had college degrees. There were also some questions during deliberations to the judge regarding regression analysis that even "HE" (Strom) couldn't answer.

Yours and SH's statements about Taylor's "untested" theories don't hold water either. Strom stated in pre-trial motions that Taylor's analysis stands up to the Daubert issues and were sufficiently tested. Or is it that you haven't read all the pre-trial motions and hearings?

Looks like Strom was the one who was biased, not the jury. How much did he get paid agman? I would really like to know.

I do know that the jury got paid very little (whatever jury's make) and the plaintiffs attorneys haven't received any pay for their time. Let's follow the money agman, how deep did Tyson go in their pockets? May be that Strom is old and senile and saw his last chance to make a big dollar.

Are these questions any more off the wall than your assessment of the jury that simply voted against the big corporation because the jury is from Alabama? Your bias is obvious agman. Our Judicial System is the loser here. Not Pickett.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Why ask for help to understand? You don't want to understand, you want to blame.

Not once has one of you presented any evidence proving your market manipulation conspiracy theory.

NOT ONCE! NOT EVEN CLOSE!


You can't even acknowledge the most obvious fact that if feeders don't like the bid Tyson gives them THEY HAVE OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS.

You are so blinded by your packer blame that you cannot even acknowledge that.

How can Tyson manipulate markets when they have to bid against other packers for those same cattle? The only way you can possibly justify that argument is to believe that all the packers get their heads together and set the price. If you think you can explain that, you'll also have to explain a 60% advance in fat cattle prices within a year.

How do you explain that?

You can't! You can't even make an attempt to explain that in the realms of "market manipulation".

Fact is, the captive supply market manipulation is nothing more than a bullsh*t conspiracy theory supported by those who do not have the ability to reason that controlled markets would not move in sync with boxed beef prices.

THE OBVIOUS IS SIMPLY TOO OBVIOUS!

Mike: "How much did he get paid agman? I would really like to know."

Mike: "Let's follow the money agman, how deep did Tyson go in their pockets? May be that Strom is old and senile and saw his last chance to make a big dollar."

There it is again!

You cannot accept the fact that your side could not present the evidence to support your market manipulation conspiracy theory so you resort to ANOTHER unsupported allegation about a "pay off".

It's always the same with you packer blamers. Cover one conspiracy theory with another. It never ends!


~SH~