SH - Help me understand!

[Murgen]

Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Econ, is this the same Azzan, who has been part of many studies, that have stated that Captive supplies, DO NOT "substantially" affect the cash markets?

What about other Economists who state that Prohibiting such contracts and partnerships would damage the gains the industry has made in the last 20 years? Economists such as: Feuz, Lawrence, Grimes, Purcell, Hayenga, Schroeder, Koontz, Ward, Ritchie and Smith.

Are you the only Economist, that is not in the Packer pockets?

 

[Sandhusker]

Which industry are you talking about, Murgen? It makes quite a bit of difference.

 

[Murgen]

Which industry are you talking about, Murgen? It makes quite a bit of difference.

Which industry do we usually discuss on this forum?

BEEF, or were you trying to disconnect between the beef and cow calf industries?

 

[Sandhusker]

Which industry are you talking about, Murgen? It makes quite a bit of difference.

Which industry do we usually discuss on this forum?

BEEF, or were you trying to disconnect between the beef and cow calf industries?

With the border closure, how can you not recognize the seperation between the beef and the cow/calf industries, Murgen? Did the closure affect the big packer's profitability the same as the cow/calf people? If you are in the same industry, why did Tyson and Cargill's profits soar while Canadian ranchers took it in the shorts? It's pretty obvious to me there are two industries and one just hosed the other.

 

[Murgen]

One segment within an industry might have "hosed" the other, but it is still the same industry, in my opinion.

Is a maker of headlights, in the auto industry?, or are they in the headlight industry.

Not much use for cattle without a beef/dairy industry, is there?

 

[Econ101]

Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Econ, is this the same Azzan, who has been part of many studies, that have stated that Captive supplies, DO NOT "substantially" affect the cash markets?

What about other Economists who state that Prohibiting such contracts and partnerships would damage the gains the industry has made in the last 20 years? Economists such as: Feuz, Lawrence, Grimes, Purcell, Hayenga, Schroeder, Koontz, Ward, Ritchie and Smith.

Are you the only Economist, that is not in the Packer pockets?

Murgen,

Even I am not opposed to these contracts. What I do oppose is the market power and its excersise that distorts the markets and allows either more industry concentration or discrimination against some in the industry. Some of the economists know that the price depression is temporary, which I admit that it is, but they still do not speak to the unfairnes, or the inefficiencies it creates in the markets. GIPSA, as indicated by many ag. economists, does not ask the right questions to get the answers producers are seeking. Remember, only a company with market power can distort the market with these contracts when we are talking about price discovery. The captive supply and non-reporting of the actual contracted price is the problem. This dichotomy in information only benefits the packers who already know the answers.

It is unfortunate that the government regulators either do not have the tools to do their jobs or the will. I personally think it is the latter. You have to remember who is funding these studies. I think the money trail posted on this forum speaks for itself. The power of the purse is large.

I do have a study paid for by GIPSA that is being conducted at this time to use as an example. Tom Vukina of North Carolina was given a study to complete on the pork industry. Here is the study:



News Release
Return to Recent News ReleasesReturn to News Services

Media Contact:
Dr. Tom Vukina, 919/515-5864
Mick Kulikowski, News Services, 919/515-3470

Sept. 15, 2004

NC State Receives $465K Grant to Study Swine Marketing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

North Carolina State University agricultural economists have received $465,000 to study different types of marketing arrangements in the swine and pork industries.

NC State is a part of the consortium of researchers headed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), which received a $4.3 million contract from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to study livestock and meat marketing for hogs, cattle and sheep.

Dr. Tomislav Vukina, NC State professor of agricultural and resource economics, says he and colleagues at NC State – Dr. Michael Wohlgenant, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of agricultural and resource economics, and Dr. Nick Piggott, associate professor of agricultural and resource economics – will take a close look at the implications that the changing organizational structure of the swine and pork industries exerts on producers' and consumers' costs and benefits.

The researchers will take mounds of data collected by RTI – surveys of all those involved in livestock and meat production and marketing, from farmers and packers to food service firms, exporters and retailers, as well as their individual transaction data – and conduct various economic analyses, including:

* Identifying and determining the use of emerging types of marketing arrangements such as production and marketing contracts;
* Determining terms of the marketing arrangements and their availability to entities of different sizes and in different geographic locations;
* Determining the long-term implications of swine marketing arrangements on operating costs; animal and meat quality; marketing risks; prices of livestock and meat; and the structure of the livestock and meatpacking industries.

Vukina says the study is important to North Carolina because of its multibillion-dollar livestock industry. He's especially interested in comparing and contrasting the North Carolina model – dominated by vertically integrated companies which own everything involved in producing pork and which often contract out segments of production to independent farmers – with the Midwestern model in which small farms raise pigs and sell them at auctions.

"This study will give us a better understanding of how the industry operates and how all the different segments function," Vukina said. "Although there will be no policy proposals in this project, it will provide insight about similar changes occurring in other industrial organizations in agriculture."

- kulikowski -

Unfortunately, the study has some major flaws before it even begins. One of these flaws has to do with idiosyncratic information about North Carolina hog production. The state of N.C. has a moratorium on hog production facilities because of potential pollution problems (after a recent hurricane there was flooding of hog facilities). Because of this, the farmers in that area have real bargaining power. Swift has to keep the hog farmers happy because if they do not, they will not have the supply they need for their operations. Consequently, those farmers are being treated really good and making good profits. This is similar to the supply-side control I believe you or someone else brought up about the Canadian ag. olicy.

Even with vertical integration, this circumstance makes Swift compete for the farmer's labor, land and capital. If this study makes a comparison of contracts to a more open market system in Iowa, it will look like contract agriculture is a win-win situation for both. This will skew all of the conclusions drawn about contracts and their value to the producer. Now why would GIPSA fund such a fundamentally flawed or useless study?

I think that data for the studies you mentioned above should not be "cherry picked" in time and place to get the conclusions the authors or their funders want. That is the problem I see with these studies. In Vukina's earlier works on the Broiler industry, he has an obvious bias against the producer's arguments. I suppose this is part of the reason he landed this study.

 

[Murgen]

Econ, this study you have mentioned and any other I have seen have not taken into account any of the advantages to the producer I would call "intangible"

What is the financial benefit of having your product contracted, with a guaranteed sale? What are the financial lending institutions' opinions on such contracts? Are you able to borrow further for capital expenditures, because of contracts etc.? Helping to make you more efficient and profitable per unit sold?

Market Power? have you ever heard of Ralph's Grocery Co. in California? Do they have market power? Is the relationship between producer, feedlots, packer, and retailer not a mutually beneficial relationship? Do they discriminate against the spot market?

You bet they do. Why? Has in been beneficial to all involved?

 

[agman]

Agman said:

Response....Are you suggesting cash markets have never gone up since marketing agreements began? Once again you show your extremely limited knowledge if any of the markets. Let me review a little history. Marketings agreements began to surface in 1988. Record prices were recorded going into 1990. With even more captive supply cattle those records were eclipsed in 2003-2004. It appears one should argue that the higher percentage of captive supply cattle has led to higher (record) cash prices for producers. If captive supply cattle never make the market up then they must by default always go sideways or down!!! You might be the only person left in the world who could actually believe that total nonsense. How far out of touch can one person such as yourself be?

No, I do not suggest that.


Agman, I have never argued that the captive supply and price suppression would permantly depress the cattle markets. That is your inaccurate inference of my arguments. It does so over the short run where supply is rather inelastic. Over the long run, almost all things are elastic, as my water example of a previous post has illustrated. Yes, I said illustrated, SH and Agman. Are you going to make that into an "illustion" critque?

Agman--

No, but that sounds par for you R-Laugh sheep. I guess you stuck your foot in your mouth again. Assumptions, assumptions.....

It looks like you have the foot in mouth disease that you diagnosed someone else having earlier.


I suggest that the captive supply has added a variable (a moving constant, if you will) to the market. This accentuation in prices makes the price cycle more pronounced. That effect is whether the market goes up or down. I do not believe that price supression out of the normal supply/demand equilibrium can be maintained without affecting the cattle cycle. This affect actually increases the volitility of the cattle markets. All of the packers that have substitutes of beef, namely pork and chicken, have a competitive advantage if they know the pulse of this cycle. This allows them to gain more market power in these industries, which they certainly have over the past 10 to 20 years.

Just open your eyes, step back, and see the forest.

Of course, with these types of market manipulation and a greater varience between the high and low of the cattle cycle, the substitutes, pork and chicken, will gain more market share in comparison over the long run. That is exactly what has happened. Why shouldn't a company focus more of its energy on higher profit businesses? In the cattle market with its structure today, the benefits of higher prices goes mostly to cattle producers. In pork an chicken it does not. It goes to the the integrators. Tyson is the largest poultry integrator. In North Carolina, I believe (going off of memory, not an actual fact I know) Swift is the largest pork integrator.

One of the problems with international trade is that these packer companies can manipulate the supply of cattle in one country and use international sources to capitalize on that manipulation. That is exactly what happened recently with foreign meat supplies in the U. S. One of the reasons I supported NAFTA is that the producers in Mexico would be able to bring themselves up with more trade with the U.S. If global U.S. companies obtain all of the benefits of trade, and not the producers of other countries, we have not gained much. Producers in Canada did not gain when boxed beef prices went up. It just helped that country's packer industry consolidate. Of course, as was pointed out earlier, Canada's packers are the U.S. packers.

Now that I have explained a little more about my arguments, Agman,

How far out of touch can one person such as yourself be?

What you have again demonstrated is how little you know and how little actual analysis you have done regarding the cattle markets, cycles, cattle prices and market share. Your hypotheticals are just as Taylor presented. He at least had the integrity, under oath, to admit he did not test any his theories for validity. So you can talk all you want. That is all you have ever done-all talk and no facts to back your claims.

The Canadain situation is unique, no one really wanted that situation, just like no one chooses to be swept by a tornado or hurricane.

 

[Econ101]

Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Econ, is this the same Azzan, who has been part of many studies, that have stated that Captive supplies, DO NOT "substantially" affect the cash markets?

What about other Economists who state that Prohibiting such contracts and partnerships would damage the gains the industry has made in the last 20 years? Economists such as: Feuz, Lawrence, Grimes, Purcell, Hayenga, Schroeder, Koontz, Ward, Ritchie and Smith.

Are you the only Economist, that is not in the Packer pockets?

Murgen,

Under strict questioning, Azzan could not produce the technical data and its application when I asked for it. If you just go to the conclusion and the study, the assumptions, or the data are not looked at closely, you do not really know how useful those studies are.

Even I am not opposed to these contracts. What I do oppose is the market power and its excersise that distorts the markets and allows either more industry concentration or discrimination against some in the industry.

Some of the economists in the beef case know that the price depression is temporary, which I admit that it is, but they still do not speak to the unfairnes, or the inefficiencies it creates in the markets in the summation of the short term. Remember, I only assert that the price depression mechanisms of captive supply put in an extra variable in the cattle cycle that makes the highs higher and the lows lower. I do not believe there is absolute control of the markets. Unfortunately, Pickett found himself in the midst of this manipulation. This type of manipulation causes inefficiencies in the cattle market. The more pronounced the swings in the cattle market, the more the pork and poultry will gain, all other things equal.

GIPSA, as indicated by many ag. economists, does not ask the right questions to get the answers producers are seeking. You must know that Joann Waterfield, the current acting administrator, prosecuted the similar Pickett case in the adminstrative procedure of GIPSA under Secretary Baker and lost. It was a hard case and there were not enough economists or lawyers to prosecute the case properly inside GIPSA. Congress tried to correct that problem but with the contact I have had with them, they did not succeed.

Remember, only a company with market power can distort the market with these contracts when we are talking about price discovery. When GIPSA can not gather verifiable data necessary in real time to do a real study, then these studies are compromised. Congress has had to mandate price reporting to get these answers as GIPSA was not able to use its powers to gather the data. The captive supply and non-reporting of the actual contracted price is the problem. This dichotomy in information only benefits the packers who already know the answers.

It is unfortunate that the government regulators either do not have the tools to do their jobs or the will. I personally think it is the latter. You have to remember who is funding these studies. I think the money trail posted on this forum speaks for itself. The power of the purse is large.

I do have a study paid for by GIPSA that is being conducted at this time to use as an example. Tom Vukina of North Carolina was given a study to complete on the pork industry. Here is the study:

News Release
Return to Recent News ReleasesReturn to News Services

Media Contact:
Dr. Tom Vukina, 919/515-5864
Mick Kulikowski, News Services, 919/515-3470

Sept. 15, 2004

NC State Receives $465K Grant to Study Swine Marketing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

North Carolina State University agricultural economists have received $465,000 to study different types of marketing arrangements in the swine and pork industries.

NC State is a part of the consortium of researchers headed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), which received a $4.3 million contract from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to study livestock and meat marketing for hogs, cattle and sheep.

Dr. Tomislav Vukina, NC State professor of agricultural and resource economics, says he and colleagues at NC State – Dr. Michael Wohlgenant, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of agricultural and resource economics, and Dr. Nick Piggott, associate professor of agricultural and resource economics – will take a close look at the implications that the changing organizational structure of the swine and pork industries exerts on producers' and consumers' costs and benefits.

The researchers will take mounds of data collected by RTI – surveys of all those involved in livestock and meat production and marketing, from farmers and packers to food service firms, exporters and retailers, as well as their individual transaction data – and conduct various economic analyses, including:

* Identifying and determining the use of emerging types of marketing arrangements such as production and marketing contracts;
* Determining terms of the marketing arrangements and their availability to entities of different sizes and in different geographic locations;
* Determining the long-term implications of swine marketing arrangements on operating costs; animal and meat quality; marketing risks; prices of livestock and meat; and the structure of the livestock and meatpacking industries.

Vukina says the study is important to North Carolina because of its multibillion-dollar livestock industry. He's especially interested in comparing and contrasting the North Carolina model – dominated by vertically integrated companies which own everything involved in producing pork and which often contract out segments of production to independent farmers – with the Midwestern model in which small farms raise pigs and sell them at auctions.

"This study will give us a better understanding of how the industry operates and how all the different segments function," Vukina said. "Although there will be no policy proposals in this project, it will provide insight about similar changes occurring in other industrial organizations in agriculture."

- kulikowski -

Unfortunately, the study has some major flaws before it even begins. One of these flaws has to do with idiosyncratic information about North Carolina hog production. The state of N.C. has a moratorium on hog production facilities because of potential pollution problems (after a recent hurricane there was flooding of hog facilities). Because of this, the farmers in that area have real bargaining power. Swift has to keep the hog farmers happy because if they do not, they will not have the supply they need for their operations. Consequently, those farmers are being treated really good and making good profits. This is similar to the supply-side control I believe you or someone else brought up about the Canadian ag. olicy.

Even with vertical integration, this circumstance makes Swift compete for the farmer's labor, land and capital. If this study makes a comparison of contracts to a more open market system in Iowa, it will look like contract agriculture is a win-win situation for both the integrator and the farmer. This will skew all of the conclusions drawn about contracts and their value to the producer. Now why would GIPSA fund such a fundamentally flawed or useless study?

We have some real credibility issues with this administration and with the heads of the agriculture committees that oversee them. I had one university economist tell me that economists were all whores willing to use their knowledge to keep their jobs. I don't believe all of them are that way, but I know some are.

I think that data for the studies you mentioned above should not be "cherry picked" in time and place to get the conclusions the authors or their funders want. That is the problem I see with these studies. In Vukina's earlier works on the Broiler industry, he has an obvious bias against the producer's arguments. I suppose this is part of the reason he landed this study.

 

[Sandhusker]

One segment within an industry might have "hosed" the other, but it is still the same industry, in my opinion.

Is a maker of headlights, in the auto industry?, or are they in the headlight industry.

Not much use for cattle without a beef/dairy industry, is there?

No doubt that the cattle industry is heavily dependant on the beef industry, but there is still clear seperation.

Using your headlight example, if the auto industry would come up with a lumination source that replaces headlights, the headlight industry would soon learn if they were in the auto industry or just formerly dependent on it.

 

[Murgen]

Using your headlight example, if the auto industry would come up with a lumination source that replaces headlights, the headlight industry would soon learn if they were in the auto industry or just formerly dependent on it.

Likewise, if the auto makers, do not replace headlights with torches, strapped to the front end of vehicles, are they not also dependent on the headlight manufacturers?

 

[agman]

Agman:

A little more history for you since your seem to be totally absent any real knowledge of the beef industry.

Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Matthew Josephson published "The Robber Barrons" in 1934 on the same economic games played last historical go round. Josephson's book encompasses all industrialization, not just the beef business but beef is in there also.

There are many more published books on these issues and anyone interested could look them up with ease. You may have to do this to see the forest.

Agman and SH, I have dared you a lot of times to take up REAL FACTS as it relates to either the Pickett case, the beef industry, or even a less emotionally charged mathematics to take you up on your points. Are you as full of hot air as SH?

I have stated facts that you are to inept to understand. You have made the accusations without one shred of evidence to support your continuing flow of new claims. Trying to reference a book written in 1934 that you suggest has parallels today is another total cop-out. It makes interesting conversation for a demagogue. That is someone like you without facts to back your position.

Please post what you think Domina published in Azzam's work. That is the first I have heard that Domina co-authored any work with Azzam. I think you are wrong again. Did Domina also explain why Azzam would not testify on behalf of the plaintiffs. Take a guess, it was not a conspiracy.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

A little more history for you since your seem to be totally absent any real knowledge of the beef industry.

Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Matthew Josephson published "The Robber Barrons" in 1934 on the same economic games played last historical go round. Josephson's book encompasses all industrialization, not just the beef business but beef is in there also.

There are many more published books on these issues and anyone interested could look them up with ease. You may have to do this to see the forest.

Agman and SH, I have dared you a lot of times to take up REAL FACTS as it relates to either the Pickett case, the beef industry, or even a less emotionally charged mathematics to take you up on your points. Are you as full of hot air as SH?

I have stated facts that you are to inept to understand. You have made the accusations without one shred of evidence to support your continuing flow of new claims. Trying to reference a book written in 1934 that you suggest has parallels today is another total cop-out. It makes interesting conversation for a demagogue. That is someone like you without facts to back your position.

Please post what you think Domina published in Azzam's work. That is the first I have heard that Domina co-authored any work with Azzam. I think you are wrong again Did Domina also explain why Azzam would not testify on behalf of the plaintiffs. Take a guess, it was not a conspiracy.

I did not say he published WITH Azzam, it was his response in the Pickett case which I am sure you are aware of. It is 33 pages long, I think, so I am not going to post it on this forum. Again, you are the frog jumping to conclusions.

As far as Matthew Josephson's book, it was a book on the robber barons, who used very similar economic tools that are being used today. He clearly explains the political and historical context of the anti-trust laws and others. Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Those who refuse to learn from history must relive it. I do not intend to follow you on that path.

You are really tiring me with your superior claim to knowledge when you continually show lack of it. I think this convesation can do without your editorializing of your views as facts when they are so obviously fraught with innaccuracies. Please stop the frog jumping to conclusions that are totally within your own head. You admonish others for what you continually do.

Those articles were published in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization.

Attached are the papers about captive supplies. I hope you find them
interesting. I also hope they demonstrate how difficult it is to sort out
effects of captive supplies.

Regards.

**************************************************************
Azzeddine M. Azzam
Professor & Director
Center for Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization
Editor
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization
103E Filley Hall
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0922 USA

Tel: 402-472-5326
Fax: 402-472-3460
http://agecon.unl.edu/azzam
*****************************************************************
(See attached file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE.pdf)(See attached file: CAPTIVE
SUPPLIES 1.pdf)(See attached file: CAPTIVE SUPPLIES 2.pdf)(See attached
file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE (DOMINA'S RESPONSE TO TYSON'S COUNCEL).pdf)(See
attached file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE (TYSON'S COUNCEL'S RESPONSE).pdf)
(See attached file: ARTICLE ON PSA.pdf)

I will add another part of an email from Azzam:

The evidence disputed is not available to the public. You may want to
contact Robert Taylor about that. The Texas Panhandle report is available
on GIPSA's website so it is available to the public.

Regards.

Azzam.

On a personal note, I like to go frog gigging, and yes, Clarence, frogs taste a little like chicken.

Agman, that is what you are starting to taste like.

Personally, I would rather have a steak.

 

[agman]

9. GIPSA has conducted literally hundreds of investigations into "alleged market manipulation", "price fixing" and other "alleged" PSA violations and normally over 95% are nothing but the same conspiracy theories we are dealing with here.

GIPSA is constantly defrauding the producers of the meats industry with bogus or slanted investigations or market analysis. They have the power of investigating but the way the cases for investigations are done, they will never find the truth. Would you like to talk about a few of them? They might be a little more technical than you can handle, SH. GIPSA is in the hands of the packers right now and EVERYONE who knows anything about these industries knows it.

What research have you ever done to prove your claim regarding GIPSA? You never seem to run out of accusations but have yet to present even one fact to support your outrageous claims.

 

[agman]

Agman:


Would you care to go into a REAL historical look at the beef industry? I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication. Anyone interested in reading this article can get it from Dr. Azzan at the University at Lincoln, NE.

Matthew Josephson published "The Robber Barrons" in 1934 on the same economic games played last historical go round. Josephson's book encompasses all industrialization, not just the beef business but beef is in there also.

There are many more published books on these issues and anyone interested could look them up with ease. You may have to do this to see the forest.

Agman and SH, I have dared you a lot of times to take up REAL FACTS as it relates to either the Pickett case, the beef industry, or even a less emotionally charged mathematics to take you up on your points. Are you as full of hot air as SH?

I have stated facts that you are to inept to understand. You have made the accusations without one shred of evidence to support your continuing flow of new claims. Trying to reference a book written in 1934 that you suggest has parallels today is another total cop-out. It makes interesting conversation for a demagogue. That is someone like you without facts to back your position.

Please post what you think Domina published in Azzam's work. That is the first I have heard that Domina co-authored any work with Azzam. I think you are wrong again Did Domina also explain why Azzam would not testify on behalf of the plaintiffs. Take a guess, it was not a conspiracy.

I did not say he published WITH Azzam, it was his response in the Pickett case which I am sure you are aware of. It is 33 pages long, I think, so I am not going to post it on this forum. Again, you are the frog jumping to conclusions.

As far as Matthew Josephson's book, it was a book on the robber barons, who used very similar economic tools that are being used today. He clearly explains the political and historical context of the anti-trust laws and others. Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Those who refuse to learn from history must relive it. I do not intend to follow you on that path.

You are really tiring me with your superior claim to knowledge when you continually show lack of it. I think this convesation can do without your editorializing of your views as facts when they are so obviously fraught with innaccuracies. Please stop the frog jumping to conclusions that are totally within your own head. You admonish others for what you continually do.

Those articles were published in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization.

Attached are the papers about captive supplies. I hope you find them
interesting. I also hope they demonstrate how difficult it is to sort out
effects of captive supplies.

Regards.

**************************************************************
Azzeddine M. Azzam
Professor & Director
Center for Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization
Editor
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization
103E Filley Hall
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0922 USA

Tel: 402-472-5326
Fax: 402-472-3460
http://agecon.unl.edu/azzam
*****************************************************************
(See attached file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE.pdf)(See attached file: CAPTIVE
SUPPLIES 1.pdf)(See attached file: CAPTIVE SUPPLIES 2.pdf)(See attached
file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE (DOMINA'S RESPONSE TO TYSON'S COUNCEL).pdf)(See
attached file: DOMINA'S ARTICLE (TYSON'S COUNCEL'S RESPONSE).pdf)
(See attached file: ARTICLE ON PSA.pdf)

I will add another part of an email from Azzam:

The evidence disputed is not available to the public. You may want to
contact Robert Taylor about that. The Texas Panhandle report is available
on GIPSA's website so it is available to the public.

Regards.

Azzam.

On a personal note, I like to go frog gigging, and yes, Clarence, frogs taste a little like chicken.

Agman, that is what you are starting to taste like.

Personally, I would rather have a steak.

This is a copy of your comment verbatim from a previous post. "I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication."

Now you say he did not publish with Azzam, which is it? Talk about a frog trying to jump out of a hot pan. You qualified yourself one more time!!!

Regarding knowledge of the industry.. If your truly demonstrated real knowledge, not hypotheticals, then this would be and interesting debate.

 

[Murgen]

Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Does this act take into account consumer buying patterns at present? Does it need to be ammended? What about costs of production (all segments) vs. retail price?

Quoting an act from 85 years ago, does nothing to show progression/advancement. It does say a lot about individuals that are content with status quo and not taking into mind changing buying patterns.

 

[Econ101]

Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Does this act take into account consumer buying patterns at present? Does it need to be ammended? What about costs of production (all segments) vs. retail price?

Quoting an act from 85 years ago, does nothing to show progression/advancement. It does say a lot about individuals that are content with status quo and not taking into mind changing buying patterns.

Please excuse me Murgen from the nastiness expressed to SH and Agman, they deserve it. It is not for anyone else.

The main part of the act is fluid. It is not specific other than the definitions that have to be for legal purposes. The act has been amended several times to include new definitions, but the basic part dealing with market power and fairness remains the same. It is timeless in that regard. It could go another 300 years and be okay. The problem is in the interpretation of what the terms mean. As one who has studied economics, I use the economic interpretation with the economic goals in mind.

The act was intended to keep those with market power from excercising it and taking all of the value from the market. In my examples with Jason, the law would prevent the people with market power from stealing Jason's producer surplus. Agricultural markets tend to fall into a pattern where markets get concentrated and then market power is exerted to enhance the profitabilty of the ones with market power. Of course this comes at the expense of the ones without market power. There is no net gain to the market when this happens, only a transfer of wealth and economic inefficiencies (deadweight loss).

Tomorrow I will type in the main part of the act and then let us see if it is out of date with some examples. I think you will see that the act is applicable under changing buying or marketing options.

I think it only needs to be amended because there is a huge disconnect between the way the act should work from an economic perspective and the legal realities. This should not be that hard because electric utilities work under the same principles. Utilities can not charge you more just because you can pay more. You pay the same per unit as your neighbor.

 

[agman]

Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Does this act take into account consumer buying patterns at present? Does it need to be ammended? What about costs of production (all segments) vs. retail price?

Quoting an act from 85 years ago, does nothing to show progression/advancement. It does say a lot about individuals that are content with status quo and not taking into mind changing buying patterns.

Econ101 has yet to provide one shred of evidence to support his accusations. To ask him the questions you ask is to request an answer from someone who deals in classroom hypotheticals. Expect alot of verbiage absent of any fact. That is his MO since he surfaced on these forums. He has failed to answer even one direct question.

 

[Econ101]

Of course, you must know already that the PSA was passed in 1921, or has that passed your eye on facts? Sure, you can say history does not matter.

Does this act take into account consumer buying patterns at present? Does it need to be ammended? What about costs of production (all segments) vs. retail price?

Quoting an act from 85 years ago, does nothing to show progression/advancement. It does say a lot about individuals that are content with status quo and not taking into mind changing buying patterns.

Econ101 has yet to provide one shred of evidence to support his accusations. To ask him the questions you ask is to request an answer from someone who deals in classroom hypotheticals. Expect alot of verbiage absent of any fact. That is his MO since he surfaced on these forums. He has failed to answer even one direct question.

Back to the shredded evidence theory I see. The Pickett jury did not buy it.

Yes, I deal in examples that allow people to reason. As you have seen most of them are not from the classroom you speak of, they are from the experiences of life.

What is your one direct question,Agman, that will ferret out the difference between truth and fiction? I will answer it, but it may not be the answer you want. I seem to recall a question about pi that you repeatedly declined to answer, another example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten Economics: "What is your one direct question,Agman, that will ferret out the difference between truth and fiction?"

That's easy!

What is the evidence that the plaintiffs provided to the jury that proved that ibp manipulated the cash cattle market with captive supplies that justified the jury's verdict?

All your "theories", "opinions", "conjecture", "speculation", and "suppositions" and you still fail to address the absolute heart of the issue prefering instead to create an "ILLUSION" of guilt.

You are the biggest phony that has shown up at this forum yet and your words prove it over and over.



~SH~