SH - Help me understand!

[Econ101]

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, With Healthsouth, MCI, Enron, and many other corporate rip offs that have and are happening in companies located in the South, the jury has a reasonable leaning there. Need I remind you that Missouri had to have its coliseum renamed as did Nashville? Are you just playing ostrich here? There is a reason why we have a jury system in the U.S.

What did they jury not understand?

It might also behoove you to do the same. Jury verdicts should not be overturned without one scintilla of evidence pointing to the conclusions that judges who overturn them use. Even more appalling is the appellate court's obvious lack of understanding of the issues that dismissed Taylor's work as evidenced by the Robinson-Patman example. The appellate court made up some new parts of the law in its own district and then used that made up part of law as a justification in the Pickett decision. The London case is sure to bring fire after the winds of Katrina.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Jury verdicts should not be overturned without one scintilla of evidence pointing to the conclusions that judges who overturn them use."

Jury verdicts should not be reached without one scintilla of evidence to support them.

That's why we have judges that overturn faulty rulings.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Jury verdicts should not be overturned without one scintilla of evidence pointing to the conclusions that judges who overturn them use."

Jury verdicts should not be reached without one scintilla of evidence to support them.

That's why we have judges that overturn faulty rulings.


~SH~

Taylor had mounds of evidence that is not available to us at this time. I would like to go into this evidence, SH, could you get Agman to have the discovery evidence released by the packers? If not, we have to trust the jury and thier judgment on what they saw at the trial. After all, that is the American way.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Taylor had mounds of evidence that is not available to us at this time."

Not available at this time????

HAHAHAHA!

How convenient!


Taylor had mounds of "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" which were not supported by facts. The jury bought those theories but Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw right through them.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Taylor had mounds of evidence that is not available to us at this time."

Not available at this time????

HAHAHAHA!

How convenient!


Taylor had mounds of "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" which were not supported by facts. The jury bought those theories but Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw right through them.



~SH~

Would you care to go into the mathematics on that one? You would be waaaaay over your head. You could not even answer my very basic question on calculating the circumference. Your answers are "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES". Mathematics gets to the answer of complex questions. Care to give it a try? What is the circumference of a circle with a radius of 2?

 

[Anonymous]

Where is your proof that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies during the Pickett era?

That is the basis for the plaintiff's allegations. If you cannot provide that evidence, everything else is irrelevant.

Where is your proof Kindergarten?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Where is your proof that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies during the Pickett era?

That is the basis for the plaintiff's allegations. If you cannot provide that evidence, everything else is irrelevant.

Where is your proof Kindergarten?



~SH~

The proof was shown to the jury. They agreed. Would you care to get the packers to release that data so critical analysis can be done? If not, we must rely on the jury. Stop hiding behind nothing. People are beginning to realize that the emperor has no clothes.

Care to answer a very elementary mathematical question to show your proficiency in understanding the evidence? What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

SH-- Hawker.

 

[Anonymous]

Why do you desperately continue to divert the most relevant question in this debate?

The plaintiff's allegation is that ibp manipulated cash cattle markets with captive supplies.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser.

What is your proof to back the plaintiff's allegation that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies Kindergarten?

Quit dancing and present that proof!

Until you do, everything else you say is irrelevant.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Why do you desperately continue to divert the most relevant question in this debate?

The plaintiff's allegation is that ibp manipulated cash cattle markets with captive supplies.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser.

What is your proof to back the plaintiff's allegation that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies Kindergarten?

Quit dancing and present that proof!

Until you do, everything else you say is irrelevant.



~SH~

It seems that you and I are going in circles with each other on these issues which is partly why I asked you the following question:

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

 

[Anonymous]

You are right, we keep going in circles because you refuse to back your position with supporting evidence.

Your stupid argument that the difference between this week's cash market and this week's formula market is proof of market manipulation has been slam dunked by numerous factors which you have not refuted:

1. This week's cash price is not last week's cash price which determines the formula base price for this week's formula cattle.

2. Supply and demand factors have to be isolated to determine the impact of any single factor on the market.

3. Feeders are not locked into any particular packer or pricing mechanism.

4. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

5. Cash prices advanced 60% in one year with virtually the same level of captive supplies as always. You have not explained why captive supplies can be used to lower cattle prices at some times and not others.


Your ship is sunk, you got nothing!

You are empty handed!

"OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" will not earn a conviction.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH--

1. This week's cash price is not last week's cash price which determines the formula base price for this week's formula cattle.

This is simply a mechanism for taking cattle off of the cash market and basing its price on an already established price. Why would the packers offer a formula price to cattlemen that was higher than on average than the cash market? We all know the real reason and it can be broken down to a dollar amount.

2. Supply and demand factors have to be isolated to determine the impact of any single factor on the market.

Do I need to go into higher math to prove you are wrong on this one? You better freshen up on you math skills if you want to argue this. Much application of math is based on finding and isolating variables. Taylor calculated the supression of price to about 5% of the market. Note I did not make any claims that the market was manipulated ABSOLUTELY. That is one of your fish arguments.

3. Feeders are not locked into any particular packer or pricing mechanism.

This may be true. Just because they had no particular packer or pricing mechanism is no argument against Pickett's arguments. Packers could have bought all their cattle on the cash market. So what is your point? The argument was a thinning of the price setting cash market and then discrimination of the cash market by Tyson. If Tyson had no market power and wasn't a big buyer you might have a case here.

4. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

A convenient excuse for offering less in the cash market but not a defense to discriminating against the cash market. This is truely a circular argument.

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

5. Cash prices advanced 60% in one year with virtually the same level of captive supplies as always. You have not explained why captive supplies can be used to lower cattle prices at some times and not others.

The claim was a SUPRESSION of the cattle market over a period of time of about 5% (as calculated by Dr.Taylor), not anything you seem to insinuate in your this argument. Do you not know how constants or even variable constants affect a number or calculation? The answer to that question can easily be found in the mathematics you have such disdain for yet know little about. You sound like the judges in this case.

Do you have any more?

 

[agman]

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!

Because they need cattle to fill their kill. How elementary is that if you run a business?

 

[Econ101]

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!

Because they need cattle to fill their kill. How elementary is that if you run a business?

It seems that if Tyson had their over 100% quota for their kill fill they most certainly did not need to even buy from the grid or formula cattle supplies. What is your reason for this piece of evidence, Agman?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "This is simply a mechanism for taking cattle off of the cash market and basing its price on an already established price. Why would the packers offer a formula price to cattlemen that was higher than on average than the cash market? We all know the real reason and it can be broken down to a dollar amount."

The only way any packer can obtain captive supply cattle IS IF THEY HAVE WILLING SELLERS.

Formula pricing isn't something the packer does alone, this is something the PACKER AND FEEDERS DO TOGETHER!

THE FEEDER HAS THE CHOICE OF FORMULA PRICING OR CASH PRICING.

To suggest this is a packer mechanism for taking cattle off the cash market is just one more of your many idiotic statements. Packers only purchase formula cattle if they have willing sellers.

The fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market proves how flawed your worthless argument is.

Kindergarten: "Do I need to go into higher math to prove you are wrong on this one? You better freshen up on you math skills if you want to argue this. Much application of math is based on finding and isolating variables. Taylor calculated the supression of price to about 5% of the market. Note I did not make any claims that the market was manipulated ABSOLUTELY. That is one of your fish arguments."

Just a minute ago the difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation but now you don't make any claims of market manipulation ABSOLUTELY??? Hahaha!

Ahhhh......ok?

You certainly are going in circles.

There is no way to know the affects of any single market factor without isolating each variable.

Go ahead, dazzle us with yours and Taylor's mathematical bullsh*t to avoid having to present the proof that ibp manipulated markets.

CREATE AN ILLUSION AGAIN!

Kindergarten: "Just because they had no particular packer or pricing mechanism is no argument against Pickett's arguments."

Pickett never had any valid arguments.

How can you claim market manipulation with Tyson if other packers, who do not have their needs filled with formula cattle, are offering a better price?

Obviously Tyson dropped their price as their needs were filled. That is not market manipulation.

Kindergarten: "Packers could have bought all their cattle on the cash market. So what is your point?"

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FEEDERS WANTED THAT SOLD THEM FORMULA CATTLE!

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ANYONE HOW TO MARKET THEIR CATTLE???

Kindergarten: "The argument was a thinning of the price setting cash market and then discrimination of the cash market by Tyson."

That was the argument but a thinning of the price due to having your needs met is not proof of market manipulation.

Kindergarten: "A convenient excuse for offering less in the cash market but not a defense to discriminating against the cash market. This is truely a circular argument."

DROPPING YOUR PRICE AS YOUR NEEDS ARE MET IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION.

What kind of a socialized marketing advocate are you to suggest that ibp should not drop their price as their needs are met?

Every cattleman that sells in the salebarn wants to sell towards the front of the sale because there is less buying power at the end of the sale. Isn't that the same discrimination argument? Isn't that the same market manipulation by the feeders to drop their prices as their orders are filled.
YOU TELL ME HOW THAT IS ONE DAMN BIT DIFFERENT!

You'll dance around that just like you do most arguments you cannot refute.


6. How do you explain the times when the formula price is lower than the cash price? Packer generousity?


What is your proof that ibp manipulated the market during the Pickett era?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

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.

Agman, since you have access, why don't you get all the discovery data that was obtained in the trial released by Tyson? You know they are not going to release that information because they do not want it analyzed. You are hiding behind nothing. If you and Tyson have nothing to hide, why not release the discovery data? Scared, that is why.

Your conclusions of Taylor failing the Daubert tests were already shown to be false on this forum by me. Those issues were hashed out before the trial began. Taylor was not disqualified by Daubert issues before the trial and only after the packers did not get the verdict they wanted, they brought up that dead horse. Even when doing so the appellate court got the economic example they used from the Robinson-Patman Act. Why did the appellate court not even test their example? By your "packer logic" they failed their own Daubert test.

Did Taylor have to test ALL of the math before testifying? Of course not. Some things are assumed to be facts. It is assumed that the math we use in engineering, aviation, economics, and other professional sciences to be correct. All of the advances, professional, and consumer goods we have today depend on it.

You and SH can not even calculate the circumference of a circle, let alone understand the math behind the analysis. The judges did not even question the specific tests that Tyson claimed in Taylor did not do. Why not? They are probably only as bright as you when it comes to math.

If you are not scared, why don't you get Tyson/IBP to release the data?

I hear some chicken sounds coming over the telephone line. Oh, I forgot, it is your Martians doing morse code.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Agman, since you have access, why don't you get all the discovery data that was obtained in the trial released by Tyson? You know they are not going to release that information because they do not want it analyzed. You are hiding behind nothing. If you and Tyson have nothing to hide, why not release the discovery data? Scared, that is why."

Still wanting others to prove Tyson's innocense when you can't prove their guilt. Surprise, surprise!

What data do you want specifically?

Perhaps you can find it through USDA's Mandatory Price Reporting.

Remember, that "socialist" law that was passed a few years back by packer blamers who didn't realize that reporting a price tells you nothing without reporting the value that determined that price.

Kindergarten: "Your conclusions of Taylor failing the Daubert tests were already shown to be false on this forum by me."

You sound like Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war. You proved nothing wrong. All you did is present "theories" and "opinions" and refute nothing with facts. You're a phony!

Kindergarten: "You and SH can not even calculate the circumference of a circle, let alone understand the math behind the analysis."

Typical of your mindset.

I refuse to divert into something that has absolutely nothing to do with this case and you reach the conclusion that I cannot answer it. That is the same conspiracy mindset that believes that if Tyson does not provide the data that proves their innocense, they must be guilty. I guess that explains why you believe your phone is tapped.

Kindergarten: "If you are not scared, why don't you get Tyson/IBP to release the data?"

The burden of proof falls on you, the whiny anti corporate packer blamer, not Tyson to prove their innocense.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Remember, that "socialist" law that was passed a few years back by packer blamers who didn't realize that reporting a price tells you nothing without reporting the value that determined that price.

Boy, that is exactly what I said. Too bad that reporting law was so watered down to where it became almost meaningless. With that we both agree.

 

[Anonymous]

The whole MPR concept is flawed.

It's nobody's damn business what someone else gets paid for their fat cattle. The law was nothing more than a "socialized" disincentive for improving the quality of your cattle because quality cattle would receive the same price in the cash market as poorer quality cattle due to the whiners crying discrimination. The blamers would start crying if their piss poor swamp cattle didn't receive as much as northern quality cattle. Then when the progressive producer started selling their cattle on the formula on a grade and yield basis, whiners like you are screaming discrimination when the cash market is lower. It's all bullsh*t!

The less government intervention into our industry the better.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The whole MPR concept is flawed.

It's nobody's damn business what someone else gets paid for their fat cattle. The law was nothing more than a "socialized" disincentive for improving the quality of your cattle because quality cattle would receive the same price in the cash market as poorer quality cattle due to the whiners crying discrimination. The blamers would start crying if their p*** poor swamp cattle didn't receive as much as northern quality cattle. Then when the progressive producer started selling their cattle on the formula on a grade and yield basis, whiners like you are screaming discrimination when the cash market is lower. It's all bullsh*t!

The less government intervention into our industry the better.


~SH~

I am sure if some of the ranchers that had to deal with you could count on less government intervention there would be a rope over a tree with your name on it. Is that what you want? Yes, I am sure could say the same about me.

You are going over the same ground again, do you think you are hitting the hardpan?

With the captive cattle arangement the price setting cash market is thinned. With that thinning there is a possiblity of market manipulation. Pickett proved it where it counted in court to 12 jurors. There has been no evidence to the contrary.

With the type of grid and formula pricing, and I don't care about what terminology you use, the cattle coming off of the market could not push the price of cattle up. With a thinner cash market the price could be pushed down. You keep talking about the thinner market going down because the kill slots were filled. What would make the price of cattle go up with formula and grid pricing? The more formula and grid pricing, the easier it was to push down the cash price with inventory management.

As I said before, this scheme has already been played out in NY stock exchange and the broker had to pay back many investers. Why should the cattle buyers be any different?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "With the captive cattle arangement the price setting cash market is thinned. With that thinning there is a possiblity of market manipulation. Pickett proved it where it counted in court to 12 jurors. There has been no evidence to the contrary."

Possibilities of market manipulation won't earn a valid conviction.

When cattlemen have numerous marketing options available to them from different packers all competing for the same cattle, there is no chance for market manipulation.

If a feeder does not like Tyson's cash price due to Tyson having their needs filled with formula cattle, they have other market options.

To take a price that is unsatisfactory without looking at any other marketing alternatives would be self manipulation.

Pretty hard to make an argument for cash cattle markets being manipulated by captive supply cattle when there is times that the cash cattle market is higher than the formula market.


You said there was no evidence to the contrary while you have admitted that you have not read the court proceedings.

HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW?????

Secondly, it is not Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. It is the Plaintiff's responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt.

Kindergarten: "With the type of grid and formula pricing, and I don't care about what terminology you use, the cattle coming off of the market could not push the price of cattle up."

Then how do you explain those times when the cash price is higher than the formula price?

Kindergarten: "What would make the price of cattle go up with formula and grid pricing?"

Do you really have to ask?

NORMAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS!

Kindergarten: "The more formula and grid pricing, the easier it was to push down the cash price with inventory management."

Lowering your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation particularly when you have many other marketing options available.


You got nothing again!



~SH~