Response to Kindergarten Economics:
1. You never did answer my question about the circumference of a circle. Did you just not understand the question? I even gave you the way you solve the problem in the question. I do not think you will ever "get it".
I'm not playing your stupid little games. This is irrelevant to the issue. More diversion.
2. Was that the USDA problem on closing the border in the first place? You seem to be saying that r-calf closed the border and caused the all the Canadian problems. I merely pointed out that the USDA created an opportunity to gobble up another Canadian company. Was that true or not?
BSE caused the border to close. R-CALF kept it closed with their lies until their lies were exposed.
3. Are you saying none of the witnesses were credible? You are the one who called Mike C. a perjurer, which was never proven. The court could have brought those charges. What strikes me as odd in that episode is that Mike C. presented the tape did he not? If Mike C. willfully and intentionally gave what he thought was false testimony, why would he have even acknowledge he had the tape and try to go back and listen to it? It seems more likely that given the age of the tape, that it was switched without his knowledge. Maybe this is why the court did not press for perjury charges. Someone else posted information that the same information was entered into the trial through a different source. Anyway, that was only one of the witnesses I mentioned. You are really the pot calling the kettle black after your support to R-Calf in that statement. Try being credible before referencing Mike C. as someone who makes "all kinds of baseless allegations that he(you) cannot support.
No, I don't think any of the witnesses were credible on what actually constitutes a PSA violation.
Mike Callicrate changed his story. He lied under oath. Go ahead and defend him I would expect nothing less from you. You'll defend anything and anyone that supports your packer blaming bias. Truth is not a consideration.
Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard Mike's testimony because he found it to be untrue. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Just because Mike was not formerly charged with perjury does not mean he didn't committ it. That's another typical bullsh*t "RED HERRING" argument from you (he had to be charged with perjury to committ perjury).
Mike Callicrate has made all kinds of accusations that he cannot back. Like his ridiculous claim that supply and demand has no affect on the market, or his claim that packers and retailers were making $400 per head profits, or his claim that IBP had contractual arrangements with the other packers, or his claim that Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black, or telling me that he would answer my questions if I revealed my identity, or a host of other lies he has made.
Hand him the microphone every chance you can get as far as I'm concerned.
4. You incorrectly inferred a causuality here that simply does not exist. I merely pointed that out with a current example.
Boxed beef prices drive live cattle prices, PERIOD! That is not debatable.
5. You incorrectly infer that without an increase in the spread, there is no manipulation. Don't think you are as smart as to infer any economic reasoning from me as you have failed that test repeatedly. I need to spell everything out for you and you will never be smart enough to be my spokesperson.
I correctly infer that without proof of market manipulation, there is no market manipulation.
6. I wasn't asked to. You are the one who believes in the conspiracy of 12 without any evidence supporting and a lot contridicting appellate logic.
I have asked you to back your position repeatedly. You won't because you can't. All you can do is make statements.
7. Was my statement about the spread not true given the scenario? Didn't you already lose that bet to Sandhusker and become a bonafide R-Calf supporter? (I still respect you for the payment, by the way) If you are implying that additional supply does not affect the supply/demand equilibrium then you have already made the case for market failure, which is what the PSA is intuitively made to prevent.
First off, let me recap the bet for your simple mind.....
I stated that Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants in the NW lost more money than the Lakeside plant made while the Canadian border was closed. Without anything to back his claim, Sandman claimed I lied. I bet him $100 that I was right instead of betting him $100 that he couldn't back his allegation that I lied. I agreed to calendar year 2004. Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants did not lose more money than Lakeside made DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2004. They did lose more money than Lakeside made FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME WHILE THE BORDER WAS CLOSED, which was what I had stated originally that Sandbag called a lie. What Sandbag called a lie was the truth. I proved myself wrong WITHIN CALENDAR YEAR 2004 ONLY, readily admitted it, and paid up. Sandman contributed absolutely nothing to the debate nor will he back his allegation that my original statement was wrong, WHICH HE ADMITS THE BET WAS BASED ON. Sandman is nothing more than a worthless parasite that accuses people of lying then expects them to prove that they didn't lie. I should have been smart enough not to fall for his childish games but I didn't and I let my emotions override my common sense instead of considering the parasite I was dealing with.
Sandman never proved anything. He never brought anything. All he offered was his parasitic challenge for me to prove that I didn't lie.
Let's recap your statement:
Kindergarten: "If for some reason the supply of U.S. cattle could not meet the demand prices would rise. If Tyson could get more of their beef from other countries, that spread could increase due to these circumstances. The spread increase would not be between U. S. cash prices and boxed beef prices, it would be between the imported meat cash prices and boxed beef."
If Tyson imports more beef, the supply increases. If Tyson exports more beef, the demand increases. I never implied that an increase in supply did not affect the price.
8. Sleeping in class will "never learn you anything" as you have proven time and again.
If you were the teacher, sleeping in class would be more productive than listening to your bullsh*t.
~SH~
:lol: 
