Socialism?

[Econ101]

This is so typical of socialist conspiracy theorists such as yourself elementary.

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS!

PATHETIC !Q^(#*&@(@#!

I don't need you socialists to tell me how to market my cattle based on your stupid unproven conspiracy theories of market manipulation. If I think packers are making too much money off my back, I'LL INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. This is still America unless you socialists have your way. This will be a bloody fight because I'll be damned if I am going to let socialistic market manipulation conspiracy theorists tell me how to sell my fat cattle.

The CME investigation was thorough. They had total access to ibp's CME trading information. It didn't turn out the way conspiracy theorists like you thought it should so you blame GIPSA for the investigation. Typical of pathetic blamers like you, the scourge of this industry.

Elementary: "The average producer wants his fair share of the economic pie and doesn't want to have to play all the little games necessary to get undue advantage a system of secrecy develops. They work hard for their money with labor and investment. They deserve it."

MOST PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

I sure as hell don't need a conspiracy theorist like you saving me from my fat cattle pricing mechanisms based on your unproven conspiracy theories. Keep you socialistic views out of our industry.

This socialistic law will be shot down in flames, WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~

Well, SH,------- I am glad that you are taking on the cause. Maybe you will be a feather in Tyson's nest and make them feel more comfortable. SH is going to save the packers from the laws of the land. "Packers safe from Socialism" run the headlines, "SH is here to save them". I see that you had no sway with the recent unanimous decision by the supreme court on the worker issues decided this week against Tyson and the other poultry companies. In a statement Tyson graciously thanked the court for clarification on an issue that was settled long ago by the court after litigating it to death. Plain old abuse of the courts. That is their tactic (as evidenced by the threats in Canada to their meat inspectors) but it obviously did not scare the Supreme Court. It is funny that you continually bring up the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

I am a gun owner, and I enjoy using them for hunting big game. I have a right to bear those arms based on the laws of the land. That still does not give me the right to use them for illegal purposes. Your argument is a diversion and a non sequitor.

I did not look into the CME trading investigation or its methods or conclusions. It is interesting that these governmental regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating are failing to do their jobs per GAO report after GAO report. I don't know about the CME trading investigation that you are referring to (was this the one on the Hillary Clinton trades that I brought up?) so don't attribute it as an argument from me. If it is the Hillary trading thing, I will take you to task on it.

Your line on me investing in a packing company is just bait. Right now, packing companies are cheating per the recent Supreme Court decision. I would not invest in a company that had to cheat to be profitable. I don't knowingly invest in scams. If that is their best defense, they are probably in trouble. Whether or not you want to invest in one doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. There is a fool born everyday and some people act like fools well after they should know better.

As long as I am a citizen of this country, I will chose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want. You probably think that people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family. I would disagree with you there also.

I never asked your permission to take on these issues and I think it is funny that you assume that anyone needs your permission. When I want to learn how to trap myself I might ask for your wisdom and guidance. Until then, don't flatter yourself. I might ask you to blow up some balloons one day as you are obviosly full of hot air.

 

[mrj]

This is so typical of socialist conspiracy theorists such as yourself elementary.

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS!

PATHETIC !Q^(#*&@(@#!

I don't need you socialists to tell me how to market my cattle based on your stupid unproven conspiracy theories of market manipulation. If I think packers are making too much money off my back, I'LL INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. This is still America unless you socialists have your way. This will be a bloody fight because I'll be damned if I am going to let socialistic market manipulation conspiracy theorists tell me how to sell my fat cattle.

The CME investigation was thorough. They had total access to ibp's CME trading information. It didn't turn out the way conspiracy theorists like you thought it should so you blame GIPSA for the investigation. Typical of pathetic blamers like you, the scourge of this industry.

Elementary: "The average producer wants his fair share of the economic pie and doesn't want to have to play all the little games necessary to get undue advantage a system of secrecy develops. They work hard for their money with labor and investment. They deserve it."

MOST PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

I sure as hell don't need a conspiracy theorist like you saving me from my fat cattle pricing mechanisms based on your unproven conspiracy theories. Keep you socialistic views out of our industry.

This socialistic law will be shot down in flames, WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~

Well, SH,------- I am glad that you are taking on the cause. Maybe you will be a feather in Tyson's nest and make them feel more comfortable. SH is going to save the packers from the laws of the land. "Packers safe from Socialism" run the headlines, "SH is here to save them". I see that you had no sway with the recent unanimous decision by the supreme court on the worker issues decided this week against Tyson and the other poultry companies. In a statement Tyson graciously thanked the court for clarification on an issue that was settled long ago by the court after litigating it to death. Plain old abuse of the courts. That is their tactic (as evidenced by the threats in Canada to their meat inspectors) but it obviously did not scare the Supreme Court. It is funny that you continually bring up the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

I am a gun owner, and I enjoy using them for hunting big game. I have a right to bear those arms based on the laws of the land. That still does not give me the right to use them for illegal purposes. Your argument is a diversion and a non sequitor.

I did not look into the CME trading investigation or its methods or conclusions. It is interesting that these governmental regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating are failing to do their jobs per GAO report after GAO report. I don't know about the CME trading investigation that you are referring to (was this the one on the Hillary Clinton trades that I brought up?) so don't attribute it as an argument from me. If it is the Hillary trading thing, I will take you to task on it.

Your line on me investing in a packing company is just bait. Right now, packing companies are cheating per the recent Supreme Court decision. I would not invest in a company that had to cheat to be profitable. I don't knowingly invest in scams. If that is their best defense, they are probably in trouble. Whether or not you want to invest in one doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. There is a fool born everyday and some people act like fools well after they should know better.

As long as I am a citizen of this country, I will chose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want. You probably think that people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family. I would disagree with you there also.

I never asked your permission to take on these issues and I think it is funny that you assume that anyone needs your permission. When I want to learn how to trap myself I might ask for your wisdom and guidance. Until then, don't flatter yourself. I might ask you to blow up some balloons one day as you are obviosly full of hot air.

Econ, why are you claiming rights for yourself you indicate SH should not have? When you say "I will choose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want", isn't that exactly what you are doing?

When you say about SH, "you probably think people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family", first, you cannot possibly know what SH might think. Second, if you are encouraging people to wonder if what you say he "probably" thinks just might be true, isn't that deceitful and scurrilous? Maybe even worse than the "name calling" you complain about, yet which you indulge in rather underhanded-like in your last paragraph. Looks rather like you are a pot calling a kettle black here.

BTW, if the packing companies are making the obscene profits you and others indicate, why would they need to "cheat to be profitable"?

MRJ

 

[agman]

Robert Mac, Don't forget the lessons of Hudson Foods. If you ever become a market maker to any large extent you might find your name substituted for Hudson.

I assume this is what you are referring to...

INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
In 1997, Tyson Foods expressed interest in buying beef giant Hudson Foods. Hudson declined the Tyson offer. Very soon after the rejection of Tyson's bid, a government inspectorate task force under the control of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman 'visited' Hudson Foods, where they very conveniently 'found' evidence of e.coli bacteria contamination. By the time Glickman's task force had finished with Hudson Foods, the story had taken on national and international proportions, with the 'beleaguered' company having to recall 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King. The resultant fallout devalued Hudson corporate stock by 35%. [5] The Wall Street Journal said at the time: "Hudson's rapid tailspin has stunned some meat industry executives, who blame the record beef recall pushed by the Agriculture Department for breaking the back of Hudson. "What happened to Hudson Foods doesn't make sense," said Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute." [6]

PERFECT SENSE
The presence of e.coli at the Hudson plant was never proven, but the damage had been done. In 1998, Tyson Foods managed to acquire Hudson Foods at a rock bottom price, in a deal described by Leonard Teitlebaum of Merrill Lynch and Coas "adding beautifully to Tyson's distribution and production system." [7] The Wall Street Journal commented, "Hudson's brush with Glickman's gang meant the Tyson's buyout bid was an offer the company couldn't refuse." [8] It is not difficult to see that contrary to Patrick Boyle's comment, the E.coli raid made perfect sense.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/kings13.html

Agman, I would think, in a decreasing market, sellers of raw product wouldn't be able to demand "Y" prices...would they???

That depends upon the level of X, does it not, since Y is the dependent variable????

The mere fact that e:coli was not found at the plant following the recall does not dismiss the fact that contaminated prodcut was traced to that plant. Another conspiracy theory just went up in flames.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is another opinion. If I can find the Other Voices column I will post it too.

The Front Gate
Steve Cornett

advertisement
Blame it on the chickens

Why do so many people think beef imports are the problem with beef demand? In 2002, which is about when beef's market slide bagan, poultry had a much larger share of the U.S. meat supply compared with 1970. Today, imported beef has a much smaller share of the market than in 1970.

This month's Other Voices column provides some clues as to why people think that way. So many are convinced that packers and retailers are too big and too immoral. It's that big versus little thing. Or, as the populists prefer to call it, corporate versus independent.

Neither set of terminology really fits, though. There are big guys on the Organization of Competitive Markets (OCM) side and little guys on NCBA's side. And anybody who thinks the big cooperators like Cactus Feeders and Friona Industries aren't "independent" don't understand the leadership structure. Being ahorseback in the middle of a Montana pasture is one kind of independent; being able to negotiate a win-win deal with Tyson or McDonald's is another kind of independent.

Chase Carter and his comrades at OCM don't seem to think the latter sort of independence counts.

It's easier. Their reasoning is logical. It's so easy to just haul cattle to the sale barn and know you're getting the same price everybody else is getting. It removes one area of competition with your neighbors. If you're both weaning 600-lb. No. 1 Okies and getting $1.50, then your neighbor doesn't have a leg up on you when the other neighbor's widow starts asking about lease values.

But when he starts marketing—in other words, when he starts cooperating with the packers—he suddenly has an advantage. What the OCMers don't seem to see is that beef's competition is already using the marketing strategies, and has been for 30 years. And they've succeeded in growing market share and their industries. OCM's bugaboo is real, but other cattle people aren't the problem. Poultry is.

Beef cannot unilaterally continue doing business like grandpappy did. Unilateral disarmament, in the face of poultry's onslaught, is not an option. At one point last summer, it looked like the R-CALF and OCM folks had seen the light. They made some passing mention of including chicken in the marketing reforms they demand of Congress.

A few phone calls confirmed they were bluffing. They can't return the poultry industry to what it was when beef was king, and they should know that beef can't be king again without employing the same tactics the chicken pluckers used to take the lead.

That means giving a lot of quality control to marketers—to Tyson, Safeway and McDonald's. It means cooperation. They've got cooperation from poultry and pork. If the OCM attitude prevails, the marketers will put their efforts into marketing what makes them the most money. They spent the last third of the 20th century doing just that—much to the detriment of cow folk.

The poultry problem. In 2002, the U.S. produced four times as much poultry as it did in 1970—almost 30 billion more pounds of the stuff. In the same time frame, U.S. imports of beef didn't even double, and the net increase in imports was 14 million pounds—less than half the increase in poultry production. More importantly, most of the increased imports were offset by a 60-fold increase in exports.

In 1970, per capita poultry consumption was 36 lb. By 2002 it was 93.84 lb. Americans are three times more likely to pick poultry for a meal today than they were in 1970. Beef consumption has fallen by about one-third.

Another way to look at it. We imported more beef in 2002 and 1970 than we exported. But in 1970, our trade imbalance provided 7% of total beef supply. In 2002, with all the extra exports, the imbalance was just 2.4% of total supply.

Imports are not beef's problem. Retail spreads and packers are not beef's problem. Marketing is beef's problem. Poultry has a better system. If that doesn't change, beef will continue to see lower peaks in every cycle.

And the government can't stop it by passing laws attempting to make the status quo mandatory.

More From Steve

You can read Steve Cornett's regular Web log at www.beeftoday.com, or call him at (806) 655-9163.

 

[Econ101]

This is so typical of socialist conspiracy theorists such as yourself elementary.

PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE THE FEEDING INDUSTRY FROM THEIR OWN PRICING MECHANISMS!

PATHETIC !Q^(#*&@(@#!

I don't need you socialists to tell me how to market my cattle based on your stupid unproven conspiracy theories of market manipulation. If I think packers are making too much money off my back, I'LL INVEST IN A PACKING COMPANY. This is still America unless you socialists have your way. This will be a bloody fight because I'll be damned if I am going to let socialistic market manipulation conspiracy theorists tell me how to sell my fat cattle.

The CME investigation was thorough. They had total access to ibp's CME trading information. It didn't turn out the way conspiracy theorists like you thought it should so you blame GIPSA for the investigation. Typical of pathetic blamers like you, the scourge of this industry.




MOST PRODUCERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!

This is the feeding industry's pricing mechanisms, not the producer's.

I sure as hell don't need a conspiracy theorist like you saving me from my fat cattle pricing mechanisms based on your unproven conspiracy theories. Keep you socialistic views out of our industry.

This socialistic law will be shot down in flames, WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~

Well, SH,------- I am glad that you are taking on the cause. Maybe you will be a feather in Tyson's nest and make them feel more comfortable. SH is going to save the packers from the laws of the land. "Packers safe from Socialism" run the headlines, "SH is here to save them". I see that you had no sway with the recent unanimous decision by the supreme court on the worker issues decided this week against Tyson and the other poultry companies. In a statement Tyson graciously thanked the court for clarification on an issue that was settled long ago by the court after litigating it to death. Plain old abuse of the courts. That is their tactic (as evidenced by the threats in Canada to their meat inspectors) but it obviously did not scare the Supreme Court. It is funny that you continually bring up the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

I am a gun owner, and I enjoy using them for hunting big game. I have a right to bear those arms based on the laws of the land. That still does not give me the right to use them for illegal purposes. Your argument is a diversion and a non sequitor.

I did not look into the CME trading investigation or its methods or conclusions. It is interesting that these governmental regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating are failing to do their jobs per GAO report after GAO report. I don't know about the CME trading investigation that you are referring to (was this the one on the Hillary Clinton trades that I brought up?) so don't attribute it as an argument from me. If it is the Hillary trading thing, I will take you to task on it.

Your line on me investing in a packing company is just bait. Right now, packing companies are cheating per the recent Supreme Court decision. I would not invest in a company that had to cheat to be profitable. I don't knowingly invest in scams. If that is their best defense, they are probably in trouble. Whether or not you want to invest in one doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. There is a fool born everyday and some people act like fools well after they should know better.

As long as I am a citizen of this country, I will chose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want. You probably think that people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family. I would disagree with you there also.

I never asked your permission to take on these issues and I think it is funny that you assume that anyone needs your permission. When I want to learn how to trap myself I might ask for your wisdom and guidance. Until then, don't flatter yourself. I might ask you to blow up some balloons one day as you are obviosly full of hot air.

Econ, why are you claiming rights for yourself you indicate SH should not have? When you say "I will choose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want", isn't that exactly what you are doing?

When you say about SH, "you probably think people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family", first, you cannot possibly know what SH might think. Second, if you are encouraging people to wonder if what you say he "probably" thinks just might be true, isn't that deceitful and scurrilous? Maybe even worse than the "name calling" you complain about, yet which you indulge in rather underhanded-like in your last paragraph. Looks rather like you are a pot calling a kettle black here.

BTW, if the packing companies are making the obscene profits you and others indicate, why would they need to "cheat to be profitable"?

MRJ

MRJ, you are right. I should have said "might" instead of "probably". This was a veiled reference to SH's previous question he asked me earlier. I stand corrected. I don't want anyone to think that it is true of SH unless they have other reasons than ones from me 'cause I don't know him that way. I was just using it as an example, no personal attack intended too much.

On the concentration issue, I don't necessarily think that the packers are making "obscene" profits at this time. In the quest for marke domination of a commodities, often times the profits are plowed back into the business to get more concentration and market power. The only way to make excess profits in a commodities business is constructing barriers to entry and market manipulation through market power. Using market power as it was used in the Pickett case did not translate into higher profits and the assumption that it must do so is a misnomer. A red herring. More fish.

What it does do is push prices down and is a slide down the supply curve. That will eventually lead to lower supplies and higher prices (what we are in now). Tyson wants to arbitrage that higher prices with world supplies of beef and that is exactly what R-CALF was trying to prevent with its protectionist stance.

The "cheating" by the use of market power in the beef industry did not result in higher profits because everyone else "cheated" too. This only brought the common denominator down to a lower level. This had the effect of hurting the producers with lower prices. Swift and Tyson did make out in their substitutes, however. Since the demand for beef is relatively inelastic, there was not an increase in consumption. As a matter of fact, the bent towards select instead of choice may have hurt actual consumption. I know it did in my household.

SH can do what he wants to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. He can not tell me or anyone else what to do and if he does hurt anyone else, he is liable for damages. SH can not stop the world from changing. He is only trying to shape the change into what he wants.

 

[agman]

Well, SH,------- I am glad that you are taking on the cause. Maybe you will be a feather in Tyson's nest and make them feel more comfortable. SH is going to save the packers from the laws of the land. "Packers safe from Socialism" run the headlines, "SH is here to save them". I see that you had no sway with the recent unanimous decision by the supreme court on the worker issues decided this week against Tyson and the other poultry companies. In a statement Tyson graciously thanked the court for clarification on an issue that was settled long ago by the court after litigating it to death. Plain old abuse of the courts. That is their tactic (as evidenced by the threats in Canada to their meat inspectors) but it obviously did not scare the Supreme Court. It is funny that you continually bring up the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

I am a gun owner, and I enjoy using them for hunting big game. I have a right to bear those arms based on the laws of the land. That still does not give me the right to use them for illegal purposes. Your argument is a diversion and a non sequitor.

I did not look into the CME trading investigation or its methods or conclusions. It is interesting that these governmental regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating are failing to do their jobs per GAO report after GAO report. I don't know about the CME trading investigation that you are referring to (was this the one on the Hillary Clinton trades that I brought up?) so don't attribute it as an argument from me. If it is the Hillary trading thing, I will take you to task on it.

Your line on me investing in a packing company is just bait. Right now, packing companies are cheating per the recent Supreme Court decision. I would not invest in a company that had to cheat to be profitable. I don't knowingly invest in scams. If that is their best defense, they are probably in trouble. Whether or not you want to invest in one doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me. There is a fool born everyday and some people act like fools well after they should know better.

As long as I am a citizen of this country, I will chose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want. You probably think that people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family. I would disagree with you there also.

I never asked your permission to take on these issues and I think it is funny that you assume that anyone needs your permission. When I want to learn how to trap myself I might ask for your wisdom and guidance. Until then, don't flatter yourself. I might ask you to blow up some balloons one day as you are obviosly full of hot air.

Econ, why are you claiming rights for yourself you indicate SH should not have? When you say "I will choose to take on whatever legal issue and its side that I desire, regardless of what you want", isn't that exactly what you are doing?

When you say about SH, "you probably think people in society do not have an interest in preventing child abuse or incest in a family", first, you cannot possibly know what SH might think. Second, if you are encouraging people to wonder if what you say he "probably" thinks just might be true, isn't that deceitful and scurrilous? Maybe even worse than the "name calling" you complain about, yet which you indulge in rather underhanded-like in your last paragraph. Looks rather like you are a pot calling a kettle black here.

BTW, if the packing companies are making the obscene profits you and others indicate, why would they need to "cheat to be profitable"?

MRJ

MRJ, you are right. I should have said "might" instead of "probably". This was a veiled reference to SH's previous question he asked me earlier. I stand corrected. I don't want anyone to think that it is true of SH unless they have other reasons than ones from me 'cause I don't know him that way. I was just using it as an example, no personal attack intended too much.

On the concentration issue, I don't necessarily think that the packers are making "obscene" profits at this time. In the quest for marke domination of a commodities, often times the profits are plowed back into the business to get more concentration and market power. The only way to make excess profits in a commodities business is constructing barriers to entry and market manipulation through market power. Using market power as it was used in the Pickett case did not translate into higher profits and the assumption that it must do so is a misnomer. A red herring. More fish.

What it does do is push prices down and is a slide down the supply curve. That will eventually lead to lower supplies and higher prices (what we are in now). Tyson wants to arbitrage that higher prices with world supplies of beef and that is exactly what R-CALF was trying to prevent with its protectionist stance.

The "cheating" by the use of market power in the beef industry did not result in higher profits because everyone else "cheated" too. This only brought the common denominator down to a lower level. This had the effect of hurting the producers with lower prices. Swift and Tyson did
\ake out in their substitutes, however. Since the demand for beef is relatively inelastic, there was not an increase in consumption. As a matter of fact, the bent towards select instead of choice may have hurt actual consumption. I know it did in my household.

SH can do what he wants to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. He can not tell me or anyone else what to do and if he does hurt anyone else, he is liable for damages. SH can not stop the world from changing. He is only trying to shape the change into what he wants.

Are you suggesting you are not trying to change the world into what you want? That is a hoot. Thank God no one pays attention to your unending stream of phony claims. The only problem is behind every thought you have is some phony conspiracy theory. That too is a real hoot. Remember, you are the one who is trying to convince the world your phone was tapped. I would say that is "paranoia" at its worst, or am I confusing that with another conspiracy theory on you part?

Your attempt to link the cattle inventory and price cycle to packer manipulation is a true stretch of even your imagination. Only one who knows as little as you could dream up such an assertion and then expect others to believe you.

Movement down the supply curve is a normal process, demand being unchanged, as supply increases. What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef. As usual you will have no evidence whatsoever - just empty accusations. You are just too easy.

 

[RobertMac]

Jake,

Steve is correct in the information he presents...poultry's market share and industry has grown, beef's market share has declined and the industry is stagnant at best. My problem is Steve's solution...turn over marketing of our product to the companies that caused our market share decrease. Can you honestly believe that Tyson will promote beef to the detriment of poultry's market share???? And make no mistake, that is what is needed for the beef industry to have real growth!

If the only thing producers want to do is sell weaned calves and feeders, you will be price takers...that is the nature of a commodity industry. And cattle producers will assume the same position as poultry producers. The independence of the beef market and the beef industry is the responsibility of today's producers. The poultry market and the poultry industry IS Tyson's...do you want that said of the beef industry also???? What say you?

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Are you suggesting you are not trying to change the world into what you want? That is a hoot. Thank God no one pays attention to your unending stream of phony claims. The only problem is behind every thought you have is some phony conspiracy theory. That too is a real hoot. Remember, you are the one who is trying to convince the world your phone was tapped. I would say that is "paranoia" at its worst, or am I confusing that with another conspiracy theory on you part?

No, Agman, you are the one who keeps bringing up the phone tap. I am just glad that they have stopped it or do it so much better that it does not mess up my service. It was very irritating for a while.

Your attempt to link the cattle inventory and price cycle to packer manipulation is a true stretch of even your imagination. Only one who knows as little as you could dream up such an assertion and then expect others to believe you.

The cattle cycle is a production cycle base on the reproductivity of the cow and the actions of producers. The actions of participants in the cattle industry are definitely linked to the price they get in the present or think they will get in the future. A slow depression of cattle prices is through breaking the first parts of Section 202 (a,b) is definitely a market manipulation scheme that led to lower prices. The appellate court even said as much. Does it affect the cattle cycle? You bet it does. Was it enforced with the use of inventory the packers had available to them? Of course, what do you think the whole captive supply issue is all about? No, Agman, on this one you are just wrong. Did it hurt the cattle industry? Yes, an estimated 2.46 billion dollars worth over the 7 or 8 year time period.

If this is just a figment of my imagination, it is a shared imagination. What is it called when everyone has the same imagination? If you get 12 jurors to agree it is called a verdict.

Movement down the supply curve is a normal process, demand being unchanged, as supply increases. What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef. As usual you will have no evidence whatsoever - just empty accusations. You are just too easy.

You have my assertions all mixed up, Agman. I did not say the demand curve shifted downward. I said the price depression caused a movement down along the supply curve. There is a big difference here. As I have stated before, the actual supply and demand curves are a function of time. The supply of cattle in one week is pretty inelastic. In two weeks it is also inelastic. The longer the time period, with a few small exceptions, the greater the elasticity of the supply or demand curve. If the packers had enough cattle in their captive supply to cover these small time periods, they could get away with the gradual price depression as the elasticity of demand for the time period was all that needed to be covered. A constant summation of these actions over time caused the cattlemen to get less for their cattle and reduce the supply to the market. This reduction in supply had to happen over the longer time period as the supply of cattle in the short run is inelastic. Elasticity, time period, and amount of captive supplies over and above needs were the ingredients for market manipulation and Pickett proved it to the jury. I am sorry you don't agree.

You never did follow up on your assertion that imports brought value to producers. Oh, I forgot, you conveniently get producer's surplus and consumer surplus mixed up with packers playing both sides of the argument. Isn't that the problem with the RPA argument you run away from continually?

Go back to your industry trivia, leave economics to real economists, not the captive supply bunch at the USDA.

 

[agman]

Agman:

Are you suggesting you are not trying to change the world into what you want? That is a hoot. Thank God no one pays attention to your unending stream of phony claims. The only problem is behind every thought you have is some phony conspiracy theory. That too is a real hoot. Remember, you are the one who is trying to convince the world your phone was tapped. I would say that is "paranoia" at its worst, or am I confusing that with another conspiracy theory on you part?

No, Agman, you are the one who keeps bringing up the phone tap. I am just glad that they have stopped it or do it so much better that it does not mess up my service. It was very irritating for a while.

Your attempt to link the cattle inventory and price cycle to packer manipulation is a true stretch of even your imagination. Only one who knows as little as you could dream up such an assertion and then expect others to believe you.

The cattle cycle is a production cycle base on the reproductivity of the cow and the actions of producers. The actions of participants in the cattle industry are definitely linked to the price they get in the present or think they will get in the future. A slow depression of cattle prices is through breaking the first parts of Section 202 (a,b) is definitely a market manipulation scheme that led to lower prices. The appellate court even said as much. Does it affect the cattle cycle? You bet it does. Was it enforced with the use of inventory the packers had available to them? Of course, what do you think the whole captive supply issue is all about? No, Agman, on this one you are just wrong. Did it hurt the cattle industry? Yes, an estimated 2.46 billion dollars worth over the 7 or 8 year time period.

If this is just a figment of my imagination, it is a shared imagination. What is it called when everyone has the same imagination? If you get 12 jurors to agree it is called a verdict.

Movement down the supply curve is a normal process, demand being unchanged, as supply increases. What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef. As usual you will have no evidence whatsoever - just empty accusations. You are just too easy.

You have my assertions all mixed up, Agman. I did not say the demand curve shifted downward. I said the price depression caused a movement down along the supply curve. There is a big difference here. As I have stated before, the actual supply and demand curves are a function of time. The supply of cattle in one week is pretty inelastic. In two weeks it is also inelastic. The longer the time period, with a few small exceptions, the greater the elasticity of the supply or demand curve. If the packers had enough cattle in their captive supply to cover these small time periods, they could get away with the gradual price depression as the elasticity of demand for the time period was all that needed to be covered. A constant summation of these actions over time caused the cattlemen to get less for their cattle and reduce the supply to the market. This reduction in supply had to happen over the longer time period as the supply of cattle in the short run is inelastic. Elasticity, time period, and amount of captive supplies over and above needs were the ingredients for market manipulation and Pickett proved it to the jury. I am sorry you don't agree.

You never did follow up on your assertion that imports brought value to producers. Oh, I forgot, you conveniently get producer's surplus and consumer surplus mixed up with packers playing both sides of the argument. Isn't that the problem with the RPA argument you run away from continually?

Go back to your industry trivia, leave economics to real economists, not the captive supply bunch at the USDA.

Again you have only part of the information regarding the cattle cycle. If you would actually do any real research you might find the rest of the answer and it is not packer manipulation.

Where did I say that you said the demand curve shifted downward? You are wrong again Jacko. I said for your manipulation theory to be correct the curve would have to shift downward absent declining consumer demand. There is a differnce as I thought you should know. I over estimated your analytical abilities. You should leave data, market analysis and economic analisyis to those who actually are in the business and not some phony classroom theorist such as yourself. Every time you make a statement about this industry you divulge what little knowledge you truly have and how transparent your positions are. You have been a fraud from day one and nothing has changed. You have a conspiracy theory for every event in every post, even the cattle cylce which you clearly know nothing about.

Regarding the RPA which you profess to be and expert in you should offer your services to the plaintiff's lawyers. They are in dire need of help as they have been smashed at every turn by every judge. I expect your level of knowledge would keep their record intact. How many federal judges in the 11th Circuit called for a vote of the "en banc" hearing request made by the plaintiff's lawyers in the Pickett ruling - not even one? Have your associated legal minds informed you of that yet or are they still trying to convice you this case will be heard by the Supreme Court - not a chance? You hang your hat on the failed testimony of Taylor. That is par for you as it fits your unending bias of blame. Remember, footnote #7 on page thirteen of the APPELLATE'S opinion. Taylor proved absolutely nothing that was validated by his own admission - get over it.

Jurors do get it wrong occasionally and that is why the law provides for a judge who is more expert in this type of case than jurors to void the jury verdict if the verdict was not consistent with the testimony provided. That too is the law. Need I remind you again of that fact of law.

You say the jurors are right but I noted with interest and a smile the damage figure you quoted was from Taylor. Why did you dismiss the jury finding of $1.4 billion in lieu of Taylor's figure if you truly believe the jury was correct? By the process of deductive reasoning they cannot both be right!! You are simply to easy.

You can go to Washington and argue your case and be dismissed as I expect you have been in the past. Real people get tired very quickly of those with unsupported claims of conspiracy at every turn. I too get calls from Washington following some of the looney tune conspiracies that are advanced from conspiracy theorists such as yourself. The reason they are dismissed is because, as with you, they are all talk and absent facts.

 

[Anonymous]

agman, am I correct that when both parties have been in power, that neither have found against packers on captive supply issues, as far as wrong doing? One would think that the dems could find someone who could find wrong doing? They hate private enterprise and big business you know.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM, do you speak for the org. with the same name, or are you a freelancer? I think it would be fair to know your affiliation considering you chose the "handle".

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Where did I say that you said the demand curve shifted downward? You are wrong again Jacko. I said for your manipulation theory to be correct the curve would have to shift downward absent declining consumer demand

Agman's quote from before:

What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef.

Agman, the elasticity of a supply or demand curve is a function of time, one element you seem to forget. As in my water example and in my steak meal example, the demand curve and supply curve is very inelastic. Tyson had only to make sure that the limits of demand in the short run were covered in order to manipulate the markets. They did this with captive supply when they needed to drive down the cash market. Feeders had to guess which avenue the packers would take. The differences in price between the cash and the captive supply for the same product had to be there to push prices down. Pickett proved they were.

If the packers were not pushing down the supply curve, these differences would not occur continually. Eventually, the supply did react to lower prices and contract. That is why we now have less beef and higher prices for producers. The packers set up a little Nash equilibrium. The abuse of this Nash equilbrium with captive supplies pushed the price in the cattle markets down. This led to less supply and higher prices. Domestic producers now say that they don't want to share those higher prices with the imports that Tyson is making. They have a point. Tyson is playing the international markets against the producer. It is the Wal-Mart game and you know it. I think Azzam said he wrote a paper on this, although I did not read it to see if it specifically applied to this example.

The lessons that Wendy Gramm learned when looking at the Tyson/Hillary commodity trades were just shared with IBP. As Dr. Ron Knutson said to me once when discussing this issue, these are just the same old tricks that have always been in the business. It is time for the foxes to lose. Those foxes giving exparte information to Strom and the appellate court on issues they don't understand behind closed doors is a corruption of the system. We need to see the light of day.

 

[ocm]

OCM, do you speak for the org. with the same name, or are you a freelancer? I think it would be fair to know your affiliation considering you chose the "handle".

I speak for myself, any official position will come out in news releases, resolutions, etc. However, I must say that I usually (though, not always) agree with their positions.

You will note that in my "handle" I have used lower case letters.

 

[agman]

agman, am I correct that when both parties have been in power, that neither have found against packers on captive supply issues, as far as wrong doing? One would think that the dems could find someone who could find wrong doing? They hate private enterprise and big business you know.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[agman]

Agman:

Where did I say that you said the demand curve shifted downward? You are wrong again Jacko. I said for your manipulation theory to be correct the curve would have to shift downward absent declining consumer demand

Agman's quote from before:

What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef.

Agman, the elasticity of a supply or demand curve is a function of time, one element you seem to forget. As in my water example and in my steak meal example, the demand curve and supply curve is very inelastic. Tyson had only to make sure that the limits of demand in the short run were covered in order to manipulate the markets. They did this with captive supply when they needed to drive down the cash market. Feeders had to guess which avenue the packers would take. The differences in price between the cash and the captive supply for the same product had to be there to push prices down. Pickett proved they were.

If the packers were not pushing down the supply curve, these differences would not occur continually. Eventually, the supply did react to lower prices and contract. That is why we now have less beef and higher prices for producers. The packers set up a little Nash equilibrium. The abuse of this Nash equilbrium with captive supplies pushed the price in the cattle markets down. This led to less supply and higher prices. Domestic producers now say that they don't want to share those higher prices with the imports that Tyson is making. They have a point. Tyson is playing the international markets against the producer. It is the Wal-Mart game and you know it. I think Azzam said he wrote a paper on this, although I did not read it to see if it specifically applied to this example.

The lessons that Wendy Gramm learned when looking at the Tyson/Hillary commodity trades were just shared with IBP. As Dr. Ron Knutson said to me once when discussing this issue, these are just the same old tricks that have always been in the business. It is time for the foxes to lose. Those foxes giving exparte information to Strom and the appellate court on issues they don't understand behind closed doors is a corruption of the system. We need to see the light of day.

For starters you never change your phony blame game. When you cannot win of facts you go to baseless accusations such as meetings behind closed doors. Talk is cheap, from you it is totally worthless.

Don't think you have a monopoly on supply/demand analysis. As I have previously said I have forgotten more per that subject then you will ever know. Tell all of us how you reached the conclusions you did without even knowing the level and trend in per capita consumption of beef? Your lack of knowledge per that subject is but one glaring example of your ignorance of the many factors that influence prices. It also exposes you and your phony arguments for what they are - purely a figment of your imagination.

You don't even know the price elasticity of beef let alone know whether it has changed over time and what conditions can lead to that change other than one of your price manipulation theories. How did you determine the price elasticity or change without even knowing the primary "X" factor, per captia consumption? Trapped again aren't you!!! You have not fooled anyone on this forum other than yourself. Your blame game and false accusations get exposed on every post.

Not all producers blame imports, most do not. Only people such as yourself who have no knowledge of the total impact of imports, both negative and positive chose to blame imports. What else is new?

 

[ocm]

agman, am I correct that when both parties have been in power, that neither have found against packers on captive supply issues, as far as wrong doing? One would think that the dems could find someone who could find wrong doing? They hate private enterprise and big business you know.

You are absolutely correct.

Jake, Tyson is from Arkansas and is a personal friend of Bill Clinton. Also note that is was not the constructionists on the Supreme Court that supported Pfizer's effort to take over private property in New London, Connecticut, by having the city of New London use eminent domain.

Democrats posture against big business, but that is where most of their money comes from. The Republican party has more smaller individual donors than the Democrats.

Most big businesses do not support a particular political philosophy. They send money to both parties. They only support their own self interest.

 

[fedup2]

TRJake writes:"agman, am I correct that when both parties have been in power, that neither have found against packers on captive supply issues, as far as wrong doing? One would think that the dems could find someone who could find wrong doing? They hate private enterprise and big business you know."

I would have to question the words "wrong doing" & ever. Here is a little history. To be clear, they were never convicted on this, but to answer your question, yes, wrong doing has been found!

"At the urging of the Market Committee of the American
National Live Stock Association, the Federal Trade Commission
conducted a study that was presented to President
Woodrow Wilson in July 1919. It was terribly damaging to
the packers and could have resulted in criminal charges.
The packers then proposed what was called "The Consent
Decree." In it, they admitted no guilt but did consent to the
following, among other things:

To sell all their holdings in public stockyards
To sell all their interests in stockyard railroads and terminals
To sell all their interests in market newspapers
To dispose of all their interests in public cold storage warehouses
To forever disassociate themselves from the retail meat business
To forever disassociate themselves from wholesale groceries
To submit perpetually to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District
Court under an injunction forbidding conspiracy or monopoly.

But cattlemen did not believe the packers would live up
to this consent decree without expensive legal battles for
cattlemen, so they pushed for federal legislation to control
the packers"

This is how the packers and stockyards act was started. (by the group now known as the NCBA)

I posted this site once before but there was no discussion on it. http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/pubs/captive_supply/app_b.pdf

Read all the studies as each draws a different picture. One thing agreed on in 'most' of the studies is that captive supply does affect spot prices. As any other industry, packers do use anything and everything to their advantage. Is it wrong doing? What is wrong doing? Only things punishable by law? Actual convictions? Or is it, if you get away with it, it is not wrong doing?

Again, I have more questions than answers!

 

[Anonymous]

I can sleep so much easier at night knowing that I have elementary economics and ocm to save me from my own fat cattle pricing mechanisms. If it wasn't for their noble efforts, I would have been forced to sell on a non negotiated base price. Obviously, I would not have been able to realize I always had the cash market as an alternative or Angus Gene Net's negotiated base price formula option. We should all be so thankful that we have these socialized cattle marketing advocates to save us from our own pricing mechanisms.

ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE!

If they are not saving the retail beef industry from themselves, they're saving the producers from their own self help program. If they are not saving the producers from their own self help program, they're saving the feeding industry from their pricing mechanisms.

"PWEASE GOVAHMENT, SAVE THE FEEDERS FROM THEMSELVES BY GOVERNING WHO CAN OWN FAT CATTLE AND HOW THEY CAN BE MARKETED"!

Absolutely pathetic!

Congratulations Jake for seeing R-CULT for what they really are. More and more people are waking up to their lies and deception every day.

Heard Johnny Smith rattling on again about how R-CULT is the reason for higher cattle prices. I literally laughed out loud. They can say that as long as they never have to explain it rationally. That whole organization's success depends on nobody reminding them today of what they said yesterday.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

Not all producers blame imports, most do not. Only people such as yourself who have no knowledge of the total impact of imports, both negative and positive chose to blame imports. What else is new?

Agman, I do not blame imports. You made the assertion that imports bring value to the U.S. market. I only stated that the value was for the packers and consumers, not the producers. That is hardly blaming anyone. I happen to like free and fair trade as my posts about the Canadian producer have repeatedly shown. I just do not believe that middlemen like the packers should influence markets via market power to their own advantage and against the interests of producers. I also don't think they should influence public policy or be able to influence politics with all the money they give to politicians. It is not good for our democracy.

Some have asserted on these boards that the margins for beef processing are low and that means all sorts of things. SH says it means that they could not have influenced the beef markets to the extent that Taylor stated because they didn't show in profits the amount of damages that Taylor estimated (yes, I said estimated). All of these conclusions are just wrong. I am merely pointing them out.

Agman:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:35 pm Post subject:
Econ101 wrote:
Agman:
Quote:
Where did I say that you said the demand curve shifted downward? You are wrong again Jacko. I said for your manipulation theory to be correct the curve would have to shift downward absent declining consumer demand


Agman's quote from before:
Quote:
What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef.


Agman, the elasticity of a supply or demand curve is a function of time, one element you seem to forget. As in my water example and in my steak meal example, the demand curve and supply curve is very inelastic. Tyson had only to make sure that the limits of demand in the short run were covered in order to manipulate the markets. They did this with captive supply when they needed to drive down the cash market. Feeders had to guess which avenue the packers would take. The differences in price between the cash and the captive supply for the same product had to be there to push prices down. Pickett proved they were.

If the packers were not pushing down the supply curve, these differences would not occur continually. Eventually, the supply did react to lower prices and contract. That is why we now have less beef and higher prices for producers. The packers set up a little Nash equilibrium. The abuse of this Nash equilbrium with captive supplies pushed the price in the cattle markets down. This led to less supply and higher prices. Domestic producers now say that they don't want to share those higher prices with the imports that Tyson is making. They have a point. Tyson is playing the international markets against the producer. It is the Wal-Mart game and you know it. I think Azzam said he wrote a paper on this, although I did not read it to see if it specifically applied to this example.

The lessons that Wendy Gramm learned when looking at the Tyson/Hillary commodity trades were just shared with IBP. As Dr. Ron Knutson said to me once when discussing this issue, these are just the same old tricks that have always been in the business. It is time for the foxes to lose. Those foxes giving exparte information to Strom and the appellate court on issues they don't understand behind closed doors is a corruption of the system. We need to see the light of day.


For starters you never change your phony blame game. When you cannot win of facts you go to baseless accusations such as meetings behind closed doors. Talk is cheap, from you it is totally worthless.

Don't think you have a monopoly on supply/demand analysis. As I have previously said I have forgotten more per that subject then you will ever know. Tell all of us how you reached the conclusions you did without even knowing the level and trend in per capita consumption of beef? Your lack of knowledge per that subject is but one glaring example of your ignorance of the many factors that influence prices. It also exposes you and your phony arguments for what they are - purely a figment of your imagination.

The difference in price between the cash and captive supply markets for the same time period. Tyson could have disproved this theory had they had they answered the question posed by the plaintiffs and had the real hard data available to disprove the theory. They just remained silent. But it was not a criminal trial and they didn't remain silent for long. It was long enough for the jury to see the answer. All of your intricate numbers crunching is just the mechanics behind the really simple basics of economic reasoning. I am glad you like to do those numbers, but that does not mean that you have the basic economic reasoning correct. Your "x" factor is different based on the time period. What would be considered the supply/demand equilibrium, the average price paid per day, is based on a number that can easily be influenced by the packers with their pricing/inventory strategy. One that discriminates against the price setting cash market. Over a summation of these time periods, you have an influence that ends up being greater than the marginal influence of the "x" factor you suggest. Go do some derivative studies. You or your friends are probably the ones who actually calculate these values to be able to find the limits of price depression over time.

I also mentioned that I bought less beef at the grocer's because I had been burned with the quality of meat they had to offer. While it may be okay to cook a piece of top round one way with a certain type of cattle at a certain grade, it would be a grilling disaster to think that you could do this with the same cut of meat out of a lower quality animal. Most consumers don't know the differences that affect that quality of meat but I do. Steak and Shake put in those whole cows in their burgers because you can not eat a lot the cuts from those cows the same as you would a nice fat angus (or galloway) steer.

Do you think that going "select" helped out beef consumption in the long run or just took the quality out of the grocery shelves to unwitting consumers and lowered overall consumption by burning a few housewives that spent their time cooking a home cooked meal? I know my personal family answer. These speed up in the lines have left us with lower quality meat. The blood out of the last Sam's steak my wife bought was not drained enough. I could tell what the problem was when I looked closely at the T-bones. The increase in the packer's line speed didn't make efficiencies that were passed down to the producer, they just reduced the quality of meat we bought from Costco. That will decrease the consumption of beef more than the totally small amount of increase in efficiency by the packers. The mechanisms for the traceback to the problem and accountability are being taken advantage of by the processors to the detriment of the producers and the cattle industry as a whole.

If you are correct in all the math you do, it doesn't mean you are correct in the economic theory. If the judges are correct in all their legal reasoning (except for the fact that they just made up "legitimate business reason" as an excuse to shoot the market), it does not make them experts in economic reasoning the law embodies. They proved thier total ignorance of economic theory in their RPA example and rested on calling Dr. Taylor "nuts" and bringing up Duabert issues that were already hashed out. If you say that Taylor was thrashed on cross examination, then why didn't the jury see it that way? By looking at the polls on this forum, you see how hard it is to get a unanimous decision.

Agman, your diversionary tactics of looking into all of the demand side variables just will not work. It is just a diversion from the captive supply price being one of the causitve agents of the cash price being depressed to you making the jump that I said the"x" factor had no relevance to the equation. I concede that the demand has influences over the price. That is not a part of my argument. Stop mischaracterizing it as such. If I have an equation of demand and then put on top of that equation a factor that influences it, I do not have to show that the other factors in the equation are irrelevant for my assertions to be true. That is your mistake, not mine.

If you want to keep making mistakes like that in your numbers crunching and have it so complicated that the average person can not understand it so they have to "trust" you or that you have specific information not available to other people so that others have to "trust" you, then you have become a self proclaimed and crowned king of the issue. Isn't that the argument you make against me? I am tired of these economists at the land grant universities coming up with studies that have complicated equations and then a diversionary conclusion that people accept because they don't understand the complicated math. These people are masquerading as economists when they are really putting out garbage studies. Want some examples?

WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?

Remember, this is the Ranchers.net, not the Packers.net.

 

[agman]

Agman:

Where did I say that you said the demand curve shifted downward? You are wrong again Jacko. I said for your manipulation theory to be correct the curve would have to shift downward absent declining consumer demand

Agman's quote from before:

What evidence do you have to show the demand curve actually shifted downward absent declining consumer demand for beef.

Agman, the elasticity of a supply or demand curve is a function of time, one element you seem to forget. As in my water example and in my steak meal example, the demand curve and supply curve is very inelastic. Tyson had only to make sure that the limits of demand in the short run were covered in order to manipulate the markets. They did this with captive supply when they needed to drive down the cash market. Feeders had to guess which avenue the packers would take. The differences in price between the cash and the captive supply for the same product had to be there to push prices down. Pickett proved they were.

If the packers were not pushing down the supply curve, these differences would not occur continually. Eventually, the supply did react to lower prices and contract. That is why we now have less beef and higher prices for producers. The packers set up a little Nash equilibrium. The abuse of this Nash equilbrium with captive supplies pushed the price in the cattle markets down. This led to less supply and higher prices. Domestic producers now say that they don't want to share those higher prices with the imports that Tyson is making. They have a point. Tyson is playing the international markets against the producer. It is the Wal-Mart game and you know it. I think Azzam said he wrote a paper on this, although I did not read it to see if it specifically applied to this example.

The lessons that Wendy Gramm learned when looking at the Tyson/Hillary commodity trades were just shared with IBP. As Dr. Ron Knutson said to me once when discussing this issue, these are just the same old tricks that have always been in the business. It is time for the foxes to lose. Those foxes giving exparte information to Strom and the appellate court on issues they don't understand behind closed doors is a corruption of the system. We need to see the light of day.

Just a reminder to you of basic supply /demand analysis. If you say there is no downward shift in demand from packers action then what you are left with is your comment of movement down the curve itself. What a revelation. That event is a normal movement down the demand curve as supply increases. Again, that is a normal event that occurred pre-BSE as well as post-BSE. Such movement is a normal supply/demand function for every item produced in the world.

As I previously stated, absent a decline in consumer demand, a downward shift in the demand curve is required to support your manipulation theory. What evidence can you provide that that such a downward shift occurred absent declining consumer beef demand? You have no evidence as always - just another empty accusation.

What proof do you have that there were meetings behind closed doors? Proof of such a bold accusation is required. You have already demonstrated your unending stream of accusations are just totally worthless rhetoric conceived from you ignorance of the market and I can now add economic analysis to that list. Where is your PROOF? Provide evidence of when, where and who was present to support your charge? Another useless and endless dissertation from you is not required to baffle readers; facts will do just fine. You are wasting everyone's time unless you can produce FACTS.