Swift Illegal

[Econ101]

I never mentioned anything about allowing Swift to break the law, but the double standard boys jump all over a question I asked and assume I support any packer breaking a law.

Nice diversion from a statement conman made that wages at packers should be higher.

I agree with SH and anyomne else that says a law breaker should be penalized.

I know for certian it isn't possible to acertain if an immigrant is legal or illegal with privacy laws Soap mentioned. I have friends in the States that have told me the nightmares of hiring people. If the proper documents are provided they just don't ask any other questions.

There is no double standard here. If all packing companies had $4 added to their wages, the price of beef may go up, but not that much. The local communities that have packing plants would not have to subsidize their costs in their communities. Adding that amount to base wages might actually make beef consumption go up. We have a cheap food policy in the U.S. and it has costs that the companies in this business are not paying. Why should companies make any money under those circumstances?

Jason and SH, why to you assume that producing your product by paying immigrants less than the labor wage equilibrium is beneficial to the beef industry--or any industry? John Tyson is not going to eat more than 1 steak at a sitting. The wages at the plant going up could create the demand for a lot more steaks. Agman has already correctly pointed out that increase in incomes shifts demand upward. It does even more so on increases of wages in this lower income group.

 

[Jason]

They still haven't been able to figure out that a $5 increase in wages would result in about a $50 per head loss of margin.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

It still absolutely amazes me that you can be so ignorant yet display that ignorance so proudly. I've never seen anything like it.

Conman: "There is no double standard here. If all packing companies had $4 added to their wages, the price of beef may go up, but not that much."

The price of beef is not going to go up, the price of cattle is going to go down. Tyson paying more for wages is not going to affect how much consumers are paying for beef.

Conman: "The local communities that have packing plants would not have to subsidize their costs in their communities. Adding that amount to base wages might actually make beef consumption go up."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

I've heard everything now!

Conman: "Jason and SH, why to you assume that producing your product by paying immigrants less than the labor wage equilibrium is beneficial to the beef industry--or any industry?"

I can't believe I am actually having to explain this.

HIGHER SLAUGHTERING COSTS MEANS LESS MONEY TO PAY FOR CATTLE.

DUH!

Conman: "The wages at the plant going up could create the demand for a lot more steaks. Agman has already correctly pointed out that increase in incomes shifts demand upward. It does even more so on increases of wages in this lower income group."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA AGAIN!

THE INCOME OF THE GENERAL POPULACE, YES!

How much of the general populace is made up of packer employees you idiot?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

It still absolutely amazes me that you can be so ignorant yet display that ignorance so proudly. I've never seen anything like it.

Conman: "There is no double standard here. If all packing companies had $4 added to their wages, the price of beef may go up, but not that much."

1. The price of beef is not going to go up, the price of cattle is going to go down. Tyson paying more for wages is not going to affect how much consumers are paying for beef.

Conman: "The local communities that have packing plants would not have to subsidize their costs in their communities. Adding that amount to base wages might actually make beef consumption go up."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

2. I've heard everything now!

Conman: "Jason and SH, why to you assume that producing your product by paying immigrants less than the labor wage equilibrium is beneficial to the beef industry--or any industry?"

3. I can't believe I am actually having to explain this.

HIGHER SLAUGHTERING COSTS MEANS LESS MONEY TO PAY FOR CATTLE.

DUH!

Conman: "The wages at the plant going up could create the demand for a lot more steaks. Agman has already correctly pointed out that increase in incomes shifts demand upward. It does even more so on increases of wages in this lower income group."

4. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA AGAIN!

THE INCOME OF THE GENERAL POPULACE, YES!

How much of the general populace is made up of packer employees you idiot?



~SH~

1. Then the lowest cost producer (one where companies force their costs onto communities) will stop. It should never have been allowed to happen anyway. Companies that are not viable should not be invested in. If you have to have slave labor (child labor in the case of shirts) or labor under the market equilibrium for labor, then it is not a viable business in a free market that does not allow those things. The problem with trade agreements is that they do not take these factors under consideration.

It was shown with this last go round that higher beef prices do not necessarily mean less consumption, SH. It is because it is INELASTIC.

If the price of all food in the U.S. went up by 30% on the producer, there would not be a noticable difference in consumption. It might allow farmers/ranchers to cover their costs.

2. I see your sheepish nature is returning.

3. Paying people to do what they do is worth it. Cutting corners on pay means you throw costs on someone else. In the Swift case mentioned, it causes all sorts of problems. If the company can not pay a decent wage, maybe they don't have a decent company.

4. The real wages in the U.S. are a factor. Bringing immigrants in so you can keep it lower than the market rate for labor doesn't help real wages in the domestic market. It hurts domestic wages. Tyson is in a lawsuit over that one right now with their illegal immigrant fiasco.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "If you have to have slave labor (child labor in the case of shirts) or labor under the market equilibrium for labor, then it is not a viable business in a free market that does not allow those things."

IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE PAY THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER JOB!

Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a certain job.

Conman: "It was shown with this last go round that higher beef prices do not necessarily mean less consumption, SH."

That's what Agman had to explain to you when you were stupid enough to suggest that cattle prices can't go up unless the supplies come down and now you want to lecture me on what Agman taught you? Run away! Everyone already knows what a complete phony you are.

Conman: "If the price of all food in the U.S. went up by 30% on the producer, there would not be a noticable difference in consumption. It might allow farmers/ranchers to cover their costs."

The free enterprise system does not force markets to go higher, they allow the markets to function themselves.

You are an obvious advocate for socialized markets.

Conman: "If the company can not pay a decent wage, maybe they don't have a decent company."

Listen to you! What an arrogant @%^&!*@!

If the workers do not feel the wage is decent THEY CAN WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

You blamers always think someone owes you a living.

Conman: "Bringing immigrants in so you can keep it lower than the market rate for labor doesn't help real wages in the domestic market."

Higher labor costs equal higher processing costs. Higher processing costs end up in lower cattle prices because consumers have other choices. Lowering cattle prices is "THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE" compared to raising consumer prices WHO HAVE OTHER CHOICES.

You're in over your head again.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "If you have to have slave labor (child labor in the case of shirts) or labor under the market equilibrium for labor, then it is not a viable business in a free market that does not allow those things."

1. IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE PAY THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER JOB!

Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a certain job.

Conman: "It was shown with this last go round that higher beef prices do not necessarily mean less consumption, SH."

2. That's what Agman had to explain to you when you were stupid enough to suggest that cattle prices can't go up unless the supplies come down and now you want to lecture me on what Agman taught you? Run away! Everyone already knows what a complete phony you are.

Conman: "If the price of all food in the U.S. went up by 30% on the producer, there would not be a noticable difference in consumption. It might allow farmers/ranchers to cover their costs."

3. The free enterprise system does not force markets to go higher, they allow the markets to function themselves.

You are an obvious advocate for socialized markets.

Conman: "If the company can not pay a decent wage, maybe they don't have a decent company."

4. Listen to you! What an arrogant @%^&!*@!

If the workers do not feel the wage is decent THEY CAN WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

You blamers always think someone owes you a living.

Conman: "Bringing immigrants in so you can keep it lower than the market rate for labor doesn't help real wages in the domestic market."

5. Higher labor costs equal higher processing costs. Higher processing costs end up in lower cattle prices because consumers have other choices. Lowering cattle prices is "THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE" compared to raising consumer prices WHO HAVE OTHER CHOICES.

You're in over your head again.



~SH~

1. Are you saying that Swift should keep bringing in illegal immigrants? Are you sayng the government of Maryland that passed a law on these external costs to society was wrong just so some big packer daddy or owners can make money? These companies are forcing some of their costs onto society. Why should society pay it? Just so some packer can give political contributions? What about the economics of the community affected? Shouldn't they get the extra money instead of some corrupt politician selling favors for that status quo?

2. You totally missed the boat on that arguement, SH, but I am not surprised. Take a quote out of context and you can manipulate the meaning. If you have to take quotes out of context to make up a false argument so you can win an argument from time to time, then go ahead, flatter yourself. I will allow you to win every argument you have with yourself.

3. We don't have free markets without transparency and enforcable laws against market power.

4. The illegal workers should have been able to find work in their countries. That was the promise of NAFTA. If all the benefits of trade are absorbed by an oligarchy, there are no benefits to the common person or producers.

5. If there were higher labor costs in all of the processing plants, poultry, pork, and beef, the prices of these commodities would not necessarily go down on the farm level. It was just proven that a reduction in supply of an inelastic commodity (meat group) can raise the price of the whole group. An increase in price for processing could have the same effect. Agman just got the meat group demand mixed up with beef demand in the argument and I pointed out his mistake.

 

[Anonymous]

1. Are you saying that Swift should keep bringing in illegal immigrants? Are you sayng the government of Maryland that passed a law on these external costs to society was wrong just so some big packer daddy or owners can make money? These companies are forcing some of their costs onto society. Why should society pay it? Just so some packer can give political contributions? What about the economics of the community affected? Shouldn't they get the extra money instead of some corrupt politician selling favors for that status quo?

I already stated that nobody is above the law.

It's sure funny to watch you argue with yourself.

2. You totally missed the boat on that arguement, SH, but I am not surprised. Take a quote out of context and you can manipulate the meaning. If you have to take quotes out of context to make up a false argument so you can win an argument from time to time, then go ahead, flatter yourself. I will allow you to win every argument you have with yourself.

Your quote was not taken out of context you damn liar. I even asked you if you said it and you admitted to saying it, now you appear to realize just how stupid your statement was so you try to pretend you never said it or accuse me of taking it out of context both of which are lies.

Don't bother, everyone knows you said it because you are that ignorant.

3. We don't have free markets without transparency and enforcable laws against market power.

We have more than enough transparency when it's none of your damn business what my fat cattle sell for. We also have laws that address price fixing and market manipulation if there is ever evidence that either exists. Pickett provided no proof.

Conman: "Agman just got the meat group demand mixed up with beef demand in the argument and I pointed out his mistake."

You have quite an imagination.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "We have more than enough transparency when it's none of your damn business what my fat cattle sell for."

You don't know much about the real world outside do you, SH? Billions of stock transactions are handled each day - and eveybody knows what the sale price was. Thousands of futures contracts are handled each day - and all of them are reported. You should ask yourself why that is? Seek some of that truth that is your only bias. Not only do these markets see value in reporting each and every sale, they try to do it as quickly as possible. Seek the truth, SH.

Have you ever consulted a blue-book or NADA guide before buying or selling a used vehicle? If so, you used market transparancy via information from other's sales (none of YOUR damn business) so that you could make an informed decision prior to the transaction. What is wrong with doing that in the cattle business?


SH, "We also have laws that address price fixing and market manipulation if there is ever evidence that either exists. Pickett provided no proof."

Really? The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

 

[agman]

SH, "We have more than enough transparency when it's none of your damn business what my fat cattle sell for."

You don't know much about the real world outside do you, SH? Billions of stock transactions are handled each day - and eveybody knows what the sale price was. Thousands of futures contracts are handled each day - and all of them are reported. You should ask yourself why that is? Seek some of that truth that is your only bias. Not only do these markets see value in reporting each and every sale, they try to do it as quickly as possible. Seek the truth, SH.

Have you ever consulted a blue-book or NADA guide before buying or selling a used vehicle? If so, you used market transparancy via information from other's sales (none of YOUR damn business) so that you could make an informed decision prior to the transaction. What is wrong with doing that in the cattle business?


SH, "We also have laws that address price fixing and market manipulation if there is ever evidence that either exists. Pickett provided no proof."

Really? The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

What about the rest of the quote, page 13 footnote #7 from the appellate ruling. Why don't' you post that one Sandhusker? Are you concerned the aformentioned quote you cite would be discredited completely?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "We have more than enough transparency when it's none of your damn business what my fat cattle sell for."

You don't know much about the real world outside do you, SH? Billions of stock transactions are handled each day - and eveybody knows what the sale price was. Thousands of futures contracts are handled each day - and all of them are reported. You should ask yourself why that is? Seek some of that truth that is your only bias. Not only do these markets see value in reporting each and every sale, they try to do it as quickly as possible. Seek the truth, SH.

Have you ever consulted a blue-book or NADA guide before buying or selling a used vehicle? If so, you used market transparancy via information from other's sales (none of YOUR damn business) so that you could make an informed decision prior to the transaction. What is wrong with doing that in the cattle business?


SH, "We also have laws that address price fixing and market manipulation if there is ever evidence that either exists. Pickett provided no proof."

Really? The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

What about the rest of the quote, page 13 footnote #7 from the appellate ruling. Why don't' you post that one Sandhusker? Are you concerned the aformentioned quote you cite would be discredited completely?

Post it and we'll all find out.

 

[Econ101]

SH, "We have more than enough transparency when it's none of your damn business what my fat cattle sell for."

You don't know much about the real world outside do you, SH? Billions of stock transactions are handled each day - and eveybody knows what the sale price was. Thousands of futures contracts are handled each day - and all of them are reported. You should ask yourself why that is? Seek some of that truth that is your only bias. Not only do these markets see value in reporting each and every sale, they try to do it as quickly as possible. Seek the truth, SH.

Have you ever consulted a blue-book or NADA guide before buying or selling a used vehicle? If so, you used market transparancy via information from other's sales (none of YOUR damn business) so that you could make an informed decision prior to the transaction. What is wrong with doing that in the cattle business?


SH, "We also have laws that address price fixing and market manipulation if there is ever evidence that either exists. Pickett provided no proof."

Really? The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

What about the rest of the quote, page 13 footnote #7 from the appellate ruling. Why don't' you post that one Sandhusker? Are you concerned the aformentioned quote you cite would be discredited completely?

Post it, Agman. If you have a point, you should bring it forth.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You don't know much about the real world outside do you, SH? Billions of stock transactions are handled each day - and eveybody knows what the sale price was. Thousands of futures contracts are handled each day - and all of them are reported. You should ask yourself why that is? Seek some of that truth that is your only bias. Not only do these markets see value in reporting each and every sale, they try to do it as quickly as possible. Seek the truth, SH."

Stock markets are not cattle markets.

With cattle markets, a price tells you nothing unless you know the value that price was based on. ALL CATTLE ON THE HOOF ARE NOT OF EQUAL VALUE.

Price reporting without reporting the value that price was based on is only BASELINE INFORMATION.

Do you think calves that have not been preconditioned, are carrying extra flesh, have a rough hair coat, snotty noses, coughing, etc. are worth as much as calves that have been preconditioned, have good hair coats, are shrunk out, and are in good health??

WELL A FEEDER CALF PRICE DOESN'T TELL YOU THAT DOES IT?????

Sandbag: "The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be."

A "CONTENTION" is not proof. Pickett proved nothing!

Strom: "If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole"."

If that were all Pickett were required to prove, he might not win either because dropping your price in the cash market as your needs are fulfilled in the formula market is not market manipulation.

YOU GOT NOTHING AGAIN!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Stock markets are not cattle markets."

That's right. Stock markets handle many more transactions, are transparent, regulated, and trusted.

SH, "With cattle markets, a price tells you nothing unless you know the value that price was based on. ALL CATTLE ON THE HOOF ARE NOT OF EQUAL VALUE.'

All 2002 Ford F-150s are not of equal value, either. Yet NADA is still consulted, used, and trusted by millions of people.


Quote:
Sandbag: "The highlighted quote from Strom says otherwise; "Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be."


A "CONTENTION" is not proof. Pickett proved nothing!


Quote:
Strom: "If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole"."


THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING. Yet, you still stay Pickett proved nothing. :roll:

Is it profitable being a fool in denial?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Stock markets handle many more transactions, are transparent, regulated, and trusted."

Stock markets are not cattle markets. Cattle markets were transparent with voluntary price reporting. All Mandatory Price Reporting did was muddy the water.

Keep justifying your "socialist" agenda Sandbag!

Sandbag: "All 2002 Ford F-150s are not of equal value, either. Yet NADA is still consulted, used, and trusted by millions of people."

The cattle markets were transparent before MPR. MPR just added to the confusion. Nebraska Cattlemens has the right approach. You can access "real time" price reporting as it's happening in exchange for reporting your prices. It didn't take your stupid government mandates either. You're always looking for another government mandate to solve your "PERCEIVED" problems like the liberal you are.

Sandbag: " THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING. Yet, you still stay Pickett proved nothing."

FINISH THE SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE USE OF MARKETING AGREEMENTS HAS RESULTED IN LOWER PRICES FOR CATTLE BOTH ON THE CASH MARKET AND THE MARKET AS A WHOLE.

LOWER PRICES IN THE CASH MARKET IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION, IT'S SIMPLY LOWER PRICES.

There is also times when there is lower prices in the formula market than the cash market. IS THAT REVERSE MANIPULATION???? SHOULD THE FORMULA SELLERS BE SCREAMING ABOUT MARKET MANIPULATION????

If you are going to use the argument that lower prices in the cash market is proof of market manipulation, then lower prices in the salebarn as compared to the video auction must also be considered market manipulation.

You can't apply one set of standards to the packers and not have it apply to the other segments of this industry as well.

Packers and STOCKYARDS act doesn't just regulate packers.

Pickett proved lower prices in the cash market. The Tyson witness during Pickett even stated that when captive supplies go up, the cash price comes down. SO WHAT??? WHEN MY NEEDS ARE FILLED THE PRICE I'M WILLING TO PAY FOR THE BALANCE OF MY NEEDS DROPS TOO. Is that market manipulation or a supply and demand factor???

YOU HAVE PROOF OF LOWER PRICES IN THE CASH MARKET, NOT PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION.

This dog won't hunt either. Keep checking the dog pounds Sandbag, you're bound to find a dog that will hunt something eventually.

YOU GOT NOTHING AGAIN!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "FINISH THE SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE USE OF MARKETING AGREEMENTS HAS RESULTED IN LOWER PRICES FOR CATTLE BOTH ON THE CASH MARKET AND THE MARKET AS A WHOLE. LOWER PRICES IN THE CASH MARKET IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION, IT'S SIMPLY LOWER PRICES.

It's manipulation when one party has the ability and does effect the pricing mechanism and the other doesn't. Marketing agreements are lowering prices - not raising or causing them to fluctuate normally. You're going to tell me that a tool that only lowers the price and is not manipulative?

 

[Anonymous]

Dropping the price in the cash market to reflect purchases in the formula market is a normal supply and demand reaction, not market manipulation.

If it was market manipulation, why is there times when the formula market is lower than the cash market?

You can't explain that within the confines of your "THEORY" can you?

What factors allow formula cattle to manipulate markets at some times and not at others?

I know, you can't answer that so make another statement and divert the question, I would expect nothing less from someone as "factually void" as you are.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, If you wanted to get a loan and the banker said, "Sure, I'll guarantee you a loan on the date you want. The interest rate I charge you will be the average of my last three customers prior to your transaction". Would you go for that? Why or why not?

 

[Econ101]

Dropping the price in the cash market to reflect purchases in the formula market is a normal supply and demand reaction, not market manipulation.

If it was market manipulation, why is there times when the formula market is lower than the cash market?

You can't explain that within the confines of your "THEORY" can you?

What factors allow formula cattle to manipulate markets at some times and not at others?

I know, you can't answer that so make another statement and divert the question, I would expect nothing less from someone as "factually void" as you are.


~SH~

There you go again, SH. Just because you have a gun, it does not make you a criminal.

No one except excuse packer backers have made the argument that price manipulation has to be constant to be true. It just has to be statistically significant. It was. To the tune of over 2 billion dollars for the years it was examined by Taylor.

 

[Anonymous]

Bullsh*t Conman!

There was no proof of market manipulation. The jury didn't accept Taylor's phony $2 Billion figure which was far more than ibp's total profits revealing how ignorant he actually was. The jury came in with a lesser amount but couldn't explain how they derived at that figure either. Both figures were absolutely ludicrous when ibp only made $26 per head. In this case there is no way in hell you can manipulate markets beyond your profitability. The only issue here is how much money ibp should have paid for cattle according to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot possibly believe that ibp should operate at a loss.

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation.

The judge stated there was no PSA violation and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. So you blame the judge for not finding a gun that never existed. You can't accept the truth Conman because you are an anti corporate packer blamer.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The jury came in with a lesser amount but couldn't explain how they derived at that figure either. "

Says who?

You never answered my question; SH, If you wanted to get a loan and the banker said, "Sure, I'll guarantee you a loan on the date you want. The interest rate I charge you will be the average of my last three customers prior to your transaction". Would you go for that? Why or why not?