Swift Illegal

[Anonymous]

Econ has a disaster ever been declared in the US? It was rethorical because I already knew the answer. Yes. Almost every year and the government pays for something. BSE was a disaster in Canada the government came to our aid. Do they do it every year for the cattle industry in Canada? NO just in case you didn't know.

They came to producer's aid because producers were in real danger of going belly up. Tyson and Cargill were never in danger. They didn't need any aid. Not only did they not need it, they profited more because of the "Salmon Run" as Kaiser figures it.

The packers were using you Canadian producers like a $2 working gal and your government was paying them to do it - and you're defending it.

BMR, I have no problem with helping out the producers. I do have a problem with handing out welfare to those who don't need it. You claim to be involved in Canada's beef business in leadership for some time. I see it did nothing to help the average producer. Did the train wreck in Canada happen when you were still at the helm in a leadership position?

I think Sandhusker hit this one on the head. Maybe they need a change in leadership in Canada's beef business. We need it here in the USA.

This is the same leadership THAT CLAIMS they were trying to drop the trade barriers against US cattle from the US HERD going into Canada--For 10+ years :???:- and nothing happened... Until the Canadians were stuck with no market because of BSE and then promised anything and came up with this joke NORTH AMERICAN herd idea....

And from what I hear they are happy as pigs in you no what now that they are back riding on the shirtails of what the US producer built and have dropped the BSE era promises of dropping their protectionist barriers- one of the reasons NCBA hasn't blanketly sanctioned the OTM proposal........

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."

That is another lie. You just agreed with me in a previous post that there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market. I'm sure you didn't know that fact but you still correctly agreed with me.

HOW CAN THAT BE IF FORMULA MARKET IS A LID ON PRICES?

BUSTED FOR LYING AGAIN!

That didn't take long.

BESIDES, TYSON IS NOT THE ONLY BUYER OUT THERE YOU MORON!!!

If Tyson has their needs filled in the formula market and drops their price in the cash market accordingly, SELL TO EXCEL, SWIFT, USPB, GREATER OMAHA, OR ANOTHER PACKER who doesn't have their needs filled with formula cattle.

Conman: "2. AND YET YOU ARGUE THAT THE SUPPLY/DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS ARE DIFFERENT. THE SUPPLY ACQUIRED IN THAT WEEK WAS THE SAME.

The formula cattle and cash cattle delivered on the same week are priced on seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors playing on them. I've written that how many times now and you are still too ignorant to understand it?


I thought you didn't read my garbage, LIAR!

Sandbag: "You know damn well I was talking about contract prices - that was what Pickett was about."

That is a lie. Pickett was about "formula vs. cash" not "futures forward contract vs. cash".

Two questions will settle this in a hurry:

1. Have we debated about the fairness of using a weekly weighted average of the cash price to determine the base price for the formula cattle?

Yes or no?


2. Does futures forward contracts use a weekly weighted average of the cash price?

Yes or no?


We'll see who is treed AGAIN!

Let me remind you of what you stated:

Sandbag: "The truth is, you don't know what the prices will be in the cash market - you could be several months away from being ready to sell."

That quote refers to a "futures forward contract" not "formula pricing" you idiot.


You are not even smart enough to know that we were never talking about futures forward contracts.

Sandbag: " The packers were using you Canadian producers like a $2 working gal and your government was paying them to do it - and you're defending it."

The packers wanted the border opened.

R-CULT wanted the border to stay closed which put Canada in a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity. Take credit for your actions Sandbag. Don't try to McDonnell this by throwing up the "this has nothing to do with Canadian producers" smokescreen. R-CULT tipped their hand a long time ago when they filed their "LOSING" dumping case.

You fool nobody but yourself!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

OK, SH, if you know what I was talking about more than me, I guess there isn't need for me to participate. You can cover both sides of the debate.

 

[PORKER]

Canadians came up with this joke NORTH AMERICAN herd idea.... How about the Western Hemisphere HERD

 

[Jason]

Are climate and ranching conditions the same all over the Western Hemisphere?

Feeding, genetics and climate are similar in much of both Canada and the US. No other herds would share so much in common except maybe European countries to other European countries, but there again you have from Angus in Scotland to Simmentals in Germany to Salers in France.

 

[PORKER]

Are climate and ranching conditions the same all over the Western Hemisphere?
So you did forget about MEXICO and everybody else to the PANAMA Canel Jason??

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."

1. That is another lie. You just agreed with me in a previous post that there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market. I'm sure you didn't know that fact but you still correctly agreed with me.

2. HOW CAN THAT BE IF FORMULA MARKET IS A LID ON PRICES?

BUSTED FOR LYING AGAIN!

That didn't take long.

3. BESIDES, TYSON IS NOT THE ONLY BUYER OUT THERE YOU MORON!!!

If Tyson has their needs filled in the formula market and drops their price in the cash market accordingly, SELL TO EXCEL, SWIFT, USPB, GREATER OMAHA, OR ANOTHER PACKER who doesn't have their needs filled with formula cattle.

Conman: "2. AND YET YOU ARGUE THAT THE SUPPLY/DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS ARE DIFFERENT. THE SUPPLY ACQUIRED IN THAT WEEK WAS THE SAME.

4. The formula cattle and cash cattle delivered on the same week are priced on seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors playing on them. I've written that how many times now and you are still too ignorant to understand it?


I thought you didn't read my garbage, LIAR!

Sandbag: "You know damn well I was talking about contract prices - that was what Pickett was about."

That is a lie. Pickett was about "formula vs. cash" not "futures forward contract vs. cash".

Two questions will settle this in a hurry:

1. Have we debated about the fairness of using a weekly weighted average of the cash price to determine the base price for the formula cattle?

Yes or no?


2. Does futures forward contracts use a weekly weighted average of the cash price?

Yes or no?


We'll see who is treed AGAIN!

Let me remind you of what you stated:

Sandbag: "The truth is, you don't know what the prices will be in the cash market - you could be several months away from being ready to sell."

That quote refers to a "futures forward contract" not "formula pricing" you idiot.


You are not even smart enough to know that we were never talking about futures forward contracts.

Sandbag: " The packers were using you Canadian producers like a $2 working gal and your government was paying them to do it - and you're defending it."

The packers wanted the border opened.

R-CULT wanted the border to stay closed which put Canada in a situation of more cattle than slaughter capacity. Take credit for your actions Sandbag. Don't try to McDonnell this by throwing up the "this has nothing to do with Canadian producers" smokescreen. R-CULT tipped their hand a long time ago when they filed their "LOSING" dumping case.

You fool nobody but yourself!



~SH~

SH have you ever been coon hunting?

1. I also previously said that anomolies are not important, and they are actually expected. Statistically significant numbers are. Do you know the difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means? In your version of what makes a lie, how do you get that your reading comprehension and logical fallacies make me a liar? The term is used pretty loosely in your part of the world, and after dealing with you for a little while I can understand why.

Yes, we debated it, you seem to not remember the debate. May be you could not understand it. The cash price was not an average market price. Do you deny that fact?

2. How much of the time did it happen? Was it statistically significant? Just because market data is not on a perfectly linear slope, it does not make your feeble point. Almost no market data fits that model. Do you know that fact? Is this how you determine if someone lied? Pretty loose there, SH. Like I said, maybe it is that way in your neck of the woods because you live there.

3. So what? Tyson had enough of the market share tied up that it did not matter if the other guys were involved or not. They could commit the fraud on their own. That is what happens when you get enough market share, you don't have to collude with anyone but yourself.

4. Oh, I understand exactly what you are saying. It was an essential part of the fraud.

In the future if you would please highlight the garbage in your posts, I will gladly skip over it and not read it. I am sure your posts will be quite condensed.

As far as what I read on this forum, why would a Texan let a gopher trapper in the Dakotas tell him/her what to read or not read. Is that your test for the term "liar"?

On to your numbered posts:

1. Pickett was about captive supply and its abuse. I would define that as ALL supply that had an effect of making the cash price for a given week a price that did not reflect the whole market. Rough definition, but there you are.

2. Forward contract prices always converge with the cash price as the time period between the two decreases. There are different mechanisms for their calculations depending on the forward contract. Do you want to get into contract terms here? Post a contract and we will discuss it.

Hope you had a good Sunday. I went to church and then to a movie with my niece and nephew. Both were good(a little ambiguous as to what I am referring to with the term "both", is that a lie in your neck of the woods?).

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

They came to producer's aid because producers were in real danger of going belly up. Tyson and Cargill were never in danger. They didn't need any aid. Not only did they not need it, they profited more because of the "Salmon Run" as Kaiser figures it.

The packers were using you Canadian producers like a $2 working gal and your government was paying them to do it - and you're defending it.

BMR, I have no problem with helping out the producers. I do have a problem with handing out welfare to those who don't need it. You claim to be involved in Canada's beef business in leadership for some time. I see it did nothing to help the average producer. Did the train wreck in Canada happen when you were still at the helm in a leadership position?

I think Sandhusker hit this one on the head. Maybe they need a change in leadership in Canada's beef business. We need it here in the USA.

This is the same leadership THAT CLAIMS they were trying to drop the trade barriers against US cattle from the US HERD going into Canada--For 10+ years :???:- and nothing happened... Until the Canadians were stuck with no market because of BSE and then promised anything and came up with this joke NORTH AMERICAN herd idea....

And from what I hear they are happy as pigs in you no what now that they are back riding on the shirtails of what the US producer built and have dropped the BSE era promises of dropping their protectionist barriers- one of the reasons NCBA hasn't blanketly sanctioned the OTM proposal........[/quot


Oldtimer do you remember the North west Project? It put ten cents on your calves when the Canadian buyers went south for calves. Why do you think Goggins want to stir things up with R-CALF. He didn't want calves going north and losing the commissions. Really pissed him off that the canucks might come down and buy calves in the country. That was well before BSE and it was the CCA pushing hard to get something started on this Blue T and Anaplas issuse.

Econ how do you know that the disaster payments didn't help Canadian producers. They were not designed to get rich on but sure helped keep cattle being fed and groceries on the table.

 

[Econ101]

BMR, I have no problem with helping out the producers. I do have a problem with handing out welfare to those who don't need it. You claim to be involved in Canada's beef business in leadership for some time. I see it did nothing to help the average producer. Did the train wreck in Canada happen when you were still at the helm in a leadership position?

I think Sandhusker hit this one on the head. Maybe they need a change in leadership in Canada's beef business. We need it here in the USA.

This is the same leadership THAT CLAIMS they were trying to drop the trade barriers against US cattle from the US HERD going into Canada--For 10+ years :???:- and nothing happened... Until the Canadians were stuck with no market because of BSE and then promised anything and came up with this joke NORTH AMERICAN herd idea....

And from what I hear they are happy as pigs in you no what now that they are back riding on the shirtails of what the US producer built and have dropped the BSE era promises of dropping their protectionist barriers- one of the reasons NCBA hasn't blanketly sanctioned the OTM proposal........[/quot


Oldtimer do you remember the North west Project? It put ten cents on your calves when the Canadian buyers went south for calves. Why do you think Goggins want to stir things up with R-CALF. He didn't want calves going north and losing the commissions. Really p****d him off that the canucks might come down and buy calves in the country. That was well before BSE and it was the CCA pushing hard to get something started on this Blue T and Anaplas issuse.

Econ how do you know that the disaster payments didn't help Canadian producers. They were not designed to get rich on but sure helped keep cattle being fed and groceries on the table.

BMR, how much of the money went to regular producers in comparison to Tyson and or Cargill? The Cargill calculation needs to be one that includes all entities that cargill controls or has financial tie-ins. I will take your figure for argument's sake.

There have already been a few posts on this board about how little individual producers recieved. Did you take a big chunk? Maybe you are in a class by yourself. Being the informed Canadian cattleman in cattle organizations, you would think you have access to pertinent data such as this. Can you produce it? Might be interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "OK, SH, if you know what I was talking about more than me, I guess there isn't need for me to participate. You can cover both sides of the debate."

That didn't take long!

Conman: "1. I also previously said that anomolies are not important, and they are actually expected. Statistically significant numbers are. Do you know the difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means? In your version of what makes a lie, how do you get that your reading comprehension and logical fallacies make me a liar? The term is used pretty loosely in your part of the world, and after dealing with you for a little while I can understand why.

Yes, we debated it, you seem to not remember the debate. May be you could not understand it. The cash price was not an average market price. Do you deny that fact?"

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!


1. How can formula pricing be a lid on prices if there are times when the cash market is higher than the formula market.

Answer the damn question!

Conman:"2. How much of the time did it happen? Was it statistically significant? Just because market data is not on a perfectly linear slope, it does not make your feeble point. Almost no market data fits that model. Do you know that fact? Is this how you determine if someone lied? Pretty loose there, SH. Like I said, maybe it is that way in your neck of the woods because you live there."

Blah, Blah, Blah!

You claimed that formula market was a lid on prices. Now you're back peddling.

Answer the question you slithering slimeball.

If the formula market is a lid on prices, why is there times when the cash market is higher than the formula market???

EXPLAIN IT!!!!

Conman: "3. So what? Tyson had enough of the market share tied up that it did not matter if the other guys were involved or not. They could commit the fraud on their own. That is what happens when you get enough market share, you don't have to collude with anyone but yourself."

Another damn lie!

You don't know what Excel, Swift, Greater Omaha, or USPB's needs were at the time.

You're just making sh*t up again. You're a compulsive liar.

Conman: "4. Oh, I understand exactly what you are saying. It was an essential part of the fraud."

You don't have a clue. You still can't even understand that formula cattle and cash cattle delivered on the same week are priced in different weeks from different supply and demand factors. You keep making the same stupid argument that the prices should be the same. You're an idiot and you prove it with every post you make.

Conman: "1. Pickett was about captive supply and its abuse. I would define that as ALL supply that had an effect of making the cash price for a given week a price that did not reflect the whole market. Rough definition, but there you are."

Who cares what your definition is? There is no abuse of any captive supply. Sellers willingly sell and ibp willingly bought. The more cattle ibp bought the less they needed to fill their needs. DO YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT THEM TO BUY MORE CATTLE THAN THEY NEED AT THE SAME PRICE???

Are you really that stupid?

Conman: "2. Forward contract prices always converge with the cash price as the time period between the two decreases. There are different mechanisms for their calculations depending on the forward contract. Do you want to get into contract terms here? Post a contract and we will discuss it."

I asked a question and you diverted with an unrelated statement.

THE QUESTION WAS, DOES A FUTURES FORWARD CONTRACT USE A WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE CASH PRICE???

YES OR NO????



~SH~

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

This is the same leadership THAT CLAIMS they were trying to drop the trade barriers against US cattle from the US HERD going into Canada--For 10+ years :???:- and nothing happened... Until the Canadians were stuck with no market because of BSE and then promised anything and came up with this joke NORTH AMERICAN herd idea....

And from what I hear they are happy as pigs in you no what now that they are back riding on the shirtails of what the US producer built and have dropped the BSE era promises of dropping their protectionist barriers- one of the reasons NCBA hasn't blanketly sanctioned the OTM proposal........[/quot


Oldtimer do you remember the North west Project? It put ten cents on your calves when the Canadian buyers went south for calves. Why do you think Goggins want to stir things up with R-CALF. He didn't want calves going north and losing the commissions. Really p****d him off that the canucks might come down and buy calves in the country. That was well before BSE and it was the CCA pushing hard to get something started on this Blue T and Anaplas issuse.

Econ how do you know that the disaster payments didn't help Canadian producers. They were not designed to get rich on but sure helped keep cattle being fed and groceries on the table.

BMR, how much of the money went to regular producers in comparison to Tyson and or Cargill? The Cargill calculation needs to be one that includes all entities that cargill controls or has financial tie-ins. I will take your figure for argument's sake.

There have already been a few posts on this board about how little individual producers recieved. Did you take a big chunk? Maybe you are in a class by yourself. Being the informed Canadian cattleman in cattle organizations, you would think you have access to pertinent data such as this. Can you produce it? Might be interesting.

The majority of the first payment was made to those with fat cattle because that was where the imediate hurt was. No plants running and no market.Because the packers owned some cattle that is why they got some money.The second program was designed to set aside cattle to deffer the marketings to help prop up the prices. Hard when their is 3 times more cattle then demend.

 

[Econ101]

BMR, how much of the money went to regular producers in comparison to Tyson and or Cargill? The Cargill calculation needs to be one that includes all entities that cargill controls or has financial tie-ins. I will take your figure for argument's sake.

There have already been a few posts on this board about how little individual producers recieved. Did you take a big chunk? Maybe you are in a class by yourself. Being the informed Canadian cattleman in cattle organizations, you would think you have access to pertinent data such as this. Can you produce it? Might be interesting.

The majority of the first payment was made to those with fat cattle because that was where the imediate hurt was. No plants running and no market.Because the packers owned some cattle that is why they got some money.The second program was designed to set aside cattle to deffer the marketings to help prop up the prices. Hard when their is 3 times more cattle then demend.

BMR, you still did not answer the questions:

BMR, how much of the money went to regular producers in comparison to Tyson and or Cargill? The Cargill calculation needs to be one that includes all entities that cargill controls or has financial tie-ins. I will take your figure for argument's sake.

There have already been a few posts on this board about how little individual producers recieved. Did you take a big chunk? Maybe you are in a class by yourself. Being the informed Canadian cattleman in cattle organizations, you would think you have access to pertinent data such as this. Can you produce it? Might be interesting.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "OK, SH, if you know what I was talking about more than me, I guess there isn't need for me to participate. You can cover both sides of the debate."

That didn't take long!

Conman: "1. I also previously said that anomolies are not important, and they are actually expected. Statistically significant numbers are. Do you know the difference? Do you even know what statistically significant means? In your version of what makes a lie, how do you get that your reading comprehension and logical fallacies make me a liar? The term is used pretty loosely in your part of the world, and after dealing with you for a little while I can understand why.

(A) Yes, we debated it, you seem to not remember the debate. May be you could not understand it. The cash price was not an average market price. Do you deny that fact?"

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!


(B) 1. How can formula pricing be a lid on prices if there are times when the cash market is higher than the formula market.

Answer the damn question!

Conman:"2. How much of the time did it happen? Was it statistically significant? Just because market data is not on a perfectly linear slope, it does not make your feeble point. Almost no market data fits that model. Do you know that fact? Is this how you determine if someone lied? Pretty loose there, SH. Like I said, maybe it is that way in your neck of the woods because you live there."

Blah, Blah, Blah!

You claimed that formula market was a lid on prices. Now you're back peddling.

Answer the question you slithering slimeball.

(C) If the formula market is a lid on prices, why is there times when the cash market is higher than the formula market???

EXPLAIN IT!!!!

Conman: "3. So what? Tyson had enough of the market share tied up that it did not matter if the other guys were involved or not. They could commit the fraud on their own. That is what happens when you get enough market share, you don't have to collude with anyone but yourself."

Another damn lie!

(D) You don't know what Excel, Swift, Greater Omaha, or USPB's needs were at the time.

You're just making sh*t up again. You're a compulsive liar.

Conman: "4. Oh, I understand exactly what you are saying. It was an essential part of the fraud."

(E) You don't have a clue. You still can't even understand that formula cattle and cash cattle delivered on the same week are priced in different weeks from different supply and demand factors. You keep making the same stupid argument that the prices should be the same. You're an idiot and you prove it with every post you make.

Conman: "1. Pickett was about captive supply and its abuse. I would define that as ALL supply that had an effect of making the cash price for a given week a price that did not reflect the whole market. Rough definition, but there you are."

Who cares what your definition is? There is no abuse of any captive supply. Sellers willingly sell and ibp willingly bought. The more cattle ibp bought the less they needed to fill their needs. DO YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT THEM TO BUY MORE CATTLE THAN THEY NEED AT THE SAME PRICE???

Are you really that stupid?

Conman: "2. Forward contract prices always converge with the cash price as the time period between the two decreases. There are different mechanisms for their calculations depending on the forward contract. Do you want to get into contract terms here? Post a contract and we will discuss it."

I asked a question and you diverted with an unrelated statement.

(F) THE QUESTION WAS, DOES A FUTURES FORWARD CONTRACT USE A WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE CASH PRICE???

YES OR NO????



~SH~

(A) That is the problem. The cash price is not indicative of the overall market price under the fraud and yet it is being "sold" as such.

(B) This can happen under a lot of scenarios. This is your argument so why don't you bring your example and point up instead of asking me to do it for you? No one but you is arguing that it means anything as it pertains to the case.

(C) See (B). No one but you is making this case. Start a whole thread on it and we will discuss it.

(D) The Pickett case was against Tyson/IBP. The other players may or may not have participated in the same fraud. They can have their own day in court. What the other packers needs are has nothing to do with Tyson's actions. It is just diverticuli.

(E) I know they are priced that way. That is the problem.

SH:"(F) THE QUESTION WAS, DOES A FUTURES FORWARD CONTRACT USE A WEEKLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE CASH PRICE???

YES OR NO????"

Depends on the contract. Post it and we will discuss it. People can write all sorts of contracts and call them a FUTURES FORWARD CONTRACT. Post the particular contract uncer question and I will tell you. If a packer is using a lot of those contracts they may have a huge incentive to discriminate against the cash price during the week of price determination. That was on of the allegations in the Pickett case. Pickett proved that discrimination against the cash market was happening.

SH, why do you always ask to have a yes or no answer to questions that are ambiguous? (rhetorical question here)