The Conman and Sandman challenge!

[Anonymous]

You guys both believe that the large packers manipulate the markets.

Here's your chance to explain exactly how they do this in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.

Let's hear it!

Give examples and provide specifics.

None of this "Pickett proved it, Picket proved it, yada, yada, yada" illusionist bullcrap.

Where's your proof?

BRING IT! TALK IS CHEAP!



~SH~

 

[ocm]

in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.
~SH~

This is a false statement.

 

[Beefman]

in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.
~SH~

This is a false statement.

OCM, please tell us how this is a false statement.

 

[Econ101]

The nash equation these guys set up and then colluded on by their actions shows the fallacy of the statement. This might be too hard for some with limited education to understand. It wasn't for the jury nor I. It might also be hard to understand if you don't know the difference between "or" and "and" and are a judge who thinks you know enough about economics to know what the difference means and cares less about the separation of powers as well as jury tampering after the fact and racial discrimination.

What else could we cover?

 

[Beefman]

The nash equation these guys set up and then colluded on by their actions shows the fallacy of the statement. This might be too hard for some with limited education to understand. It wasn't for the jury nor I. It might also be hard to understand if you don't know the difference between "or" and "and" and are a judge who thinks you know enough about economics to know what the difference means and cares less about the separation of powers as well as jury tampering after the fact and racial discrimination.

What else could we cover?

Econ, sure nice of you to stop by. Adios.

OCM, back to you. Your comments from your above post......

 

[ocm]

The nash equation these guys set up and then colluded on by their actions shows the fallacy of the statement. This might be too hard for some with limited education to understand. It wasn't for the jury nor I. It might also be hard to understand if you don't know the difference between "or" and "and" and are a judge who thinks you know enough about economics to know what the difference means and cares less about the separation of powers as well as jury tampering after the fact and racial discrimination.

What else could we cover?

Econ, sure nice of you to stop by. Adios.

OCM, back to you. Your comments from your above post......

I have posted this before. Tyson, Swift, and Excel do not try to buy the same kind of cattle. This difference between what Tyson and Excel buy was part of the testimony (by a Tyson witness) in Pickett.

agman confirmed this (by trying to berate me for my stupidity) when he said they have customers with different wants, thus leading them to buy different cattle to meet their customers' desires.

I have experienced this on a number of occasions when Swift would no bid on a pen of cattle for quite some time while Tyson was offering a bid. Then Swift would bid and Tyson would drop out. Why? Because of the degree of finish(grade v. yield) on the cattle. It is even more extreme between Excel and Tyson. Also, Tyson will look for good yielding cattle with grade as a secondary interest while Excel looks for grade with yield as a secondary interest. These preferences seldom lead them to bid competitively on any given pen of cattle. They usually don't bid on the same cattle at the same time.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, there is absolutely nothing anybody can bring about any topic that you will accept if you have your mind (and I use that noun very loosely) already made up. We've all seen it time and time again.

A prime example is when we were talking about the loss of sovereignity with the WTO. A direct quote from Newt Gingrich that said exactly that was provided, EXACTLY THAT, and you still would not accept it. The very guy who pushed it thru, and you still argued against it.

I've got better things to do than argue with a rock.

 

[Jason]

The nash equation these guys set up and then colluded on by their actions shows the fallacy of the statement. This might be too hard for some with limited education to understand. It wasn't for the jury nor I. It might also be hard to understand if you don't know the difference between "or" and "and" and are a judge who thinks you know enough about economics to know what the difference means and cares less about the separation of powers as well as jury tampering after the fact and racial discrimination.

What else could we cover?

Another Conman slip. He said in one post he never accused the packers of collusion. Colluded is the past tense of the word.

Gee proof in writing sucks when you try to con everyone.

 

[agman]

in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.
~SH~

This is a false statement.

To suggest there is no competition shows how out of touch you are with these markets on a daily basis. They do compete many times for the same cattle. Is it at the same price, no? They do have different needs but that does not mean they do not compete for the same cattle as you suggest in your other comment per this subject. At the same point in time cattle can represent the same or different value to various buyers. They will bid those cattle accordingly. Have a healthy New Year.

 

[Econ101]

The nash equation these guys set up and then colluded on by their actions shows the fallacy of the statement. This might be too hard for some with limited education to understand. It wasn't for the jury nor I. It might also be hard to understand if you don't know the difference between "or" and "and" and are a judge who thinks you know enough about economics to know what the difference means and cares less about the separation of powers as well as jury tampering after the fact and racial discrimination.

What else could we cover?

Another Conman slip. He said in one post he never accused the packers of collusion. Colluded is the past tense of the word.

Gee proof in writing sucks when you try to con everyone.

SH, I never intend for any of my statements in the past to preclude different statements in the future as more evidence is presented. To do so would be foolish. I will leave that place for you, SH.

I see you are working on your reading comprehension. Keep it up, may be you will get some where some day, today is not that day.

 

[Jason]

Nice reading comprehension conman. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Nice reading comprehension conman. :roll:

Thanks, Gay Jason on the down low.

 

[ocm]

in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.
~SH~

This is a false statement.

To suggest there is no competition shows how out of touch you are with these markets on a daily basis. They do compete many times for the same cattle. Is it at the same price, no? They do have different needs but that does not mean they do not compete for the same cattle as you suggest in your other comment per this subject. At the same point in time cattle can represent the same or different value to various buyers. They will bid those cattle accordingly. Have a healthy New Year.

I get the impression you are trying to contradict what I said. Read carefully and you will see that I said almost the same thing you did. And I NEVER said there is NO competition.

I think ~SH~'s reading comprehension problem is rubbing off.

 

[Tam]

This is a false statement.

To suggest there is no competition shows how out of touch you are with these markets on a daily basis. They do compete many times for the same cattle. Is it at the same price, no? They do have different needs but that does not mean they do not compete for the same cattle as you suggest in your other comment per this subject. At the same point in time cattle can represent the same or different value to various buyers. They will bid those cattle accordingly. Have a healthy New Year.

I get the impression you are trying to contradict what I said. Read carefully and you will see that I said almost the same thing you did. And I NEVER said there is NO competition.
I think ~SH~'s reading comprehension problem is rubbing off.

So what was FALSE about what SH said? SH never said they competed all the time he just said they compete. You said it was a false statement and now you are saying you never said their was NO competition. What are you saying????? Is there competition or not?

 

[agman]

To suggest there is no competition shows how out of touch you are with these markets on a daily basis. They do compete many times for the same cattle. Is it at the same price, no? They do have different needs but that does not mean they do not compete for the same cattle as you suggest in your other comment per this subject. At the same point in time cattle can represent the same or different value to various buyers. They will bid those cattle accordingly. Have a healthy New Year.

I get the impression you are trying to contradict what I said. Read carefully and you will see that I said almost the same thing you did. And I NEVER said there is NO competition.
I think ~SH~'s reading comprehension problem is rubbing off.

So what was FALSE about what SH said? SH never said they competed all the time he just said they compete. You said it was a false statement and now you are saying you never said their was NO competition. What are you saying????? Is there competition or not?

This is your statement: "ocm wrote:
~SH~ wrote:
in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.~SH~


This is a false statement. by OCM

My response: You said the statement which you copied verbatim was false. Who has a reading comprehension problem or are you being trained by Conman to make a fool out of yourself by trying to twist and deny the response you posted?

 

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to prove that Sandbag and Conman would divert the issue. They claim market manipulation but have no proof. They just repeat what they want to believe. Did either provide proof? NOPE! Both diverted, as expected! Typical blamers!

OCM: "This is a false statement."

Wrong again OCM!

OCM: "I have posted this before. Tyson, Swift, and Excel do not try to buy the same kind of cattle. This difference between what Tyson and Excel buy was part of the testimony (by a Tyson witness) in Pickett."

That is absolutely untrue. Tyson, Swift, and Excel all pay premiums for higher grading and higher yielding cattle so don't try to feed me this bullsh*t that they don't want the same kind of cattle because it's absolutely untrue. There is not a packer in the industry that does not want a choice yield grade 2 angus or angus cross carcass. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Look no further than the grid premiums.

Don't be quoting from testimony in Pickett, you guys lost and you lost on appeal.

OCM: "Agman confirmed this (by trying to berate me for my stupidity) when he said they have customers with different wants, thus leading them to buy different cattle to meet their customers' desires."

Don't try to deceptively take Agman's statement out of context. Tyson may have a better market for Select cattle at certain times than Excel but that does not mean that all these packers do not have a place for select grade cattle.

OCM: "I have experienced this on a number of occasions when Swift would no bid on a pen of cattle for quite some time while Tyson was offering a bid. Then Swift would bid and Tyson would drop out. Why? Because of the degree of finish(grade v. yield) on the cattle. It is even more extreme between Excel and Tyson."

Did you honestly believe that Tyson and Swift ALWAYS needed the exact same amount of the same type of cattle at exactly the same time?

They bid according to their needs. I have sold fat cattle many times and could get a cash bid from Tyson, Swift, and Excel about any time I wanted. Have you ever heard of the concept of picking up the phone?

Most of the feedlots in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas adverstise numerous packers bidding at their feedlots. WHY IF IT WASN'T TRUE???

OCM: "Also, Tyson will look for good yielding cattle with grade as a secondary interest while Excel looks for grade with yield as a secondary interest. These preferences seldom lead them to bid competitively on any given pen of cattle. They usually don't bid on the same cattle at the same time."

That is absolutely untrue. The vast majority of the cattle in feedlots are angus cross cattle. Every packer has a need for higher grading cattle. Every packer pays grid premiums for higher grading and higher yielding cattle. What planet are you from?


Randy Stevenson I presume?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I just wanted to prove that Sandbag and Conman would divert the issue. They claim market manipulation but have no proof. They just repeat what they want to believe. Did either provide proof? NOPE! Both diverted, as expected! Typical blamers!

OCM: "This is a false statement."

Wrong again OCM!

OCM: "I have posted this before. Tyson, Swift, and Excel do not try to buy the same kind of cattle. This difference between what Tyson and Excel buy was part of the testimony (by a Tyson witness) in Pickett."

That is absolutely untrue. Tyson, Swift, and Excel all pay premiums for higher grading and higher yielding cattle so don't try to feed me this bullsh*t that they don't want the same kind of cattle because it's absolutely untrue. There is not a packer in the industry that does not want a choice yield grade 2 angus or angus cross carcass. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Look no further than the grid premiums.

Don't be quoting from testimony in Pickett, you guys lost and you lost on appeal.

OCM: "Agman confirmed this (by trying to berate me for my stupidity) when he said they have customers with different wants, thus leading them to buy different cattle to meet their customers' desires."

Don't try to deceptively take Agman's statement out of context. Tyson may have a better market for Select cattle at certain times than Excel but that does not mean that all these packers do not have a place for select grade cattle.

OCM: "I have experienced this on a number of occasions when Swift would no bid on a pen of cattle for quite some time while Tyson was offering a bid. Then Swift would bid and Tyson would drop out. Why? Because of the degree of finish(grade v. yield) on the cattle. It is even more extreme between Excel and Tyson."

Did you honestly believe that Tyson and Swift ALWAYS needed the exact same amount of the same type of cattle at exactly the same time?

They bid according to their needs. I have sold fat cattle many times and could get a cash bid from Tyson, Swift, and Excel about any time I wanted. Have you ever heard of the concept of picking up the phone?

Most of the feedlots in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas adverstise numerous packers bidding at their feedlots. WHY IF IT WASN'T TRUE???

OCM: "Also, Tyson will look for good yielding cattle with grade as a secondary interest while Excel looks for grade with yield as a secondary interest. These preferences seldom lead them to bid competitively on any given pen of cattle. They usually don't bid on the same cattle at the same time."

That is absolutely untrue. The vast majority of the cattle in feedlots are angus cross cattle. Every packer has a need for higher grading cattle. Every packer pays grid premiums for higher grading and higher yielding cattle. What planet are you from?


Randy Stevenson I presume?


~SH~

SH, Where have you been? The master Goebles is back. In case you did not know it, the cash market is different than the formula or grid pricing. That is what Pickett proved. It is market manipulation and everyone whit a brain knows it. What planet are you from?

 

[Econ101]

I get the impression you are trying to contradict what I said. Read carefully and you will see that I said almost the same thing you did. And I NEVER said there is NO competition.
I think ~SH~'s reading comprehension problem is rubbing off.

So what was FALSE about what SH said? SH never said they competed all the time he just said they compete. You said it was a false statement and now you are saying you never said their was NO competition. What are you saying????? Is there competition or not?

This is your statement: "ocm wrote:
~SH~ wrote:
in a market where Tyson competes against Excel, Swift, USPB and many other packers for the same cattle.~SH~


This is a false statement. by OCM

My response: You said the statement which you copied verbatim was false. Who has a reading comprehension problem or are you being trained by Conman to make a fool out of yourself by trying to twist and deny the response you posted?

Agman, it has been shown time and again that it is your reading comprehension problem that is the problem. Your silence on Econ101 vs. Agman is deafening. Are you going to send SH over to fight your battles again?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "In case you did not know it, the cash market is different than the formula or grid pricing. That is what Pickett proved. It is market manipulation and everyone whit a brain knows it."

Funny, I was the one who had to explain it to you and you are still too dense to understand it. Pickett never proved a damn thing. There is no market manipulation. It's a figment of a packer blamer's imagination.

Conman: "Are you going to send SH over to fight your battles again?"

Your arrogance is almost beyond belief. You are not even in the same league as Agman when it comes to understanding this industry. I'm sure he has much better things to do than debate a lying ankle biter like you. The only thing you are good at is taking a dump on the computer screen.

The epitomy of ignorance is being too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. That'd be you!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:"The epitomy of ignorance is being too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. That'd be


~SH~!"

I just left out one word and moved an exclamation mark.