The Courts have decided.

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "I merely point out the many fallacies in logic and economic sense that you make to sound like you know what you are talking about."

You haven't corrected me on a single point I have made yet. All you can do is offer your worthless unsupported theories and opinions. You can't back anything.

Kindergarten: "Atkins did more for the beef industry than the checkoff ever did and it didn't take a tax on producers."

Another statement you can't back!

What would you know about the value of the beef checkoff? You don't know anything else about this industry what would make you think you understand the value of beef promotion, research, and education?

The Atkins diet didn't have a damn thing to do with adding value to the chuck and round with the flat iron steak or the 10 minute microwavable products, it didn't have a damn thing to do with the beef quality audits that showed how much money was being lost to injection site lesions, bruising, and blemishes, and it didn't have anything to do with a host of other benefits from the beef checkoff.

You're just another industry parasite that blames others for "perceived" problems.

Kindergarten: "Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising. Laura does it and so do other niche marketers."

Tyson does pay for their own advertising. If you weren't so ignorant you would know that.

When are you going to back your positions with substance?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

Quote:
Kindergarten: "Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising. Laura does it and so do other niche marketers."


Tyson does pay for their own advertising. If you weren't so ignorant you would know that.

When are you going to back your positions with substance?



~SH~

SH, what makes you think I do not know that? What does your jumping to some diverticuli have anything to add to the forum string? We were talking about the beef checkoff money being used for the whole industry when it is collected from only a segment, many against their will. As my dad used to say, "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

If you want to take on ONE of your points in the previous discussion, pick it. Make it worth my time though.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "SH, what makes you think I do not know that?"

Two reasons:

1. You don't know anything else about beef issues so why would this be any different?

2. You said, "Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising". If you knew that they already were paying for their own advertising, WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN REQUESTING THEM TO DO SOMETHING THEY ARE ALREADY DOING?????

Good grief!

Quit trying to cover up your ignorance.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "SH, what makes you think I do not know that?"

Two reasons:

1. You don't know anything else about beef issues so why would this be any different?

2. You said, "Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising". If you knew that they already were paying for their own advertising, WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT IN REQUESTING THEM TO DO SOMETHING THEY ARE ALREADY DOING?????

Good grief!

Quit trying to cover up your ignorance.


~SH~

The point is, and I am sorry you are so hard headed as to not "get it", that the beef checkoff is mandatory and private advertising dollars are an option. Are you saying you want socialism for everyone but you and your pals?

 

[Tam]

Kindergarten can rattle on and on and on about market manipulation but until he provides the proof that it actually occurred, he is left with creating the illusion that it occurred.

Sandman: "Murgen, "Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members."

Hahaha!

Ask Mike Callicrate, he's been there, done that!

Can you say, "CONSUMER APATHY"???

When are you going to back your allegation that I lied?



~SH~

SH, I was not an attorney on the Pickett case nor was involved in it. I did not have to prove that case and I don't have to prove anything to you. The jury were the ones to be convinced of proof, not you. You would not have been qualified to sit on that jury but I might have been since I did not have any involvement in those issues at the time. I merely point out the many fallacies in logic and economic sense that you make to sound like you know what you are talking about. When are you going to realize that your juvinile behavior of name calling and ranting is just that?

Atkins did more for the beef industry than the checkoff ever did and it didn't take a tax on producers. Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising. Laura does it and so do other niche marketers.

I don't know about you but we sell beef cattle. So every advertizement I see selling beef is selling the product we produce. The more those beef ads sell the more cattle we sell. So your statement about Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising is just plain stupid. We are selling BEEF we should be willing to pay to advertize it.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Are you saying you want socialism for everyone but you and your pals?"

I would prefer a system where only those who paid would benefit. Unfortunately, nobody has figured out a way to keep the freeloaders from benefitting from the research and development being paid by the non blaming faction of this industry.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Are you saying you want socialism for everyone but you and your pals?"

I would prefer a system where only those who paid would benefit. Unfortunately, nobody has figured out a way to keep the freeloaders from benefitting from the research and development being paid by the non blaming faction of this industry.



~SH~

Was that a yes or a no? Do you sense a trap? How about the deal?

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Are you saying you want socialism for everyone but you and your pals?"

I would prefer a system where only those who paid would benefit. Unfortunately, nobody has figured out a way to keep the freeloaders from benefitting from the research and development being paid by the non blaming faction of this industry.



~SH~

If your assertion is correct, SH, then a checkoff on boxed beef sold would be the best answer. Packers could pass that cost on to all who sold beef in the U.S., the border issue would not be such a big thing, and every producer would be better off. Can you sell it?

 

[mrj]

Kindergarten can rattle on and on and on about market manipulation but until he provides the proof that it actually occurred, he is left with creating the illusion that it occurred.

Sandman: "Murgen, "Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members."

Hahaha!

Ask Mike Callicrate, he's been there, done that!

Can you say, "CONSUMER APATHY"???

When are you going to back your allegation that I lied?



~SH~

SH, I was not an attorney on the Pickett case nor was involved in it. I did not have to prove that case and I don't have to prove anything to you. The jury were the ones to be convinced of proof, not you. You would not have been qualified to sit on that jury but I might have been since I did not have any involvement in those issues at the time. I merely point out the many fallacies in logic and economic sense that you make to sound like you know what you are talking about. When are you going to realize that your juvinile behavior of name calling and ranting is just that?

Atkins did more for the beef industry than the checkoff ever did and it didn't take a tax on producers. Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising. Laura does it and so do other niche marketers.

Econ, some of you conspiracy theorists (using terms like "monopsonist" is one identifier!) refuse to understand that CATTLE PRODUCERS wanted to be able to manage their own destiny better than simply taking the calves to the sale barn and asking "what will you give me for them?". After trying a system of voluntary payments, seeing too many who did not pay enjoy the fruits of their labors, decided it must be supported by ALL cattle producers to be fair, succeeded in passing, BY A MARGIN OF NEARLY 80%, the Beef checkoff. Why do you refuse to believe it is a PRODUCER MANDATED, PRODUCER RUN, system that EQUALLY BENEFITS ALL CATTLE PRODUCERS PAYING INTO IT? Please offer some proof of your allegations against it.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ,

What is the matter with using the term monopsonist? Actually the packer/cattle seller relationship could be more accurately described as oligopsonist unless you were to make the case of geographic barriers or some other type of barriers of buyers that limited them to one buyer. I use monopsonist (one buyer) because it is easier for some people to understand the economic concepts involved. If you use an economic term that describes the relationship are you automatically a conspiracy theorist? There are many monopsonists that are not using market power to exert unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive devices and hence are not abusing their market power. Exertion of market power makes us all worse off as there is a deadweight loss to society. That economic reality is the reason for all of the antitrust legislation, not just the PSA.

Why are the packers not paying for their added benefit of (potential) more cattle to make their margins on increased beef consumption due to the checkoff?

 

[mrj]

MRJ,

What is the matter with using the term monopsonist? Actually the packer/cattle seller relationship could be more accurately described as oligopsonist unless you were to make the case of geographic barriers or some other type of barriers of buyers that limited them to one buyer. I use monopsonist (one buyer) because it is easier for some people to understand the economic concepts involved. If you use an economic term that describes the relationship are you automatically a conspiracy theorist? There are many monopsonists that are not using market power to exert unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive devices and hence are not abusing their market power. Exertion of market power makes us all worse off as there is a deadweight loss to society. That economic reality is the reason for all of the antitrust legislation, not just the PSA.

Why are the packers not paying for their added benefit of (potential) more cattle to make their margins on increased beef consumption due to the checkoff?

You forgot to answer my question about the checkoff, and/or to offer any proof of your allegations against it.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Econ.,

Is Tyson, Cargill, Swift, National, and Smithfield in competition for the same cattle?

This is a Yes or no question?

No diversion!



~SH~

 

[mrj]

Econ, these questions need your answers.

MRJ

 

[RobertMac]

Econ.,

Is Tyson, Cargill, Swift, National, and Smithfield in competition for the same cattle?

This is a Yes or no question?

No diversion!



~SH~

Yes and no...the level of competition changes.
When cattle are in short supply to demand for cattle, they compete for all cattle.
When there are more cattle than demand for cattle, competition changes to one more focused on quality, but the excess of lower quality cattle will help to bring down the entire cattle price complex.

 

[Econ101]

Econ.,

Is Tyson, Cargill, Swift, National, and Smithfield in competition for the same cattle?

This is a Yes or no question?

No diversion!



~SH~

Yes, they are. Because they are so big and control so much of the market, they also have great incentives and abilities to use market power to extract profits from the industry illegally. The use of market power creates deadweight losses to society and the intent of the PSA is to restrict this activity. Anyone who is a real economists (as opposed to some of the USDA employees with that title) knows that in commodity-type markets, the way to use market power is to differentiate and then discriminate. Differentiating based on the actual product (ie higher quality products getting paid more) is generally considered not abuse of market power. Differentiating on whether or not you sell in the captive supply arangements or the cash market with "quality" factors taken into consideration is the abuse of market power. Each case is different.

In the Pickett case the jurors found that the cash market had been discriminated against with these "quality" considerations taken into account Pickett argued that Tyson unfairly discriminated against the cash market and hence lowered the cattle prices for the whole market and presented EVIDENCE to that effect. By Tyson not providing the pay incentives in their captive supply arrangements and therefore not allowing those to be compared to the cash market AT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TIME PERIOD, Tyson failed to prove that they did not discriminate against the cash market. That is why the jury gave the plaintiffs such a large verdict. The EVIDENCE that this happened was presented at the trial and the jurors were to render a verdict on it. They did.

The 11th circuit added another bogus element of proving "harm to competition" that was not indicated in the law. Agman, you asked if I though the judges knew more about the law than the jurors. They sure didn't know more than the expert witness about the elements in the case that needed to be proven to win the case against the use of market power. They proved their ignorance of the concepts involved in their brief, just as SH has proven his ignorance of the case on this forum and hidden his inarticulation of the merits of the case by name calling.

Do you have any more garble, SH? Do you want the deal?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Because they are so big and control so much of the market, they also have great incentives and abilities to use market power to extract profits from the industry illegally."

No proof has been provided to back this assertion.

Kindergarten: "In the Pickett case the jurors found that the cash market had been discriminated against with these "quality" considerations taken into account Pickett argued that Tyson unfairly discriminated against the cash market and hence lowered the cattle prices for the whole market and presented EVIDENCE to that effect."

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not discrimination. The plaintiffs proved nothing and that is why the verdict was thrown out and supported by the 11th circuit.

Kindergarten: "By Tyson not providing the pay incentives in their captive supply arrangements and therefore not allowing those to be compared to the cash market AT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TIME PERIOD, Tyson failed to prove that they did not discriminate against the cash market. That is why the jury gave the plaintiffs such a large verdict."

It was never Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense. The burden of proof does not fall on the accused. It was the packer blamers responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt. They failed to do that and that is why the verdict was tossed out on its ash and why the 11th circuit upheld judge Strom's decision.

Kindergarten: "They sure didn't know more than the expert witness about the elements in the case that needed to be proven to win the case against the use of market power."

The plaintiff's so called "expert witness" had never tested any of his theories for validity as required. He had nothing but "THEORIES", "OPINIONS", "SPECUATION", and "CONJECTURE", just like Kindergarten Economics does.

The plaintiffs proved nothing and neither have you!



~SH~