The Larger Economic Fraud

[Anonymous]

Randy do you still pick up aluminum cans in the ditch for a living? Do they still call you the "can man"? That's funny!

What's wrong Randy, can't make a living selling long haired cattle so you have to sell aluminum cans?

How pathetic!

RK: "Your figures concerning packer profits are laughable, but if they were true, this industry is in a bigger mess than even I think."

To someone like yourself that doesn't have a clue, I'm sure they are.

I doubt you can refute ibp's profit records that were subpenoed into court can you? I didn't think so but wait, you're the one who said you can't back your position. Silly me, almost forgot who I was talking to.

RK: "Can't change anything SH if you simply go along with the flow."

That would probably explain why I am an advocate of USPB and producer owned cooperatives.

RK: "Accept everything the packers do, and agree with Scott Huber's philosophy and we'll all be Trappin Gophers before long."

Why can't you refute anything I have stated with facts to the contrary?

HEY, I KNOW, IT'S BECAUSE YOUR BELIEFS ARE BASED ON YOUR NEED TO BLAME. Silly me, forgot who I was talking to again.

 

[rkaiser]

Don't know where the aluminum can thing came from Gopher man, maybe the imbalance of metals in your brain????

I have to say that in spite of an industry that generally pays less than trapping gophers or picking cans, I'm doing pretty good. Maybe it's that efficiency thing SH. Have you ever fed a Galloway cow, or done a feed trial with a Welsh Black steer?

What is it that I don't have a clue about Scott, and by the way, who do I seem to be blaming for everthing in your weird little world. You are so focused on backing Tyson and Cargill at every step that you can't see anything anyone says as anything but blaming. I feel more sorry for you than you think.

How do the folks at USBP take you Scott? Do you sit and rant on at these meetings as well about how ethical and wonderful Tyson and Cargill operate. Tear apart anyone who says one word against them. I'd love to hear a transcript from a directors meeting at USBP that Scott Huber sat in on. :lol: :lol:

If I am predictable on this board Gopher Trapper, you are predictable - er. In fact the predictable - est.

 

[agman]

Rancher


Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1767
Location: TX

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Welllll.... Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
pknoeber wrote:
I'll admit right up front that I only read about 3/4 of the first page of this thread so I might be repeating what somebody has already written in their post, but here's my take:

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

There seems to be a fair majority here that believe that the packers are putting the screws to them while making huge amounts of money. Solution: Band together with other like-minded individuals and buy/build your own packing plant. Then you can join in on the gravy train that you think the packers are riding. Quit crying about it and asking the government to change it, be proactive and change it yourself. Guess who the folks were that got USPB going? It wasn't a Wall st. suit, it was the average ranchers that had a vision. Their vision worked in the free markets & they didn't ask the government to hold their hand & help them up, they held each others' hands and helped each other up.

Why does everybody want to go back to the old way of doing it? Doing it just like it's been done for 100 years is easy & comfortable & allows an operator to NOT have to learn new skill sets. With a dynamic & changing market place people will have to continually evolve & develop new skill sets. It's fairly easy to pick out those in the cattle industry that have done this & can keep up. They don't want to rush back to the old way & they will probably admit that some things used to work better then than now, but they will also be able to point out the areas that work much better now than then also. I have a specific individual in mind (a Kansan, not Paul Engler) that has made a mint of money b/c he's incredibly sharp, works very hard, adapts well & is a top-notch businessman. That's made him a multi-multi-millionaire. He didn't rely on the government to do it, he adapted to the marketplace and did it.

Why is the government always the answer?

Phil


No, Phil, it is a little more complex than that. Tyson has beef and its substitutes. They can swing the market with the price manipulation tools they have. They are using these two markets to consolidate the meat markets. All consolidation allows more market power to "put the screws" to the producers and consolidate the meat industries under their control.

There are two distinct time periods:

1. Supply of meat proteins is relatively high. There is a lot of chicken on the market and there is a lot of beef on the market. By using the market manipulation tools in beef, they are able to drive the prices in beef down on the producer level. SH and Jason have already posted (their figures) that the spread during the Pickett manipulation time was $26.00 per head vs. an industry average over time of $3.88 per head. That is a 670% increase in profitability over the time market manipulation was asserted. During this time, chicken prices were in the tank. Tyson was able to use the cash flow from the beef side to continue operating the poultry side in an oversupply situation with low prices. This drives out small competitors that do not have beef to subsidize their operations. If you are in poultry and do not play with the big boys, you get run out of the business. Consolidation in the poultry business.

Next time period:

2. Because of the low prices paid to producers in time period 1, the supply of beef reacts (this takes time) and you go into period 2. During this time period, beef prices are high. Packers do not operate at the same margins, as some have suggested, but operate under what Agman and SH call negative margins. They seem to be losing money on every head sold with this calculated negative margin. How do they remain profitable? The chicken side (and pork). As I have shown on a previous post, the poultry prices have been between 30 and 45% higher. Profit margins are anyone's guess. If the poultry dealers were making 5 cents per lb. when prices were 52 cents then at 70 cents they are making roughly 35 cents more per lb. If all costs are the same for production (grain went down fuel went up, etc... but we are assuming for the point) then the profits on poultry went up 700%. Where does Tyson get cash flow to pay for "negative" cash flow in beef processing? Not hard to figure out. During this period, beef processors are run out of the business because they do not have chicken business to keep them afloat with their cash flows.

Tyson does have one synergy with the chicken and beef markets. They are able to feed their animal by products in beef operations to chicken. Isn't this what initiated the BSE crises in the first place in the cattle markets?

Is this an efficient market or strategic planning? Tyson did not buy IBP for nothing. They want the whole market. If we remain stupid enough to let them have it, we deserve to not be paid for our products. I am afraid if things do not change, that is where we are heading.



_________________

1. Your point on number #2 shows just how little you know about the market and your willingness to skew information to fit your bias. The $26.00 per head earned by Tyson during the said period is dramatically different from the $3.88 per head which I calculated for the entire industry average for a completely different period. Sorry Bud but you are just short on facts and long on opinion and rhetoric as usual.

2. How do you explain price changes in the marketplace before IBP merged with Tyson? How was the beef market manipulated as you claim in all those prior years? How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company? Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy? I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!! What an imagination you have!!

Backup there Agman. Stop jumping to conclusions and please stop telling me what I think. You are no oracle.

1. I appreciate the fact that you take responsibility for the numbers, Agman. This is another example of a situation I brought to your attention on the time period making a difference in interpretting numbers. Haven't we already hashed that one out? Is this not similar to the point on your "demand" index? You claimed cross elasticities are known and calculated by the industry yet you failed to post them in "Econ vs. Agman" thread. You left everyone with the interpretation that the "demand" increase was due to consumer changes, not items under control of the packers with their substitutes. Little tricky don't you think.

As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation. Did you want me to compare Tyson profitabilty to the same time period of the $26 figure? I will give you a guess to what it is (the same number). Did the manipulation pay off? Can you compare numbers?

What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?


2. I have never stated that there are price changes due to normal factors in the market. Never. Is this another argument you want to have with yourself? Market power plays are always on top of normal supply and demand and price equilibriums. Always. I have already gone over price manipulation in different time periods that may only include IBP, IBP and Tyson and both together. Here it is again since you have a hard time with it:

Econ: "4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson."

Agman: " How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company?"

Econ: Who said they were? The market manipulation that I am talking about has to do with market power and its exercise. I never made the assertion that normal supply and demand or normal economies of scale are not in the industry. I also never made the assertion that IBP manipulated at other times. They very well may have. This is about like arguing that the bank robber caught in the bank was a good baby when he was 4 years old. That is your crazy little argument, not mine.

Agman:"Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy?"

Econ: Go read the Coke thread. Coke buyers were limited to their choices of the kind of coke offered by the company. Market power allows this to happen. Competitive markets do not. If coke had allowed all its distributors to compete with each other, this would not be the case. They have found it advantageous to break up the market and use their contracts and lawyers to back up their market power in that market so they can make more money. Same thing with Tyson. If you do not have the choice and you are a consumer, your effects on the market are limited by the choices you have. Rkaiser brought up a real beef example of this when he brought up Cargill signing on all the hotels and squeezing him out of the market. Proctor and Gamble has the same problem with Walmart. In all, it limits choices by consumers and consolidates market power into the "gatekeeper".

Agman:"I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!!"

Econ: As I have said before, you don't know what I think. You can't even get what I write correct so why would you even try? With NAFTA and CAFTA and totally free trade, they will have the power to do this. It is the same mercantilism that preceded the fall of Rome. I did not say they are doing it now, but in time they will have that power. It is being set up in the name of "globalization".

Agman: "What an imagination you have!!"

Econ: Just someone who sees what is happening in the world. Your "facts" and "figures" continue to back up my claims. Thank you for admitting to them.

You may be right for once. I don't know what you think as you twist and turn like a top. What you do state is bogus as your attempt to explain every event as manipulation is a total joke and fraud. It is always manipulation for your convenience to cover for your ignorance of economics and the marketplace. Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant". Another blatant lie on your part-par for you. As I have previously stated I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember you did not even now the level or trend in per capita supply of beef or the other meats. Explain for every reader of this forum once again how you without that knowledge can conclude prices are manipulated. Dance, twist and divert, as usual. No reader will wait for an answer as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

The $26 per head for Tyson was not my number it was the figure derived from subpoenaed financial records for the period encompassed by the Pickett trial. Additionally, the time-frames are completely different. Again you are wrong on the facts. Do you have any clue as to the annual operating efficiency gains scored annually by IBP, independent of the cost of cattle? Forget it, I know as you don't have a clue of that enviable record. You continue to fool only yourself.

 

[Econ101]

1. Your point on number #2 shows just how little you know about the market and your willingness to skew information to fit your bias. The $26.00 per head earned by Tyson during the said period is dramatically different from the $3.88 per head which I calculated for the entire industry average for a completely different period. Sorry Bud but you are just short on facts and long on opinion and rhetoric as usual.

2. How do you explain price changes in the marketplace before IBP merged with Tyson? How was the beef market manipulated as you claim in all those prior years? How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company? Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy? I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!! What an imagination you have!!

Backup there Agman. Stop jumping to conclusions and please stop telling me what I think. You are no oracle.

1. I appreciate the fact that you take responsibility for the numbers, Agman. This is another example of a situation I brought to your attention on the time period making a difference in interpretting numbers. Haven't we already hashed that one out? Is this not similar to the point on your "demand" index? You claimed cross elasticities are known and calculated by the industry yet you failed to post them in "Econ vs. Agman" thread. You left everyone with the interpretation that the "demand" increase was due to consumer changes, not items under control of the packers with their substitutes. Little tricky don't you think.

As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation. Did you want me to compare Tyson profitabilty to the same time period of the $26 figure? I will give you a guess to what it is (the same number). Did the manipulation pay off? Can you compare numbers?

What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?


2. I have never stated that there are price changes due to normal factors in the market. Never. Is this another argument you want to have with yourself? Market power plays are always on top of normal supply and demand and price equilibriums. Always. I have already gone over price manipulation in different time periods that may only include IBP, IBP and Tyson and both together. Here it is again since you have a hard time with it:

Econ: "4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson."

Agman: " How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company?"

Econ: Who said they were? The market manipulation that I am talking about has to do with market power and its exercise. I never made the assertion that normal supply and demand or normal economies of scale are not in the industry. I also never made the assertion that IBP manipulated at other times. They very well may have. This is about like arguing that the bank robber caught in the bank was a good baby when he was 4 years old. That is your crazy little argument, not mine.

Agman:"Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy?"

Econ: Go read the Coke thread. Coke buyers were limited to their choices of the kind of coke offered by the company. Market power allows this to happen. Competitive markets do not. If coke had allowed all its distributors to compete with each other, this would not be the case. They have found it advantageous to break up the market and use their contracts and lawyers to back up their market power in that market so they can make more money. Same thing with Tyson. If you do not have the choice and you are a consumer, your effects on the market are limited by the choices you have. Rkaiser brought up a real beef example of this when he brought up Cargill signing on all the hotels and squeezing him out of the market. Proctor and Gamble has the same problem with Walmart. In all, it limits choices by consumers and consolidates market power into the "gatekeeper".

Agman:"I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!!"

Econ: As I have said before, you don't know what I think. You can't even get what I write correct so why would you even try? With NAFTA and CAFTA and totally free trade, they will have the power to do this. It is the same mercantilism that preceded the fall of Rome. I did not say they are doing it now, but in time they will have that power. It is being set up in the name of "globalization".

Agman: "What an imagination you have!!"

Econ: Just someone who sees what is happening in the world. Your "facts" and "figures" continue to back up my claims. Thank you for admitting to them.

You may be right for once. I don't know what you think as you twist and turn like a top. What you do state is bogus as your attempt to explain every event as manipulation is a total joke and fraud. It is always manipulation for your convenience to cover for your ignorance of economics and the marketplace. Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant". Another blatant lie on your part-par for you. As I have previously stated I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember you did not even now the level or trend in per capita supply of beef or the other meats. Explain for every reader of this forum once again how you without that knowledge can conclude prices are manipulated. Dance, twist and divert, as usual. No reader will wait for an answer as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

The $26 per head for Tyson was not my number it was the figure derived from subpoenaed financial records for the period encompassed by the Pickett trial. Additionally, the time-frames are completely different. Again you are wrong on the facts. Do you have any clue as to the annual operating efficiency gains scored annually by IBP, independent of the cost of cattle? Forget it, I know as you don't have a clue of that enviable record. You continue to fool only yourself.

Do you have a point here, Agman?

Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant"

Arguing with yourself again? I said the calculated values in the schroeder paper you claimed to have input in were not very useful numbers especially when the substitutes increased at the same time. You called it all a shift in demand and I said a lot of your "demand" number had to contain the price elasticities of substitutes taken out to be truely counted as a shift in demand for beef. Your quick price times quantity does not tell the whole story, Agman. I do appreciate the fact that you calculated the supply to be the dominant factor over the time period we were discussing. I like it when your numbers prove my point.

I don't count every price change or every shift in demand or supply market manipulation. Pickett did show that what was happening to him was because of price manipulation and not normal market forces. You are the one who wants to keep saying it is about different time periods and such.

Again, I appreciate that you have done a lot of calculations. I appreciate my HP calculator too. To conclude calculators are smart is a bit of a stretch. As far as knowing dominant per capita trends and bla bla bla.....
You don't know what I know or don't know. Stop trying to be a psychic as it makes you look psychotic.

 

[agman]

Backup there Agman. Stop jumping to conclusions and please stop telling me what I think. You are no oracle.

1. I appreciate the fact that you take responsibility for the numbers, Agman. This is another example of a situation I brought to your attention on the time period making a difference in interpretting numbers. Haven't we already hashed that one out? Is this not similar to the point on your "demand" index? You claimed cross elasticities are known and calculated by the industry yet you failed to post them in "Econ vs. Agman" thread. You left everyone with the interpretation that the "demand" increase was due to consumer changes, not items under control of the packers with their substitutes. Little tricky don't you think.

As to your point on the $3.88 vs. the $26: The 3.88 was your long term calculated value for the industry. The $26 was your calculations for Tyson (you say) per head profit during the Pickett manipulation time period. Pretty revealing if you ask me. Not a misuse by me, an observation. Did you want me to compare Tyson profitabilty to the same time period of the $26 figure? I will give you a guess to what it is (the same number). Did the manipulation pay off? Can you compare numbers?

What did you want me to do, calculate the percentage increase from a negative number?


2. I have never stated that there are price changes due to normal factors in the market. Never. Is this another argument you want to have with yourself? Market power plays are always on top of normal supply and demand and price equilibriums. Always. I have already gone over price manipulation in different time periods that may only include IBP, IBP and Tyson and both together. Here it is again since you have a hard time with it:

Econ: "4. The distinction here is a fine one but an important one. If IBP coordinated any supply changes with Tyson prior to its being bought out by Tyson, there would be collusion between the substitutes for market manipulation. If IBP did not coordinate with Tyson, the market manipulation was all IBP's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, any resultant market manipulation would be all Tyson's baby. Since Tyson bought IBP, and I assume the legal liabilities of IBP(I don't know the terms of the sale), any market manipulation prior to Tyson's purchase was still Tyson's liability. Whether it was plain market manipulation by IBP, collusion by IBP and Tyson, or Tyson using its market power in both markets to manipulate the markets is just a matter of timing and the terms of the sale of IBP to Tyson."

Agman: " How were prices manipulated when IBP was only a very small company?"

Econ: Who said they were? The market manipulation that I am talking about has to do with market power and its exercise. I never made the assertion that normal supply and demand or normal economies of scale are not in the industry. I also never made the assertion that IBP manipulated at other times. They very well may have. This is about like arguing that the bank robber caught in the bank was a good baby when he was 4 years old. That is your crazy little argument, not mine.

Agman:"Do consumers not have a choice as to what product they will buy?"

Econ: Go read the Coke thread. Coke buyers were limited to their choices of the kind of coke offered by the company. Market power allows this to happen. Competitive markets do not. If coke had allowed all its distributors to compete with each other, this would not be the case. They have found it advantageous to break up the market and use their contracts and lawyers to back up their market power in that market so they can make more money. Same thing with Tyson. If you do not have the choice and you are a consumer, your effects on the market are limited by the choices you have. Rkaiser brought up a real beef example of this when he brought up Cargill signing on all the hotels and squeezing him out of the market. Proctor and Gamble has the same problem with Walmart. In all, it limits choices by consumers and consolidates market power into the "gatekeeper".

Agman:"I know you still think packers manipulate the entire cattle cycle on a world wide basis!!"

Econ: As I have said before, you don't know what I think. You can't even get what I write correct so why would you even try? With NAFTA and CAFTA and totally free trade, they will have the power to do this. It is the same mercantilism that preceded the fall of Rome. I did not say they are doing it now, but in time they will have that power. It is being set up in the name of "globalization".

Agman: "What an imagination you have!!"

Econ: Just someone who sees what is happening in the world. Your "facts" and "figures" continue to back up my claims. Thank you for admitting to them.

You may be right for once. I don't know what you think as you twist and turn like a top. What you do state is bogus as your attempt to explain every event as manipulation is a total joke and fraud. It is always manipulation for your convenience to cover for your ignorance of economics and the marketplace. Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant". Another blatant lie on your part-par for you. As I have previously stated I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember you did not even now the level or trend in per capita supply of beef or the other meats. Explain for every reader of this forum once again how you without that knowledge can conclude prices are manipulated. Dance, twist and divert, as usual. No reader will wait for an answer as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

The $26 per head for Tyson was not my number it was the figure derived from subpoenaed financial records for the period encompassed by the Pickett trial. Additionally, the time-frames are completely different. Again you are wrong on the facts. Do you have any clue as to the annual operating efficiency gains scored annually by IBP, independent of the cost of cattle? Forget it, I know as you don't have a clue of that enviable record. You continue to fool only yourself.

Do you have a point here, Agman?

Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant"

Arguing with yourself again? I said the calculated values in the schroeder paper you claimed to have input in were not very useful numbers especially when the substitutes increased at the same time. You called it all a shift in demand and I said a lot of your "demand" number had to contain the price elasticities of substitutes taken out to be truely counted as a shift in demand for beef. Your quick price times quantity does not tell the whole story, Agman. I do appreciate the fact that you calculated the supply to be the dominant factor over the time period we were discussing. I like it when your numbers prove my point.

I don't count every price change or every shift in demand or supply market manipulation. Pickett did show that what was happening to him was because of price manipulation and not normal market forces. You are the one who wants to keep saying it is about different time periods and such.

Again, I appreciate that you have done a lot of calculations. I appreciate my HP calculator too. To conclude calculators are smart is a bit of a stretch. As far as knowing dominant per capita trends and bla bla bla.....
You don't know what I know or don't know. Stop trying to be a psychic as it makes you look psychotic.

Anothr blatant lie by Conman "I said the calculated values in the schroeder paper you claimed to have input in were not very useful numbers especially when the substitutes increased at the same time. You called it all a shift in demand and I said a lot of your "demand" number had to contain the price elasticities of substitutes taken out to be truely counted as a shift in demand for beef. Your quick price times quantity does not tell the whole story, Agman. I do appreciate the fact that you calculated the supply to be the dominant factor over the time period we were discussing. I like it when your numbers prove my point."

Where did I claim I had any input in the analysis provided by Dr Schroeder? Please provide the post for all to read. What I said very clearly only to be skewed by your warped mind is that "I was instrumental in moving the cattle industry, via the NCBA, to develop a demand index as opposed to a complex econometric model" for reporting demand changes to teh industry. I clearly stated that Dr Purcell was elected to develop that index, which he did. Again you trapped youself in another lie Conman-typical of you.

Are you now claiming you did know the level and trend in per capita supply of beef after to pleaded to others on this forum for this information? Do you deny that appeal? Another bold attempt to lie away your total ignaorance of the market.

Are you again going to deny stating "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down"? The analysis I provided for the said period was separated into the portion that was impacted by a change in supply and the portion of the price advance attributed to a demand improvement. That information was supplied to the penny. You took the supply change portion and tried to claim victory while dismissing the demand impact portion. Furthermore you diverted any comment from those periods where all meat supplies increased and prices advanced. You are such an educated idiot you neither know when those periods occurred or what such a period would be called. Per your comment, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down", the latter type periods I mention cannot exist in your fabricated world. But the fact is they do exist, you are just too ignorant of the facts to know. What a total fraud your are Conman, you fool no one but yourself. Are you still telling yourself your phone is tapped? Are those multiple voices in your head confusing you again? Thanks for the laugh, that remains your only benefit to this forum.

 

[Econ101]

You may be right for once. I don't know what you think as you twist and turn like a top. What you do state is bogus as your attempt to explain every event as manipulation is a total joke and fraud. It is always manipulation for your convenience to cover for your ignorance of economics and the marketplace. Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant". Another blatant lie on your part-par for you. As I have previously stated I have forgotten more about supply/demand analysis then you will ever know. Remember you did not even now the level or trend in per capita supply of beef or the other meats. Explain for every reader of this forum once again how you without that knowledge can conclude prices are manipulated. Dance, twist and divert, as usual. No reader will wait for an answer as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

The $26 per head for Tyson was not my number it was the figure derived from subpoenaed financial records for the period encompassed by the Pickett trial. Additionally, the time-frames are completely different. Again you are wrong on the facts. Do you have any clue as to the annual operating efficiency gains scored annually by IBP, independent of the cost of cattle? Forget it, I know as you don't have a clue of that enviable record. You continue to fool only yourself.

Do you have a point here, Agman?

Once again show me where I ever said "price elasticities were constant"

Arguing with yourself again? I said the calculated values in the schroeder paper you claimed to have input in were not very useful numbers especially when the substitutes increased at the same time. You called it all a shift in demand and I said a lot of your "demand" number had to contain the price elasticities of substitutes taken out to be truely counted as a shift in demand for beef. Your quick price times quantity does not tell the whole story, Agman. I do appreciate the fact that you calculated the supply to be the dominant factor over the time period we were discussing. I like it when your numbers prove my point.

I don't count every price change or every shift in demand or supply market manipulation. Pickett did show that what was happening to him was because of price manipulation and not normal market forces. You are the one who wants to keep saying it is about different time periods and such.

Again, I appreciate that you have done a lot of calculations. I appreciate my HP calculator too. To conclude calculators are smart is a bit of a stretch. As far as knowing dominant per capita trends and bla bla bla.....
You don't know what I know or don't know. Stop trying to be a psychic as it makes you look psychotic.

1. Anothr blatant lie by Conman "I said the calculated values in the schroeder paper you claimed to have input in were not very useful numbers especially when the substitutes increased at the same time. You called it all a shift in demand and I said a lot of your "demand" number had to contain the price elasticities of substitutes taken out to be truely counted as a shift in demand for beef. Your quick price times quantity does not tell the whole story, Agman. I do appreciate the fact that you calculated the supply to be the dominant factor over the time period we were discussing. I like it when your numbers prove my point."

2. Where did I claim I had any input in the analysis provided by Dr Schroeder? Please provide the post for all to read. What I said very clearly only to be skewed by your warped mind is that "I was instrumental in moving the cattle industry, via the NCBA, to develop a demand index as opposed to a complex econometric model" for reporting demand changes to teh industry. I clearly stated that Dr Purcell was elected to develop that index, which he did. Again you trapped youself in another lie Conman-typical of you.

3. Are you now claiming you did know the level and trend in per capita supply of beef after to pleaded to others on this forum for this information? Do you deny that appeal? Another bold attempt to lie away your total ignaorance of the market.

4. Are you again going to deny stating "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down"? The analysis I provided for the said period was separated into the portion that was impacted by a change in supply and the portion of the price advance attributed to a demand improvement. That information was supplied to the penny. You took the supply change portion and tried to claim victory while dismissing the demand impact portion. Furthermore you diverted any comment from those periods where all meat supplies increased and prices advanced. You are such an educated idiot you neither know when those periods occurred or what such a period would be called. Per your comment, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down", the latter type periods I mention cannot exist in your fabricated world. But the fact is they do exist, you are just too ignorant of the facts to know. What a total fraud your are Conman, you fool no one but yourself. Are you still telling yourself your phone is tapped? Are those multiple voices in your head confusing you again? Thanks for the laugh, that remains your only benefit to this forum.

1. & 2. Agman, did you not claim that it was you were "instrumental" in creating the "demand index"? You just admitted that on this post. I really love it when people say one thing to get people to believe they see a point and then deny the point altogether. Did you help write the appellate court decision in Pickett? Where is the lie? Are you going to call me a perjuror also?

Of all the papers in the world to bring up when arguing with you on these issues I just "unknowingly" happened by chance to pick the one you were instrumental in creating and now you say I am lying about attributing credit to you?

Again, where is the lie?

3. I POSTED THE ERS DATA, QUOTED ITS SOURCE, AND EVEN GAVE THE WEB ADDRESS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. What is your question, that I could not look at the data? It was not my data. Do you doubt the integrity of the source? Are you going to somehow say that you helped make up the data and now you have complete control over its interpretation? I am glad to get information from anyone at any time for discussion. The integrity of the information should always be looked into and we should all consider its source and the motives behind its production. To not do so would be irresponsible. Are you trying to criticize me for asking people if they have reason to do the same or bring up other data that is pertinent?

4. When there is an oversupply in of an inelastic perishable commodity, no apparant shortage in sight, and we have efficient markets, "prices cannot go up unless supply goes down" all other things held constant. As I have posted before, and had a long discussion about with you where everyone could see, the words "all other things held constant" are important words in saying anything about what is the cause of changes in the price equilibrium in both real and theoretical economic analysis.

"Furthermore you diverted any comment from those periods where all meat supplies increased and prices advanced."

With your mixing of producer price, retail price, wholesale price, the changes in spreads, the changes in margins in each of these areas, promotional deals, sticky prices, and other factors(like changes in managment or product by a market maker), pent up demand, and other extraneous market events, your comment is not an absolute. That is exactly why I said that since I could not see your calculations and know how you did your work, got your data, or even did the math correct, that I would not certify your calculated values and the conclusions you want to infer from them. I would certainly not say that your above statement is representative of the calculations you bring to this post without further looking into.

There are shifts in demand. Your language that attributes changes in price to actual shifts in demand is just wrong. You proved that supply was the dominant factor with your own numbers even without these factors. I simply thanked you for that admission with your own calculations (which I still do not certify in any way) that my statements were more correct than your initial "shift in demand" statement.

Whether my phone was tapped, I am an "educated idiot" in your opinion, or any of the other dispersionary comments you make about me personally are irrelevant to the discussion except to show that your arguments are so weak you have to resort to name calling.

As I said before, that is your tell.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Why don't you take one statement from Agman and prove him wrong with facts to the contrary. Any educated idiot can twist, turn, divert and make statements. That's not debate, that's diversion and it's obvious to anyone who recognizes the antics of a phony.


Now for the "Canman".

Canman: "Have you ever fed a Galloway cow, or done a feed trial with a Welsh Black steer?"

Why would I when I can raise Simmental/angus cross cattle that do everything they need to do?

Canman: "What is it that I don't have a clue about Scott, and by the way, who do I seem to be blaming for everthing in your weird little world."

You don't have a clue about packer profitability BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

You blame the packers for anything and everything.

Canman: "How do the folks at USBP take you Scott?"

The only contact I have with anyone at USPB is periodic correspondence on how their company is doing.

Canman: "Do you sit and rant on at these meetings as well about how ethical and wonderful Tyson and Cargill operate."

I haven't attended a USPB meeting since their initial fundraising drive but if some packer blamer like you in attendance stated inaccurate information on Tyson and Cargill, I would certainly challenge them to back their statement.

If you want to hear unchallenged statements I'd recommend an R-CULT blamer's convention. There you can sit and nod your head as people tell you what you want to hear.

Canman: "Tear apart anyone who says one word against them."

If someone lies and I know it is a lie, I will correct it without hesitation. Just because packer blamers like you need someone to blame does not mean you have the right to state information that is not true.



~SH~