The REAL reason for CAFTA

[Econ101]

Conman: "I was waiting for you to say that, SH. You are way too easy. Same for 2001 to 2003."

Now he agrees with me after just saying that I didn't know anything about the meat industries. Imagine that? Hahaha! Liars can never keep their stories straight.

Now tell me how the beef checkoff could reverse a decrease in consumer demand with retailers giving pork away?

Let's hear it you self proclaimed marketing wizard?



~SH~

Aw, shucks, SH, you already know the answer to that one. The meeting Agman had with the NCBA and people in USDA tells the story and it came out of yours and Agman's mouth. Collusion with suppliers of competing meats to decrease supplies and then manipulate the beef market to decrease supplies which increase prices for the benefit of all protein producers. It did not help consumers. The consumer surplus argument in economics that is being played out in the courts is patently false. Swift, Tyson and the others with substitutes for beef were the real winners but there were deadweight losses to society. The burdens of proof the courts have given were all done after the trials were done and over with. They changed the rules of play after the game was over to fix who the winners would be.


Now all they have is someone like you to confuse everyone. You don't confuse me. You are just a piece of clay.

 

[Jason]

Conman you better go back and read that post you made before we make some conclusions of how misinformed you really are.

In that post you state collusion between competing meats (chicken and pork are competing meats) to reduce supplies of those products (show the proof of reduced supplies #1).

Then you proceed to say that reduced supply of competing meats somehow was used to reduce supplies of beef(go read your own post).

All these reductions resulted in producers of all protiens making more money, at the expense of the consumer.

That is a direct contradiction of what you wrote in the Haymaker thread of who cares if Japan opens their border where you wrote the price consumers pay has no bearing on what producers receive.

If you stand behind both posts, there really is no hope for you. Please clarify what you mean, and try to stay on topic.

 

[Anonymous]

Now Conman redirects to a different topic and ignores the question. His diversion is predictable, the unpredictable part is determining which diversion techique he will use

Conman: "Aw, shucks, SH, you already know the answer to that one. The meeting Agman had with the NCBA and people in USDA tells the story and it came out of yours and Agman's mouth. Collusion with suppliers of competing meats to decrease supplies and then manipulate the beef market to decrease supplies which increase prices for the benefit of all protein producers. It did not help consumers. The consumer surplus argument in economics that is being played out in the courts is patently false. Swift, Tyson and the others with substitutes for beef were the real winners but there were deadweight losses to society. The burdens of proof the courts have given were all done after the trials were done and over with. They changed the rules of play after the game was over to fix who the winners would be.

Now all they have is someone like you to confuse everyone. You don't confuse me. You are just a piece of clay."

Another rant of unsupported baseless packer blaming allegations. To believe the above bullsh*t would be to believe that Tyson, Excel, Swift, USPB, and Smithfield are not in competition with eachother.

You're a raging lunatic Conman! You couldn't back your allegations if your life depended on it. Nothing more than a typical blamer who makes sh*t up as he goes along.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman you better go back and read that post you made before we make some conclusions of how misinformed you really are.

In that post you state collusion between competing meats (chicken and pork are competing meats) to reduce supplies of those products (show the proof of reduced supplies #1).

Then you proceed to say that reduced supply of competing meats somehow was used to reduce supplies of beef(go read your own post).

All these reductions resulted in producers of all protiens making more money, at the expense of the consumer.

That is a direct contradiction of what you wrote in the Haymaker thread of who cares if Japan opens their border where you wrote the price consumers pay has no bearing on what producers receive.

If you stand behind both posts, there really is no hope for you. Please clarify what you mean, and try to stay on topic.

Jason, I didn't make up a derrogatory handle for you, but I can if you like.

When all of the animal proteins are consticted in supply, the price recieved for these products goes up due to the inelastic nature of food.

On they Japanese deal, read my post carefully. I did say that the decreased supply in the domestic market(which is pretty small) will affect the price paid for domestic supplies. It is pretty hard to teach economics to people like you who do not do their homework and call names.

The beef supply reduction came out of the supply side (cattlemen's pocket) due to the market manipulation that Pickett experienced with a discrimination of the cash market.

Go do that reading I suggested, Jason.

 

[Econ101]

Now Conman redirects to a different topic and ignores the question. His diversion is predictable, the unpredictable part is determining which diversion techique he will use

Conman: "Aw, shucks, SH, you already know the answer to that one. The meeting Agman had with the NCBA and people in USDA tells the story and it came out of yours and Agman's mouth. Collusion with suppliers of competing meats to decrease supplies and then manipulate the beef market to decrease supplies which increase prices for the benefit of all protein producers. It did not help consumers. The consumer surplus argument in economics that is being played out in the courts is patently false. Swift, Tyson and the others with substitutes for beef were the real winners but there were deadweight losses to society. The burdens of proof the courts have given were all done after the trials were done and over with. They changed the rules of play after the game was over to fix who the winners would be.

Now all they have is someone like you to confuse everyone. You don't confuse me. You are just a piece of clay."

Another rant of unsupported baseless packer blaming allegations. To believe the above bullsh*t would be to believe that Tyson, Excel, Swift, USPB, and Smithfield are not in competition with eachother.

You're a raging lunatic Conman! You couldn't back your allegations if your life depended on it. Nothing more than a typical blamer who makes sh*t up as he goes along.


~SH~

SH, people who are in competition with each other can still collude for their self interests. It happens all the time. It just happened to be against the law in the livestock markets and we had a judiciary that doesn't understand the industry and follow the ignorant propositions that you claim, or are corrupt. I hope it is the former.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, people who are in competition with each other can still collude for their self interests. It happens all the time. It just happened to be against the law in the livestock markets and we had a judiciary that doesn't understand the industry and follow the ignorant propositions that you claim, or are corrupt. I hope it is the former."

You have no proof of any collusion just like you have no proof to back any of your baseless allegations. You're a compulsive liar.


~SH~

 

[Jason]

A conman is one who tries to gain anothers confidence by smooth words and implying that he really has the other's best interests at heart.

By implying you are a professor of economics at a post secondary institution you hope to convince some readers here you know of what you speak.

Conman is a description not a nasty name.

Implying a person has had a lobotomy is sarcastic and insulting, however coming from a conman doesn't influence many people.

The fact that you claim what consumers pay has no bearing on what producers receive then say that because of tight supplies consumers are forced to pay too much, shows you have no clue of what you are talking about.

A person so clueless on such a simple fact can ill afford to lecture others on economic principles.

Your credentials have not been established because they don't exist. You are a phony. To take advice from a phony would lead others to be misinformed. I will continue my education with trusted sources that have proven their credentials by success in the industry.

 

[Econ101]

A conman is one who tries to gain anothers confidence by smooth words and implying that he really has the other's best interests at heart.

By implying you are a professor of economics at a post secondary institution you hope to convince some readers here you know of what you speak.

Conman is a description not a nasty name.

Implying a person has had a lobotomy is sarcastic and insulting, however coming from a conman doesn't influence many people.

The fact that you claim what consumers pay has no bearing on what producers receive then say that because of tight supplies consumers are forced to pay too much, shows you have no clue of what you are talking about.

A person so clueless on such a simple fact can ill afford to lecture others on economic principles.

Your credentials have not been established because they don't exist. You are a phony. To take advice from a phony would lead others to be misinformed. I will continue my education with trusted sources that have proven their credentials by success in the industry.

I am not implying anything. You may think of me what you want. It is your assumptions that get you in trouble, not what I post.

I never said:

The fact that you claim what consumers pay has no bearing on what producers receive then say that because of tight supplies consumers are forced to pay too much, shows you have no clue of what you are talking about.

I said that packers are in the middle and there is a fallacy that everything that is good for the packer goes down and is good for the cattlemen. They play the middle as much as they can and try to spread their margins as much as they can. The fact that margins fluctuate show this to be the case. If they could get away with paying cattlemen less and getting more, they would do it. If they can swing the cattle markets with the manipulaion shown in the Pickett case, and it results in higher prices in the beef markets and in the poultry and hog markets where they have huge interests, they will do that. Under the PSA it was illegal. It wasn't required under the PSA for the cattlemen to prove all of this, the prohibitions were numbered and had "or"s between them. Packers were not allowed to do ANY of the prohibitions stated in section 202. They are individual prohibitions. Judge Strom, SH, and Agman and Canadian Jason and the appellate court want to change that without legislative approval. I don't think they will be successful in the long run but even in the short run it creates economic inefficiencies in the economy and cattlemen lose out. When supplies are "tight" people go toward the substitutes of pork and chicken.

 

[Jason]

You liar!

You did say that what the consumer pays has no bearing on what the producer receives in the Who cares if Japan opens their border thread.

Liars get exposed. You have been repeatedly.

 

[Sandhusker]

You liar!

You did say that what the consumer pays has no bearing on what the producer receives in the Who cares if Japan opens their border thread.

Liars get exposed. You have been repeatedly.

When the US shut out Canada, what happened to the price consumers paid for Canadian beef? Did the price Canadian producers received parallel that?

 

[Jason]

Take an extreme case Sandhusker, but yes food banks were given for FREE millions of pounds of beef. Beef prices dropped 20% overall. If the consumers hadn't kept buying beef we would had got nothing for our cattle.

How does that take away from Econ lying?

 

[Econ101]

You liar!

You did say that what the consumer pays has no bearing on what the producer receives in the Who cares if Japan opens their border thread.

Liars get exposed. You have been repeatedly.

Jason, I didn't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand the intricacies of compex discussions.

This post proves me right.

 

[Jason]

You still are a liar Conman

 

[Econ101]

You still are a liar Conman

Jason, you are still a brown nosed taxpayer subsidized Canadian Cargill lackey. Do you want to dispense with the name calling or shall we go to "sticks and stones...."?

You still need that operation. I would be willing to chip in if it was successful.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Jason, I didn't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand the intricacies of compex discussions."

Listen to you! You fool nobody Conman. Only a couple of packer blaming lemmings haven't left your corner. Everyone else has you figured out.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Jason, I didn't expect you to be intelligent enough to understand the intricacies of compex discussions."

Listen to you! You fool nobody Conman. Only a couple of packer blaming lemmings haven't left your corner. Everyone else has you figured out.


~SH~

SH, I will gladly lump you in the same boat as Jason.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, I will gladly lump you in the same boat as Jason."

Thank you! I would consider that a compliment!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH, I will gladly lump you in the same boat as Jason."

Thank you! I would consider that a compliment!


~SH~

Consider it a Christmas gift.

 

[Jason]

Anyone who is informed and presents a logical debate suddenly is the similar or the same as me! At least you can get something right Conman.

Care to explain how you can say what the consumer pays makes no difference to what the producer gets, but in the next breath say the consumers are paying too much and that's why producers are getting record prices?

I thought not.

 

[Econ101]

Anyone who is informed and presents a logical debate suddenly is the similar or the same as me! At least you can get something right Conman.

Care to explain how you can say what the consumer pays makes no difference to what the producer gets, but in the next breath say the consumers are paying too much and that's why producers are getting record prices?

I thought not.

Jason, your arguments are so basic and misrepresentative of what I have posted that they are not worth responding to. I have the same problem of communication with my 5 year old when she gets in a fit. Luckily she works out of it pretty fast.

I never said that what the consumer pays makes no difference to what the producer gets. I said that it has to go through the packers first. SH makes the argument that packers are margin operators and that there is complete pass through. If that were true, there would be no difference in margin spreads. That is not the case as Agman has pointed out. They take what they can. In beef, the packers have to give some of that money back to the cattlemen due to the market structure. In poultry and hogs they do not due to the contractual nature of the business.

Don't worry, with brains like yours working on this, cattle are not far behind the poultry and pork industries. Thankfully you are in Canada.