• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The "rest of the story" behind Pickett's loss

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Pickett sued Tyson under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, specifically sections (a) and (c). They are as follows;

PSA Section 202 (a) states; It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.
(c) reads; Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices,...

A jury found, among other things that Tyson's use of marketing agreements proximately caused the cash market price to be lower than it otherwise would of been and that these same marketing agreements injured each and every member of the plaintiff's class.

Tyson did not dispute these findings of the jury, instead they claimed they have legitimate business use for these agreements. (I guess as long as you hunt ducks with your shotgun, armed robbery is legitimized). They also contended that PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meatpackers. They also argued that Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle. (notice that they do not dispute that they have manipulated prices, only that they have other reasons to use these agreements and that decreasing prices doesn't matter, as long as there are no pro-competitive justifications. They don't dispute the crime, only jurisdiction)

Judge Strom agreed with Tyson and stated that "in order to succeed on a claim under the PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition."

I encourage everybody to read the unlawful practices under PSA and then ask yourselves if what Tyson argued, and Judge Strom agreed on makes any sense? NOWHERE under the list of unlawful practices under the act is the word "competition".

Our pro-packer contingent on the board claims a great victory, but after reading Tyson's and Judge Strom's comments, does anybody actually believe that it mattered if Tyson manipulated markets and hurt Pickett? Did the ruling really have anything to do with damages to Pickett?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Pickett sued Tyson under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, specifically sections (a) and (c). They are as follows;

PSA Section 202 (a) states; It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.
(c) reads; Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices,...

A jury found, among other things that Tyson's use of marketing agreements proximately caused the cash market price to be lower than it otherwise would of been and that these same marketing agreements injured each and every member of the plaintiff's class.

Tyson did not dispute these findings of the jury, instead they claimed they have legitimate business use for these agreements. (I guess as long as you hunt ducks with your shotgun, armed robbery is legitimized). They also contended that PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meatpackers. They also argued that Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle. (notice that they do not dispute that they have manipulated prices, only that they have other reasons to use these agreements and that decreasing prices doesn't matter, as long as there are no pro-competitive justifications.)

Judge Strom agreed with Tyson and stated that "in order to succeed on a claim under the PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition."

I encourage everybody to read the unlawful practices under PSA and then ask yourselves if what Tyson argued, and Judge Strom agreed on makes any sense? NOWHERE under the list of unlawful practices under the act is the word "competition".

Our pro-packer contingent on the board claims a great victory, but after reading Tyson's and Judge Strom's comments, does anybody actually believe that it mattered if Tyson manipulated markets and hurt Pickett? Did the ruling really have anything to do with damages to Pickett?

I see you are trying to divert from the opinion rendered and the courts interruption of PSA law. Try reading page 13 and 14 of the opinion again. You will eventaully get it. Once again you have provided your own interpretation of the PSA. You will have as much success with that as with your version of "low risk" in the Ninth Circuit Case. :LOL:

Your personal interpretation of the law is immaterial. I believe the judges are one hell of alot more knowledgeable than either you or I regarding the intenet of PSA laws. I will go with their reading and interpretation of the law. You can divert all day, it won't change the outcome.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, "I see you are trying to divert from the opinion rendered and the courts interruption of PSA law. Try reading page 13 and 14 of the opinion again. You will eventaully get it. Once again you have provided your own interpretation of the PSA. You will have as much success with that as with your version of "low risk" in the Ninth Circuit Case. :LOL: "

Direct quotes from the PSA is my own interpretation?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
agman said:
I believe the judges are one hell of alot more knowledgeable than either you or I regarding the intenet of PSA laws. I will go with their reading and interpretation of the law.

I would like to see what the REAL conservatives Scalia and Thomas would say about this. Agman, you are supporting non-literal, liberal interpretation of the plain words of the law.

The 11th Circuits opinion is as non-literal as the majority of the Supreme Court was in Kelo, maybe even more so.

Would you say of the Kelo decison that "I believe the judges are one hell of alot more knowledgeable than either you or I"?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sandhusker and the rest: You better copy this one down in your computers and print out a copy. When it gets out it will be removed from the files because it is true.

Sandhusker, the words between Section 202 a, b, and c are operative. The act has the word or.

Or does not mean both in the English language I know. The word "Whatsoever" was taken out for a 5 year period to allow the case law to be made so they could get away with the fraud. My phones are being tapped and I am going to stop recieving my info from my source pretty soon. Good luck on these issues.

As a young man in my early 20's I visited the Big Apple. I was very excited about Wall Street and all of the other famous places in the capital of capitalism. The people in the city were very different than the people in the country and I tried to notice these differences. Eye contact was less frequent and the New York attitude with its less “friendly” way was apparent. I wanted to investigate this different personality further as it piqued my interest.



I bought a suit from the garment district and stopped to buy a tie from a sidewalk vendor. As I was putting the tie on I noticed a group of people gathered around a table with 3 shells on it. One of the men tried to make eye contact with me and get me interested but having been educated already in cattle barn by my experiences with my grandfather; I averted my eyes and feigned interest in my tie buying. The man behind the table was calling “Find the pea and win!” He would shuffle the shells with the pea under it and was calling for people to come play the game. Along came a man down the street, who I will name Hawker, who took note and seemed innocently interested in playing the game. The man behind the table showed him how he had to pick the pea under the shell with an example shuffle. Hawker picked the shell with the pea under it. “See how easy it is!” claimed the man behind the table. Hawker laid his $10.00 down and then the man shuffled the shells. Hawker won 3, lost 2 and won then lost another one.



The ones Hawker lost were obvious mistakes in judgment that the tourists noticed. Hawker would work the crowd like an auctioneer asking what shell to pick and then Hawker would pick another one, noting that the tourist picked the right one. What a show!! Hawker stepped aside and allowed a tourist a shot, which he won and then lost, Hawker’s body moving in front of the next tourist “victim” of the game so that the view was temporarily blocked. There were a couple of other onlookers who were getting into the game but claimed they had no money but would make comments on every decision made. Eventually they too pulled 10s and 20s out of their pocket to play. Sometimes winning, sometimes losing. Their enthusiasm was climbing with every new game adding to the tourist’s interest in the New York attraction.



The game went on for a short time and I tried several different ties on. I noted that the man behind the table was better than the crowd, not every time, but more often than not. With the help of Hawker and the enthusiastic crowd more money changed hands.



Then as suddenly as the action began, it ended. The money that had been held out for the next chance disappeared. Hawker made a spectacle of himself over the emotions the game excised from him. The whole crowd of people in front of the table disappeared and the table was shuffled under an overcoat. I did notice, while others were looking at Hawker, that one of the “innocent” onlookers who had been a part of the enthusiastic crowd, picked up the shells for the man behind the table and put them in his pocket. Another picked something else off the ground as he slipped off. Moments later I noticed a policeman down the street following the pointing people to the crowd gath ered before me. The crowd was still gathered but the table and the shells long gone. By the time he arrived at the tie booth the tie man raised his hands in an “I don’t know” gesture. New York, New York. What a theatrical place! So many people, so many attractions. A different world than mine but one that was exciting, despite the tough exterior of the humanity that called it home.



I had a meeting at Goldman Sachs where I had the best boxed meal and desert in my life. I went on my way to Wall Street and bought my bull and bear tie. The crossroads of supply and demand was established here. It was the center of the greatest economy on earth. Fortunes were lost and fortunes were made every day. The workings of the world had an intersection in New York and it was the world’s cattle market.



On my way home from the exchange I walked off my excitement the day had brought. I must have walked 6 miles, this way and that, taking in the sights I knew I was soon to leave but keeping the experiences of a lifetime.



On my way home I noticed another crowd similar to the one I had seen earlier in the day. My suspicions nestled in the crevices of my mind were affirmed as I saw many of the same people I had seen earlier playing the same parts around the table. I knew a truth that had escaped many innocent bystanders. I knew New York was like every town and every town was like New York.

The truth of capitalism could be determined if you looked hard enough. I was hooked on the cross of supply and demand with all of its benefits and all its sins.



I later watched an old western movie with the same shell game. Only in this game there was no crowd and no “hawker”. It was trim, probably edited for television. There was a lot of money involved; all the money the cowboy had made after driving his cattle up the Goodnight Loving Trail. All the profits he and his family would see in a few years. At the crescendo of the hand in question the cowboy drew his gun. “Pick up the other two!” he ordered the snake oil salesman as the cowboy’s hand forced down the snake oil salesman’s hand on the choice the cowboy made. With sweat from his brow dripping and a cocked six shooter that still had the acrid smell of gun smoke pointed at his face, the snake oil salesman lifted the other two shells. They were empty. There was no pea. Without the chosen shell ever being lifted the cowboy threw the pea on the table that had hit him earlier on the boot. He took his money home.



The answer is in the other shells to the Picket enigma that Tyson brought up is in the other two shells. Substitutes. If competition competes the profits out of selling side of the merchant and there was no proof of gains then why would they manipulate markets? As a matter of fact, market manipulation would decrease their supply and therefore they would be earning even less money, the argument goes. The answer to this shell game is not in the shell they picked up to show there was no pea. The answer is in the two other shells. Pickett felt the pea hit him on the toe and he showed a jury that the pea was on the ground, not u nder one of the shells. The judge and all the arguments are based on the assumption that the pea is not under the shell that Pickett picked. (These coincidental word plays are too much). Pick it, Pickett!!! the hawker (SH-) cried. "The game is fair!" cried Agman. And yet Pickett proved the pea was on the ground, not on the table.



In the substitutes for beef Tyson has a different marketing structure. All of the increases in price in poultry and I imagine pork, go directly in the pockets of Tyson. There is no sharing of increased price with the poultry farmer as in the beef market. Press reporting on that lie is being jumped on all over by the poultry farmers in their Yahoo broilers group. No more propaganda Agman you Joseph Goebles. An increase of 25 cents in the poultry markets creates a 25 cent per lb. increase in profits or reinvestment to take over more of the market and be more of a monopoly on Tyson’s integrator side. Geographic monopsonies or oligopsonies and failure to enforce the economic protections of Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act allow this to happen. There is no cop on this beat—or the cop is being paid off by the man behind the table.



Agman, you have claimed to have the absolute right not to have packers be socialist while you yourself are a fascist. The cattlemen, the pork producers, and the poultry producers are not asking you to be a socialist, just want you to be honest. Meet us at the cross!!!! (pun intended)-- Or pay the verdict and get out of town!! The wages of sin is death Spector and you have already been warned in your head. Agman you made the point that these agribusinesses have changed names. Tyson needs to change its name to the rancher's/farmers names for justice to be served. Pickett proved that the pea fell on the floor, he did not have to prove there was a pea under the shell he picked.



Justice is not going to be served until we have intelligent, honest judges. That problem was one thing that was apparent in the verdict with the Robinson-Patman inkled defense and all of the above arguments that have been offered by the packer boys and their hawkers.



Galileo and all of the leaders of science were labeled "nuts" by the establishment of their day. The earth is round, not flat!!



The Republican Senator over the fingerprinting is careful not to leave fingerprints but they, like the Tyson-Clinton connection, are there!!!



"The problem with continually discrediting the conspiracy theorists is that sometimes there is a credible conspiracy."



In regards to me calling "wolf"': I am the voice of Winston Churchill and you the voice of Chamberlain! I have seen Poland, the lowlands are currently being invaded, and the battle of Britain (cattle) is next. Pickett, London, and the others are only a battle that could have efficiently ended the war but if you must have blood beware of the consequences! The less than innocent crowd you have as accessories to the crime around the table are being marked for battle. Leave before y ou get caught. Exodus 3:14.



We tire of your changing deck of cards and your cheap whiskey. It is time to distill the truth and Pickett did it. What color is the wind? Red says the hog!!!


Let us get ready for the roundup and not forget all those who are branded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Maybe I can get a reply to my post to Econ101 if I put it in this string. ????????????????

Hi Econ101!

Two questions, please.

You stated, "deadweight loss is that loss of economic activity that a certain action creates." Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but my understanding is that deadweight loss is a reduction of net economic benefits resulting from an inefficient allocation of resources.

If you will humor me on that,

1. what constitutes an inefficient allocation of resources, and

2. what exactly is a reduction of net economic benefits?

You are obviously a trained economist, and you talk about the deadweight losses that occur as a result of market power. Can you answer these questions for me? Thank you!
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Sandhusker and the rest: You better copy this one down in your computers and print out a copy. When it gets out it will be removed from the files because it is true.

Sandhusker, the words between Section 202 a, b, and c are operative. The act has the word or.

Or does not mean both in the English language I know. The word "Whatsoever" was taken out for a 5 year period to allow the case law to be made so they could get away with the fraud. My phones are being tapped and I am going to stop recieving my info from my source pretty soon. Good luck on these issues.

As a young man in my early 20's I visited the Big Apple. I was very excited about Wall Street and all of the other famous places in the capital of capitalism. The people in the city were very different than the people in the country and I tried to notice these differences. Eye contact was less frequent and the New York attitude with its less “friendly” way was apparent. I wanted to investigate this different personality further as it piqued my interest.



I bought a suit from the garment district and stopped to buy a tie from a sidewalk vendor. As I was putting the tie on I noticed a group of people gathered around a table with 3 shells on it. One of the men tried to make eye contact with me and get me interested but having been educated already in cattle barn by my experiences with my grandfather; I averted my eyes and feigned interest in my tie buying. The man behind the table was calling “Find the pea and win!” He would shuffle the shells with the pea under it and was calling for people to come play the game. Along came a man down the street, who I will name Hawker, who took note and seemed innocently interested in playing the game. The man behind the table showed him how he had to pick the pea under the shell with an example shuffle. Hawker picked the shell with the pea under it. “See how easy it is!” claimed the man behind the table. Hawker laid his $10.00 down and then the man shuffled the shells. Hawker won 3, lost 2 and won then lost another one.



The ones Hawker lost were obvious mistakes in judgment that the tourists noticed. Hawker would work the crowd like an auctioneer asking what shell to pick and then Hawker would pick another one, noting that the tourist picked the right one. What a show!! Hawker stepped aside and allowed a tourist a shot, which he won and then lost, Hawker’s body moving in front of the next tourist “victim” of the game so that the view was temporarily blocked. There were a couple of other onlookers who were getting into the game but claimed they had no money but would make comments on every decision made. Eventually they too pulled 10s and 20s out of their pocket to play. Sometimes winning, sometimes losing. Their enthusiasm was climbing with every new game adding to the tourist’s interest in the New York attraction.



The game went on for a short time and I tried several different ties on. I noted that the man behind the table was better than the crowd, not every time, but more often than not. With the help of Hawker and the enthusiastic crowd more money changed hands.



Then as suddenly as the action began, it ended. The money that had been held out for the next chance disappeared. Hawker made a spectacle of himself over the emotions the game excised from him. The whole crowd of people in front of the table disappeared and the table was shuffled under an overcoat. I did notice, while others were looking at Hawker, that one of the “innocent” onlookers who had been a part of the enthusiastic crowd, picked up the shells for the man behind the table and put them in his pocket. Another picked something else off the ground as he slipped off. Moments later I noticed a policeman down the street following the pointing people to the crowd gath ered before me. The crowd was still gathered but the table and the shells long gone. By the time he arrived at the tie booth the tie man raised his hands in an “I don’t know” gesture. New York, New York. What a theatrical place! So many people, so many attractions. A different world than mine but one that was exciting, despite the tough exterior of the humanity that called it home.



I had a meeting at Goldman Sachs where I had the best boxed meal and desert in my life. I went on my way to Wall Street and bought my bull and bear tie. The crossroads of supply and demand was established here. It was the center of the greatest economy on earth. Fortunes were lost and fortunes were made every day. The workings of the world had an intersection in New York and it was the world’s cattle market.



On my way home from the exchange I walked off my excitement the day had brought. I must have walked 6 miles, this way and that, taking in the sights I knew I was soon to leave but keeping the experiences of a lifetime.



On my way home I noticed another crowd similar to the one I had seen earlier in the day. My suspicions nestled in the crevices of my mind were affirmed as I saw many of the same people I had seen earlier playing the same parts around the table. I knew a truth that had escaped many innocent bystanders. I knew New York was like every town and every town was like New York.

The truth of capitalism could be determined if you looked hard enough. I was hooked on the cross of supply and demand with all of its benefits and all its sins.



I later watched an old western movie with the same shell game. Only in this game there was no crowd and no “hawker”. It was trim, probably edited for television. There was a lot of money involved; all the money the cowboy had made after driving his cattle up the Goodnight Loving Trail. All the profits he and his family would see in a few years. At the crescendo of the hand in question the cowboy drew his gun. “Pick up the other two!” he ordered the snake oil salesman as the cowboy’s hand forced down the snake oil salesman’s hand on the choice the cowboy made. With sweat from his brow dripping and a cocked six shooter that still had the acrid smell of gun smoke pointed at his face, the snake oil salesman lifted the other two shells. They were empty. There was no pea. Without the chosen shell ever being lifted the cowboy threw the pea on the table that had hit him earlier on the boot. He took his money home.



The answer is in the other shells to the Picket enigma that Tyson brought up is in the other two shells. Substitutes. If competition competes the profits out of selling side of the merchant and there was no proof of gains then why would they manipulate markets? As a matter of fact, market manipulation would decrease their supply and therefore they would be earning even less money, the argument goes. The answer to this shell game is not in the shell they picked up to show there was no pea. The answer is in the two other shells. Pickett felt the pea hit him on the toe and he showed a jury that the pea was on the ground, not u nder one of the shells. The judge and all the arguments are based on the assumption that the pea is not under the shell that Pickett picked. (These coincidental word plays are too much). Pick it, Pickett!!! the hawker (SH-) cried. "The game is fair!" cried Agman. And yet Pickett proved the pea was on the ground, not on the table.



In the substitutes for beef Tyson has a different marketing structure. All of the increases in price in poultry and I imagine pork, go directly in the pockets of Tyson. There is no sharing of increased price with the poultry farmer as in the beef market. Press reporting on that lie is being jumped on all over by the poultry farmers in their Yahoo broilers group. No more propaganda Agman you Joseph Goebles. An increase of 25 cents in the poultry markets creates a 25 cent per lb. increase in profits or reinvestment to take over more of the market and be more of a monopoly on Tyson’s integrator side. Geographic monopsonies or oligopsonies and failure to enforce the economic protections of Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act allow this to happen. There is no cop on this beat—or the cop is being paid off by the man behind the table.



Agman, you have claimed to have the absolute right not to have packers be socialist while you yourself are a fascist. The cattlemen, the pork producers, and the poultry producers are not asking you to be a socialist, just want you to be honest. Meet us at the cross!!!! (pun intended)-- Or pay the verdict and get out of town!! The wages of sin is death Spector and you have already been warned in your head. Agman you made the point that these agribusinesses have changed names. Tyson needs to change its name to the rancher's/farmers names for justice to be served. Pickett proved that the pea fell on the floor, he did not have to prove there was a pea under the shell he picked.



Justice is not going to be served until we have intelligent, honest judges. That problem was one thing that was apparent in the verdict with the Robinson-Patman inkled defense and all of the above arguments that have been offered by the packer boys and their hawkers.



Galileo and all of the leaders of science were labeled "nuts" by the establishment of their day. The earth is round, not flat!!



The Republican Senator over the fingerprinting is careful not to leave fingerprints but they, like the Tyson-Clinton connection, are there!!!



"The problem with continually discrediting the conspiracy theorists is that sometimes there is a credible conspiracy."



In regards to me calling "wolf"': I am the voice of Winston Churchill and you the voice of Chamberlain! I have seen Poland, the lowlands are currently being invaded, and the battle of Britain (cattle) is next. Pickett, London, and the others are only a battle that could have efficiently ended the war but if you must have blood beware of the consequences! The less than innocent crowd you have as accessories to the crime around the table are being marked for battle. Leave before y ou get caught. Exodus 3:14.



We tire of your changing deck of cards and your cheap whiskey. It is time to distill the truth and Pickett did it. What color is the wind? Red says the hog!!!


Let us get ready for the roundup and not forget all those who are branded.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am amused at your dissertations regarding this case. As another conspiracy theorist you have brought absolutely nothing with your claimed brilliance. You have proven absolutely nothing-period. Rather you spew senseless rhetoric and accusations that impresses only yourself and a few R-Laugh pom-pom wavers.

I am laughing that you feel so important and such a threat with all those conspiracy allegations that your phone is being tapped! Other than being a blatant conspiracy theorist you must also be very paranoid. Did EJH personally resurrect himself to tap your phone? The more you post the more transparent and phony you become. You should really go back to whatever it is you do that is so important. Other than fill in space you have provided nothing to this forum but a good laugh for me as you try to impress yourself with your conspiracy laden intellectual prowess. The problem is that this is not a comedy show, nonetheless you have provided me with a good laugh. I thank you for that.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "I see you are trying to divert from the opinion rendered and the courts interruption of PSA law. Try reading page 13 and 14 of the opinion again. You will eventaully get it. Once again you have provided your own interpretation of the PSA. You will have as much success with that as with your version of "low risk" in the Ninth Circuit Case. :LOL: "

Direct quotes from the PSA is my own interpretation?

The part you copied is not the only part the the PSA. Get over it-your side lost on all accounts. Excuses don't cut it. Do you honestly think you know more than the judge who tried and the judges who reviewed this case? I think not.

The courts interpretation is very clear on page 13 and 14. Don't forget the footnote on page 13. If you have a disagreement with them you should retry the case with you as legal counsel. You were such a hit with your interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "I see you are trying to divert from the opinion rendered and the courts interruption of PSA law. Try reading page 13 and 14 of the opinion again. You will eventaully get it. Once again you have provided your own interpretation of the PSA. You will have as much success with that as with your version of "low risk" in the Ninth Circuit Case. :LOL: "

Direct quotes from the PSA is my own interpretation?

The part you copied is not the only part the the PSA. Get over it-your side lost on all accounts. Excuses don't cut it. Do you honestly think you know more than the judge who tried and the judges who reviewed this case? I think not.

The courts interpretation is very clear on page 13 and 14. Don't forget the footnote on page 13. If you have a disagreement with them you should retry the case with you as legal counsel. You were such a hit with your interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Page 13 and 14 make my case. It appears to me you are grand-standing for those who are reading your posts but don't know what those pages say. You're selling snake oil.

Are you referring to the Ninth's ruling that said we should defer to the same outfit that has proved it's ineptness time and time again lately? The positive, no it's negitive, ooops I guess it is positive bunch? Another great victory for you there, Agman. :roll:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "I see you are trying to divert from the opinion rendered and the courts interruption of PSA law. Try reading page 13 and 14 of the opinion again. You will eventaully get it. Once again you have provided your own interpretation of the PSA. You will have as much success with that as with your version of "low risk" in the Ninth Circuit Case. :LOL: "

Direct quotes from the PSA is my own interpretation?

The part you copied is not the only part the the PSA. Get over it-your side lost on all accounts. Excuses don't cut it. Do you honestly think you know more than the judge who tried and the judges who reviewed this case? I think not.

The courts interpretation is very clear on page 13 and 14. Don't forget the footnote on page 13. If you have a disagreement with them you should retry the case with you as legal counsel. You were such a hit with your interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Are you referring to the Ninth's ruling that said we should defer to the same outfit that has proved it's ineptness time and time again lately? The positive, no it's negitive, ooops I guess it is positive bunch? Another great victory for you there, Agman. :roll:

It takes a bigger man to admit defeat than not to. I quesss you have just qualified your size. Perhaps you should change your name to Sandpebble.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, go read "The Robber Barons" by Matthew Josephson, copyright 1934. These are all old tricks under new guises. The laws against market power were first invoked by those with market power. It seems the reasoning behind the Pickett case is just such an attempt by the courts. Having the law that was used to curb the abuses of market power for the market power abusers is no new trick. It only takes the intellectual and or moral corruption of a few judges. This was evident in the brief. Those judges should be held to a higher standard. Neither Strom nor the appellate courts were able to argue against Dr. Taylor on the merits of the regression analysis other than issue a "nuts" statement. Maybe Judge strom thought Dr. Taylor was a peanut, or was it a brazil nut. Judge Strom's assertion of economic incompetence had to be backed up with testable facts just as Tyson argued that Taylor's work had to be tested (which it was). If they court was smart enough to understand these issues why did they get the Robinson-Patman reasoning so wrong? Every person going up to those judges needs to be aware that the appellate judge's intellectual acumen is questionable.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
To Econ101

If I can remember your answer to my questions in another string, (thanks for answering by the way) you once again stated that there is deadweight loss in market power because of the abuse of market power. And I think you just said that again in this string. So, here's my next question.

Assuming that the cow-calf industry will go the way of consolidation/fewer and larger/etc/etc which I believe it is doing and will continue to do,

and assuming that the same thing is happening in the sale barn industry as the producers consolidate and regional shifts occur (not to mention things like today's gas and diesel prices putting northern Montana producers at a disadvantage to many producers closer to feed yards),

at what point does the action of a Tyson that is being defined as an abuse of market power today no longer fit the definition?

In other words, you must admit that due to evolutionary changes in the industry, what is considered to be an abuse today will probably not be an abuse in the future. At some point it will make more sense to do more marketing agreements, etc., as businesses grow and seek the stability that these kinds of arrangements can offer.

Where and when do you see that happening? Should it be the goal of someone to intervene in some way to make this evolution drag on and happen just as slowly as possible? And is that the best way to compete with pork, chicken and other countries?

Is the real world black and white, or do we maybe have to deal with some things sometimes that we didn't expect to have to deal with? In other words, should your "economic laws" be enforced in this country no matter what the competition is doing? I think it comes down many times to short-term views vs long-term views and whether or not we think we have a handle on the big picture.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
This question really hits the policy goals that are in D.C.. Is it better to let Tysons of the world drive down the cost of its "ingredients" so that we can continue to export them to the rest of the world and compete maybe with Brazil? Is that a national policy justification? These are the issues of "dumping" that the World Trade Organization must answer with increased globalization if they can see these issues.

All of these issues come with questions about "comparative advantage". Free traders believe that countries should produce the things that they produce best and then trade other parts of the world for other things that others have a natural competive advantage. In other words, if the U.S. is the low cost producer of grain, then it should sell that extra grain from production on the world markets and buy things it can not produce with a comparative advantage like coffee beans or tropical fruit.

These seem like good rules of free trade. The only problem is that this is not how the world works. The world market players often country governments, operate on the world markets much like Tyson operates in the U. S. market. The real fear by some sociologists, economists, and strategic policy thinkers is that this exercise of power will put our country at a comparative or strategic disadvantage.

Take the recent bid for Conook. The U.S. brought some real strategic policy and comparative advantage issues up that need to be thought out. Is it in the best interest for the U.S. to allow a company that is government-backed to purchase an oil company that we might have a strategic interest for energy in? After all, the Chinese were buying the company with dollars it earned in trade with the U. S.. American manufactoring jobs went overseas and the Chinese sold us the production from those Chinese facilities. American manufacturors shipped their companies overseas when Wal-Mart dropped its "Made in America" marketing ploy for more profitable cheaper foreign goods. You could argue that China has a comparative advantage in labor and that is why they are the low cost producer. If the government allowed their workers to be the low cost workers due to no worker safety laws and other costs the U. S. Companies have to pay then they would be the low cost producer but it would be born on the backs of a politically and economically bereft populace. What do you think about child labor laws and minimum wage?

In the Tyson case, Tyson, allegedly altered the meeting of the supply/demand curves through market power and took advantage of that power to benefit economically in the substitutes for beef: pork and chicken. I say allegedly because I have not looked at the regression analysis that was done. In neither Judge Strom's breif nor the appellate court's brief was there enough competent legal analysis to overturn the jury's decision. In regards to the Daubert issues, it seemed Tyson did not dispute the methodology, but the application. However, their only claim that the application was incorrect rests on their arguments of no extra gain took place in the beef market so they are exonerated. Technically, they put an "and" where an "or" is in the law and argued behind closed doors to an 80 year old man and then a group of appellate judges who showed their complete lack of competence to economic thought with their Robinson-Patman reasoning.

Just imagine if all this were done in Chinese, or Japanese. What would that do to your "free trade" agreements? It is obvious to me that catch phrases like "free trade" are for soundbites, not the real issues. We should more accurately look for trade agreements that have "fair trade", and not in just in a soundbite name only. Are trade negotiators selling the interests of producers out in these agreements? With the Tyson/Pickett example, the answer is that if you don't have real muscle on capital hill then yes. Look at the prescription drug issue. Companies are able to have different pricing mechanisms in different countries to capture more of the consumer surplus. Who does this benefit? The drug companies of course.

This consolidation of power in government policy decision places puts the "regular" people at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the material wealth the world produces. Again, totalitarianism does this to its people so why should we have free trade with them? Brazilian beef can sell in the U.S. because all they have to do in Brazil is chop down the forest and then make a big ranch or farm out of it. Is the world better off if we replace ranch land in Utah, or Montana, or South Dakota with rainforest in Brazil? What if we find out that many of these companies in Brazil are the same companies we hare having problems with in being fair in the U. S.? Can we allow international agribusiness that swings markets in other parts of the world in a different oscilation than in the U. S. just so they can take more of the wealth of the world for themselves, make barriers to entry in their businesses and reduce competition? What if they just buy off another country's leaders through the legal ways they do in this country?

This topic is too big to handle in this forum unless it is a small little question. I am just rambling otherwise.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
pointrider said:
To Econ101

If I can remember your answer to my questions in another string, (thanks for answering by the way) you once again stated that there is deadweight loss in market power because of the abuse of market power. And I think you just said that again in this string. So, here's my next question.

Assuming that the cow-calf industry will go the way of consolidation/fewer and larger/etc/etc which I believe it is doing and will continue to do,

and assuming that the same thing is happening in the sale barn industry as the producers consolidate and regional shifts occur (not to mention things like today's gas and diesel prices putting northern Montana producers at a disadvantage to many producers closer to feed yards),

at what point does the action of a Tyson that is being defined as an abuse of market power today no longer fit the definition?

In other words, you must admit that due to evolutionary changes in the industry, what is considered to be an abuse today will probably not be an abuse in the future. At some point it will make more sense to do more marketing agreements, etc., as businesses grow and seek the stability that these kinds of arrangements can offer.

Where and when do you see that happening? Should it be the goal of someone to intervene in some way to make this evolution drag on and happen just as slowly as possible? And is that the best way to compete with pork, chicken and other countries?

Is the real world black and white, or do we maybe have to deal with some things sometimes that we didn't expect to have to deal with? In other words, should your "economic laws" be enforced in this country no matter what the competition is doing? I think it comes down many times to short-term views vs long-term views and whether or not we think we have a handle on the big picture.

The points and questions you make are essential to our ability to compete. The fact is the bulk of this industry has already recognized that business as usual cost this industry nineteen years of declining beef demand. The real producer/leaders recognized the need to change and proceeded to move this industry forward, away from the past. The most forward thinkers and best producers in this industry are behind this movement. The naysayers, a vocal minority, will lose at every turn. You have to choose which group you will become associated with.

I stated during testimony several different times "the the old ways of business produced a surplus of below average product which the consumer flatly rejected." Think about the truth of that statement-nineteen years of declining demand. Packers, retailers and producers alike were all responsible for that situation. Each group misread the consumer. Each group now has the responsibilty to work together to maintain a positive trend, albeit, there will be bumps along the way. How silly and damaging is it for one association to indoctrinate its members that they are cattlemen, not beef producers. Who will suffer because of such folly, not the forward thinkers.

Think about the message in the new marketing system and the derived benefits to producers and the entire beef industry. You see the payoff daily; improvement is indisputable. Yet there are those who would choose to turn back the clock based upon misinformation and disinformation and in some cases just pure hate. How sad that is.

The losses the naysayers claim to have suffered is not the result of some backroom conspiracy as some would lead you to believe. Such statements only show their real lack of knowledge and ignorancee of the entire beef industry. Demagoguery does not bring consumers to beef, it only serves to placate those looking for an excuse and someone to blame for their own misfortune. They have lost because their positions are not factually based and are not in the best interest of this great beef industry of which all producers are members. They are not just cattlemen, contray to those who think otherwise.

Ask a consumer if they know cattlemen. They know beef, its price, quality and representative and relative value. All the excuses and conspiracy theories will not erase that fact. The future of this industy and any other industry is in constanly seeking to improve consumer demand for their product. Anything less than that is a prescription for disaster. Thanks for your enlightened concern and have a great day.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, "It takes a bigger man to admit defeat than not to. I quesss you have just qualified your size. Perhaps you should change your name to Sandpebble."

Beat me fair and square and I'll buy the beer.

What's with the name-calling? It appears you are qualifying something about yourself.
 

Shorty

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Sandhusker

What's with the name-calling? It appears you are qualifying something about yourself.[/quote]


It is called arrogance Sandhusker, the man thinks he is smarter and better than anyone who does not agree with him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Beat me fair and square and I'll buy the beer."

You are beat continually yet too arrogant to recognize it.

As far as name calling, let those sinless cast the first stone. You've thrown out your fair share as I recall.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Shorty,

What this all boils down to is those who can support their position with facts and those who can't.

Guess who lost in court?

This is now about the Pickett losers coming up with excuses to justify their loss.




~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Shorty,

What this all boils down to is those who can support their position with facts and those who can't.

Guess who lost in court?

This is now about the Pickett losers coming up with excuses to justify their loss.




~SH~

I'll challenge you to the same as I did Agman - point out where I'm wrong.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Shorty,

What this all boils down to is those who can support their position with facts and those who can't.

Guess who lost in court?

This is now about the Pickett losers coming up with excuses to justify their loss.




~SH~

I'll challenge you to the same as I did Agman - point out where I'm wrong.

Pointing it out would do no good. You would just devise another phony interpretation. The court very clearly outlined why your interpretation is wrong. If you cannot read and decipher from their ruling nothing anyone says will help you. The burden of proof is on you to support your version of the law. The problem is yours, not Sh's, mine nor the courts. You are the one who is WRONG.
 

Latest posts

Top