The "Salmon Run"

[Tam]

Tam, I do not know the competition laws in Canada. The Tyson/IBP deal was a U.S. deal and obviously did not fall under the Canadain laws that are mentioned by Rod.

Jason, The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses in previous history in the U.S. I don't know what the deal in Canada was.

These are both your statements Econ so explain how Tyson is the processors of Chicken in 1957, Hogs in 1977,leading producer of corn and flour tortilla products by1983, leaped into the seafood business 1992, got into processing food items like French toast to seafood entrees in 1995, Refrigerated gourmet Pasta and sause products in 1997,Then in 2001 was forced by the courts to go through with the acquisition of IBP, Inc the power house of Beef and Pork processing if as you told Jason The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses. Don't you think that if they were under court order to limit themselves the courts would have seen the merger as maybe going against the historical court order you mention to Jason an would have stopped the merger

IBP going to court and forcing Tyson to go through with their contract of purchase was not a legal action to look into the matter of the market power issues.

Why not by forcing them to go through with the deal, Tyson acquired the MARKET POWER they are still enjoying to this day. Why didn't the courts look at the market power Tyson had built up over the previous 44 years and say if you aren't going to limit yourself we will and Stamp the deal a NO GO BECAUSE OF MARKET POWER LIMITATIONS. There was a standing court order wasn't there. They didn't they ruled in favor of IBP and handed TYSON the Market power they now have on a silver lined legal document file folder.

And Econ the truth is way over your head all you do is speculate and blame with NO PROOF to back yourself up that is why your creditibility on this web site is lower than a snakes belly. Is that an comparison that you as a Texan can understand. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Tam, I do not know the competition laws in Canada. The Tyson/IBP deal was a U.S. deal and obviously did not fall under the Canadain laws that are mentioned by Rod.

Jason, The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses in previous history in the U.S. I don't know what the deal in Canada was.

These are both your statements Econ so explain how Tyson is the processors of Chicken in 1957, Hogs in 1977,leading producer of corn and flour tortilla products by1983, leaped into the seafood business 1992, got into processing food items like French toast to seafood entrees in 1995, Refrigerated gourmet Pasta and sause products in 1997,Then in 2001 was forced by the courts to go through with the acquisition of IBP, Inc the power house of Beef and Pork processing if as you told Jason The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses. Don't you think that if they were under court order to limit themselves the courts would have seen the merger as maybe going against the historical court order you mention to Jason an would have stopped the merger

IBP going to court and forcing Tyson to go through with their contract of purchase was not a legal action to look into the matter of the market power issues.

Why not by forcing them to go through with the deal, Tyson acquired the MARKET POWER they are still enjoying to this day. Why didn't the courts look at the market power Tyson had built up over the previous 44 years and say if you aren't going to limit yourself we will and Stamp the deal a NO GO BECAUSE OF MARKET POWER LIMITATIONS. There was a standing court order wasn't there. They didn't they ruled in favor of IBP and handed TYSON the Market power they now have on a silver lined legal document file folder.

And Econ the truth is way over your head all you do is speculate and blame with NO PROOF to back yourself up that is why your creditibility on this web site is lower than a snakes belly. Is that an comparison that you as a Texan can understand. :wink:

Tam, this little post proves to me that you are intelligent enough to know the arguements on both sides. I have just two questions:

1) Why do you ALWAYS bring up the packer sales job argument and leave the producer arguments untold? Could it be Uncle Tyson, Uncle Cargill, or Uncle Sam? Maybe it is all three. Why do you sell out the producers so fast? This is the same argument most rcalfer's have with the NCBA. Could you be a packer backer trying to masquerade as a producer? This realization is what makes rcalf grow.

2) Do you know the history of the beef packers and the limitations put on them by the courts? Maybe you just know the side of the argument you are being fed. What is your source for the things you have posted? Tyson, Cargill, NCBA or the Canadian equivalent? Maybe a little more unbiased research will level your head instead of all the nonsense you have in this post and others.

 

[Tam]

Tam, I do not know the competition laws in Canada. The Tyson/IBP deal was a U.S. deal and obviously did not fall under the Canadain laws that are mentioned by Rod.

Jason, The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses in previous history in the U.S. I don't know what the deal in Canada was.

These are both your statements Econ so explain how Tyson is the processors of Chicken in 1957, Hogs in 1977,leading producer of corn and flour tortilla products by1983, leaped into the seafood business 1992, got into processing food items like French toast to seafood entrees in 1995, Refrigerated gourmet Pasta and sause products in 1997,Then in 2001 was forced by the courts to go through with the acquisition of IBP, Inc the power house of Beef and Pork processing if as you told Jason The packers were under court order that limited their involvement in other ag. businesses. Don't you think that if they were under court order to limit themselves the courts would have seen the merger as maybe going against the historical court order you mention to Jason an would have stopped the merger

IBP going to court and forcing Tyson to go through with their contract of purchase was not a legal action to look into the matter of the market power issues.

Why not by forcing them to go through with the deal, Tyson acquired the MARKET POWER they are still enjoying to this day. Why didn't the courts look at the market power Tyson had built up over the previous 44 years and say if you aren't going to limit yourself we will and Stamp the deal a NO GO BECAUSE OF MARKET POWER LIMITATIONS. There was a standing court order wasn't there. They didn't they ruled in favor of IBP and handed TYSON the Market power they now have on a silver lined legal document file folder.

And Econ the truth is way over your head all you do is speculate and blame with NO PROOF to back yourself up that is why your creditibility on this web site is lower than a snakes belly. Is that an comparison that you as a Texan can understand. :wink:

Tam, this little post proves to me that you are intelligent enough to know the arguements on both sides. I have just two questions:

1) Why do you ALWAYS bring up the packer sales job argument and leave the producer arguments untold? Could it be Uncle Tyson, Uncle Cargill, or Uncle Sam? Maybe it is all three. Why do you sell out the producers so fast? This is the same argument most rcalfer's have with the NCBA. Could you be a packer backer trying to masquerade as a producer? This realization is what makes rcalf grow.

2) Do you know the history of the beef packers and the limitations put on them by the courts? Maybe you just know the side of the argument you are being fed. What is your source for the things you have posted? Tyson, Cargill, NCBA or the Canadian equivalent? Maybe a little more unbiased research will level your head instead of all the nonsense you have in this post and others.

1. Econ I don't see the need to blame the packers for every little thing that happens to the producers as you do. I feel that if we stop the namecalling, and the pointing of fingers and the accusation with NO PROOF and concentrate on the truth then maybe just maybe we will beable to work through the problems OUR industry has and still have a little dignity left over to look each other in the eye and say have a nice day. I Also don't see the use in bitching about the packer profits when three investigations were done with all the same results NO EVIDENCE to back up the claims of wrong doing. I realize they took advantage of the situation that our beef industry handed them by having to many cattle for slaughter capacity but if they didn't do anything illegal then what is the use of spending our time bitching about it. If you or Rod have evidence you think will convict them of wrong doing by all means turn it over to the authorities but if not don't waste valuable time making accusation you can't back.

2. And Econ you are the only one trying to feed us anything you are the one that claimed there is a court order limiting the packers involvement in other sectors of the same industry but if that is true then tell us how a lowly Chicken man with a pickup load of chickens to his name turned that load of chickens in to a Mutli-Billion Dollar corporation traded on Wall Street in about 50 years all while the US Court system did nothing to stop him. Tyson wasn't always as big as they are now at sometime in the pass 50 years they must have been small enough to be controled by the courts.

Could you be a packer backer trying to masquerade as a producer?

Like I said before rest assure I'm a producer. I just happen to care about the truth not your fiction filled opinions. What are you masquerading as none of us know do we. :roll:

Maybe a little more unbiased research will level your head instead of all the nonsense you have in this post and others

If you have evidence that proves something bring it but I will not be holding my breath as I don't look good in BLUE.

I have just two questions:

I see you can't count either Econ I count more than two questions here

 

[Econ101]

1. Tam, where is the investigation that answered the questions producers had in a credible manner? It is your country, please post it.

2. Tam, read the history of the PSA in the U.S. and you will see the court order. It doesn't cover any of the time periods or items you ragged about. In short, you just blew a lot of hot air again that absolutely made no sense to anyone other than yourself and those that don't know better. I never made the allegations that you dismissed in your one sided comentary. It was an argument between your two ears only. How can anyone expect you to be any more competent than what you show on this forum?

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Econ ,why do you wanna fight with darn near everyone on here? Your always asking for the proof when you never post anything but BS.

 

[Econ101]

Econ ,why do you wanna fight with darn near everyone on here? Your always asking for the proof when you never post anything but BS.

mr, do you want to fight? I can gladly oblige. There is no "proof" to be posted on a forum like this. Only statements of observations and opinions with supporting materials. I have provided plenty. You have to bring your own thinking cap.

 

[Tam]

1. Tam, where is the investigation that answered the questions producers had in a credible manner? It is your country, please post it.

2. Tam, read the history of the PSA in the U.S. and you will see the court order. It doesn't cover any of the time periods or items you ragged about. In short, you just blew a lot of hot air again that absolutely made no sense to anyone other than yourself and those that don't know better. I never made the allegations that you dismissed in your one sided comentary. It was an argument between your two ears only. How can anyone expect you to be any more competent than what you show on this forum?

First you say the packers are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses. So I asked you how Tyson became the giants they are if they are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses And I even pointed out that in the IBP deal the courts forced Tyson to go through with the deal. I then asked you again how and why this would have happened if they were under the court order as you claimed they were.

NOW you are telling me to read the PSA and see the court order and it doesn't cover the time periods or items we were discussing. I have one question then WHY DID YOU BRING UP THE COURT ORDER IF IT DIDN'T COVER THE LAST 50 YEARS OR PACKERS BEING INVOLVED IN OTHER AG BUSINESSES?

 

[Econ101]

1. Tam, where is the investigation that answered the questions producers had in a credible manner? It is your country, please post it.

2. Tam, read the history of the PSA in the U.S. and you will see the court order. It doesn't cover any of the time periods or items you ragged about. In short, you just blew a lot of hot air again that absolutely made no sense to anyone other than yourself and those that don't know better. I never made the allegations that you dismissed in your one sided comentary. It was an argument between your two ears only. How can anyone expect you to be any more competent than what you show on this forum?

First you say the packers are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses. So I asked you how Tyson became the giants they are if they are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses And I even pointed out that in the IBP deal the courts forced Tyson to go through with the deal. I then asked you again how and why this would have happened if they were under the court order as you claimed they were.

NOW you are telling me to read the PSA and see the court order and it doesn't cover the time periods or items we were discussing. I have one question then WHY DID YOU BRING UP THE COURT ORDER IF IT DIDN'T COVER THE LAST 50 YEARS OR PACKERS BEING INVOLVED IN OTHER AG BUSINESSES?

Tam, you should never have been promoted out of the 6 th grade. I said the packers WERE under court order. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even read? The reason I brought it up is because a lot of what is going on today has already happened in the history of this industry. You should know that. You don't.

Even if I made a mistake in typing the post up(which I didn't, YOU JUST CAN'T READ), someone knowledgeable about this industry would know that. You obviously are not and yet you continue to post as if you were :roll:

 

[Tam]

1. Tam, where is the investigation that answered the questions producers had in a credible manner? It is your country, please post it.

2. Tam, read the history of the PSA in the U.S. and you will see the court order. It doesn't cover any of the time periods or items you ragged about. In short, you just blew a lot of hot air again that absolutely made no sense to anyone other than yourself and those that don't know better. I never made the allegations that you dismissed in your one sided comentary. It was an argument between your two ears only. How can anyone expect you to be any more competent than what you show on this forum?

First you say the packers are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses. So I asked you how Tyson became the giants they are if they are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses And I even pointed out that in the IBP deal the courts forced Tyson to go through with the deal. I then asked you again how and why this would have happened if they were under the court order as you claimed they were.

NOW you are telling me to read the PSA and see the court order and it doesn't cover the time periods or items we were discussing. I have one question then WHY DID YOU BRING UP THE COURT ORDER IF IT DIDN'T COVER THE LAST 50 YEARS OR PACKERS BEING INVOLVED IN OTHER AG BUSINESSES?

Tam, you should never have been promoted out of the 6 th grade. I said the packers WERE under court order. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even read? The reason I brought it up is because a lot of what is going on today has already happened in the history of this industry. You should know that. You don't.

Even if I made a mistake in typing the post up(which I didn't, YOU JUST CAN'T READ), someone knowledgeable about this industry would know that. You obviously are not and yet you continue to post as if you were :roll:

After two days of me repeatedly asking about the time frame and Tysons 2001 IBP Deal and you making comments about the it wasn't the time to review market power issues and the courts get things wrong, you didn't once point out that the court order was over 50 years old and had nothing to do with modern day business deals. Your comment was quoted and highlight repeatedly so why didn't you point out that your statement was very very very old news and had NOTHING to do with Tyson or any other packer that wants to be involved in more than one sector of the industry.
This is the problem with making statements that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the original discussion which was Rod saying

They are trying to ensure survival, but being in competing markets is illegal. Its called a conflict of interest and is anti-competitive and those laws need to be enforced.

to which Jason said he had never heard of it being illegal and you responded with what we NOW KNOW WAS USELESS CRAP AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN DAY BUSINESSES. If you have nothing modern to say stay out of the conversation, and stop wasting our time.

 

[Econ101]

First you say the packers are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses. So I asked you how Tyson became the giants they are if they are under court order to limit their involvement in other ag businesses And I even pointed out that in the IBP deal the courts forced Tyson to go through with the deal. I then asked you again how and why this would have happened if they were under the court order as you claimed they were.

NOW you are telling me to read the PSA and see the court order and it doesn't cover the time periods or items we were discussing. I have one question then WHY DID YOU BRING UP THE COURT ORDER IF IT DIDN'T COVER THE LAST 50 YEARS OR PACKERS BEING INVOLVED IN OTHER AG BUSINESSES?

Tam, you should never have been promoted out of the 6 th grade. I said the packers WERE under court order. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even read? The reason I brought it up is because a lot of what is going on today has already happened in the history of this industry. You should know that. You don't.

Even if I made a mistake in typing the post up(which I didn't, YOU JUST CAN'T READ), someone knowledgeable about this industry would know that. You obviously are not and yet you continue to post as if you were :roll:

After two days of me repeatedly asking about the time frame and Tysons 2001 IBP Deal and you making comments about the it wasn't the time to review market power issues and the courts get things wrong, you didn't once point out that the court order was over 50 years old and had nothing to do with modern day business deals. Your comment was quoted and highlight repeatedly so why didn't you point out that your statement was very very very old news and had NOTHING to do with Tyson or any other packer that wants to be involved in more than one sector of the industry.
This is the problem with making statements that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the original discussion which was Rod saying

They are trying to ensure survival, but being in competing markets is illegal. Its called a conflict of interest and is anti-competitive and those laws need to be enforced.

to which Jason said he had never heard of it being illegal and you responded with what we NOW KNOW WAS USELESS CRAP AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN DAY BUSINESSES. If you have nothing modern to say stay out of the conversation, and stop wasting our time.

Yes, I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry. You just showed that you did not know it when you posted in response to my post.

Tam I can not help how your brain works or how you pretend to think but don't quite get there. That is your personal problem, not mine.

Courts can and do impose restrictions on industries that are under court order. It has happened in the past when the packers abused their positions and it will probably happen in the future. It sure needs to. Did I say they were under court order now? That was the fallacy you made up in your own conspiring mind so you would have something to post on this board.

You are right about one thing, you are a waste of time when it comes to making any sense. Are your statements to me going to make me stop anything? In your dreams. If I take the time to read your idiotic posts, I may just want to keep pointing out your faults of jumping to conclusions and your total ignorance posted on this board.

Why?


Because I like to dance, even it it is with someone as stupid as you.

I hope BMR is not jealous.

 

[Tam]

one more thing Econ why didn't you say the court order wasn't still in effect when I asked you straight out if it was

Why not by forcing them to go through with the deal, Tyson acquired the MARKET POWER they are still enjoying to this day. Why didn't the courts look at the market power Tyson had built up over the previous 44 years and say if you aren't going to limit yourself we will and Stamp the deal a NO GO BECAUSE OF MARKET POWER LIMITATIONS. There was a standing court order wasn't there. They didn't they ruled in favor of IBP and handed TYSON the Market power they now have on a silver lined legal document file folder.

 

[Econ101]

one more thing Econ why didn't you say the court order wasn't still in effect when I asked you straight out if it was

Why not by forcing them to go through with the deal, Tyson acquired the MARKET POWER they are still enjoying to this day. Why didn't the courts look at the market power Tyson had built up over the previous 44 years and say if you aren't going to limit yourself we will and Stamp the deal a NO GO BECAUSE OF MARKET POWER LIMITATIONS. There was a standing court order wasn't there. They didn't they ruled in favor of IBP and handed TYSON the Market power they now have on a silver lined legal document file folder.

If you knew anything about the Packers and Stockyards Act, Tam, you would know that poultry was put in relatively recently. Poultry still does not have the regulatory protections that beef does due to the technicality of poultry not being defined as "livestock" under the act. Arlen Specter knew this was the case when poultry included in the act but he was taking care of his close friend Frank Perdue and their poultry operations.

The USDA is currently rubber stamping packer abuses by their inaction and the leadership in Congress is taking campaign contributions from those who are behind these abuses. Oversight hearings are being called for by congress because the truth in these matters can only come out in hearings. Lawyers can not compel govt. employees to testify in court on these issues and lack of regulatory action. The current leadership has shielded the packers from this type of scrutiny.

When you have anything that comes close to an intelligent thought about what is currently happening in the industry, please post it. So far you have been an utter failure in that regard.

I still wonder if you are just that dumb or one of the uncles has you in thier pocket. Either way, you do a disservice to producers.

 

[Tam]

Tam, you should never have been promoted out of the 6 th grade. I said the packers WERE under court order. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even read? The reason I brought it up is because a lot of what is going on today has already happened in the history of this industry. You should know that. You don't.

Even if I made a mistake in typing the post up(which I didn't, YOU JUST CAN'T READ), someone knowledgeable about this industry would know that. You obviously are not and yet you continue to post as if you were :roll:

After two days of me repeatedly asking about the time frame and Tysons 2001 IBP Deal and you making comments about the it wasn't the time to review market power issues and the courts get things wrong, you didn't once point out that the court order was over 50 years old and had nothing to do with modern day business deals. Your comment was quoted and highlight repeatedly so why didn't you point out that your statement was very very very old news and had NOTHING to do with Tyson or any other packer that wants to be involved in more than one sector of the industry.
This is the problem with making statements that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the original discussion which was Rod saying

They are trying to ensure survival, but being in competing markets is illegal. Its called a conflict of interest and is anti-competitive and those laws need to be enforced.

to which Jason said he had never heard of it being illegal and you responded with what we NOW KNOW WAS USELESS CRAP AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN DAY BUSINESSES. If you have nothing modern to say stay out of the conversation, and stop wasting our time.

Yes, I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry. You just showed that you did not know it when you posted in response to my post.

Tam I can not help how your brain works or how you pretend to think but don't quite get there. That is your personal problem, not mine.

Courts can and do impose restrictions on industries that are under court order. It has happened in the past when the packers abused their positions and it will probably happen in the future. It sure needs to. Did I say they were under court order now? That was the fallacy you made up in your own conspiring mind so you would have something to post on this board.

You are right about one thing, you are a waste of time when it comes to making any sense. Are your statements to me going to make me stop anything? In your dreams. If I take the time to read your idiotic posts, I may just want to keep pointing out your faults of jumping to conclusions and your total ignorance posted on this board.

Why?


Because I like to dance, even it it is with someone as stupid as you.

I hope BMR is not jealous.

This shows how pathetic you really are. Go waste someone elses time with you little games. You can't be trust to post relevant material or admit it isn't relevant when asked straight out.

 

[Econ101]

Tam: "This shows how pathetic you really are. Go waste someone elses time with you little games. You can't be trust to post relevant material or admit it isn't relevant when asked straight out. Mad"

I would say it shows how you can't understand the written word, let alone make a call on it being libelous.

Tam, if your posts made a little more sense and I could tell you really had pertinent questions or points, I would not have a big deal out of this. If you and MRJ are examples of what is at the head of cattle organizations in Canada and the U.S., no wonder this industry is in the messs it is in.
Your only utility is to to show how the industry has been lead into the problems it has and by what kind of people. Your ignorance on what is happening in this industry and your continued defense of the status quo will allow the beef markets to be captured just as it was done in poultry. I am sorry your thinking isn't fresh enough to see that.

 

[cowsense]

Econ- If this is an example of a healthy discussion you need professional psychiatric help! Your meaningless and incessant waste of dialogue space has reached a new low............YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER to contribute to any discussion about the beef industry. It's bad enough that you post pure garbage but the ultimate is when you resort to personaly insulting everyone that challenges your impaired reasoning! I for one feel that the Bull Session would be a much better forum without your pathetic attempts to dominate EVERY discussion.

 

[Tam]

I have thought about this, sure I didn't know what was in the PSA that is why I was asking questions. :roll: That said we get the last laugh because he, in all he gloating, just proved something, that I have been asking all along. I asked If what Econ said was true, then how did Tyson become what they are today. If you look back you will see that this is true. I thought by his statement they had broke a court order or had the courts looking the other way while they became the giants they are. BUT, Now that he has admitted that what he posted was crap

Yes, I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry.

He also admitted TYSON DIDN"T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, DIDN"T BREAK ANY COURT ORDERS, THE COURTS DIDN'T LOOK THE OTHER WAY, THEY DID NOTHING ILLEGAL TO GET WHERE THEY ARE TODAY. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Econ101]

I have thought about this, sure I didn't know what was in the PSA that is why I was asking questions. :roll: That said we get the last laugh because he, in all he gloating, just proved something, that I have been asking all along. I asked If what Econ said was true, then how did Tyson become what they are today. If you look back you will see that this is true. I thought by his statement they had broke a court order or had the courts looking the other way while they became the giants they are. BUT, Now that he has admitted that what he posted was crap

Yes, I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry.

He also admitted TYSON DIDN"T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, DIDN"T BREAK ANY COURT ORDERS, THE COURTS DIDN'T LOOK THE OTHER WAY, THEY DID NOTHING ILLEGAL TO GET WHERE THEY ARE TODAY. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, there hasn't been any real enforcement of the market power laws in a long time. GIPSA gave ALL the poultry companies a free ride even after they were included in the act just recently. They were included because poultry has had a lot of abuses and it has become a major meat in U.S. consumption. If you do not investigate, you will not be able to claim they did anything illegal. That is what all the uproar in the U.S. is about. Just because they haven't been held accountable doesn't mean they haven't been breaking the law. It is about like the analogy I used. If no one is looking, you can't catch it. :roll:

There haven't been any court orders because the USDA/GIPSA enforcement has been a farce. Tyson is breaking EVERY protection provided under the PSA for producers. The 11th circuit has been substituting its judgement for the jury's "as a matter of law". What is really happening is the 11th circuit is ignoring the law. All this while our politicians in power receive their payoffs. The payoffs are why the committees are not holding hearings on these issues.

 

[Econ101]

Econ- If this is an example of a healthy discussion you need professional psychiatric help! Your meaningless and incessant waste of dialogue space has reached a new low............YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER to contribute to any discussion about the beef industry. It's bad enough that you post pure garbage but the ultimate is when you resort to personaly insulting everyone that challenges your impaired reasoning! I for one feel that the Bull Session would be a much better forum without your pathetic attempts to dominate EVERY discussion.

It isn't healthy, Cowsense. I too can post a bunch of nonsense. Tam brings out the best in me.

I don't like Tam saying I said something that I didn't and then using nonsense to counter it. I am tired of her calling anybody on credibilty when she does this. I am sorry you don't like it . I obviously don't either.

 

[Econ101]

I have thought about this, sure I didn't know what was in the PSA that is why I was asking questions. :roll: That said we get the last laugh because he, in all he gloating, just proved something, that I have been asking all along. I asked If what Econ said was true, then how did Tyson become what they are today. If you look back you will see that this is true. I thought by his statement they had broke a court order or had the courts looking the other way while they became the giants they are. BUT, Now that he has admitted that what he posted was crap

Yes, I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry.

He also admitted TYSON DIDN"T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, DIDN"T BREAK ANY COURT ORDERS, THE COURTS DIDN'T LOOK THE OTHER WAY, THEY DID NOTHING ILLEGAL TO GET WHERE THEY ARE TODAY. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you were really just asking the question instead of railing against my view with nothing, I apologize. It sure didn't seem that way to me. I looked up the following on the net for your information on Tyson poultry issues:

CAMPAIGN FOR CONTRACT AGRICULTURE REFORM
a voice for contract farmers, ranchers and their communities


Why Amending the Packers and Stockyards Act is Important

1) Packers and Stockyards protection would be extended to all poultry farmers, not just those who raise the broilers.

The definition of a "poultry grower" in the present Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) is "any person engaged in the business of raising and caring for live poultry for slaughter by another... ." This definition has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the P&S Act applies only to the broiler growers because the birds they care for go directly to a processing plant. The Act has been interpreted as not applying to breeder hen or pullet growers. *

The proposed poultry act will amend the P&S Act by deleting references to "slaughter," so that pullet and breeder hen growers are also covered. The amended definition accurately reflects the integrated nature of the modern poultry industry where the total supply line for a processing plant - including pullet, breeder, and broiler farms - is tightly controlled by one company.

* Poultry production has several stages. Before a group of breeder hens are of laying age, they are raised on a pullet farm. After the pullets reach laying age, they are moved to a breeder farm where the hens produce eggs that are collected and trucked to the hatchery. Once the eggs hatch, the chicks are delivered to a broiler farm where they are raised until ready for processing.


2) USDA would be granted administrative authority to stop unfair practices in the poultry industry that matches its authority in the beef and pork industries.

The present Packers and Stockyards Act makes it unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer "to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice or device, or to give any unreasonable advantage to any particular person or locality." However, USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has no general authority to stop the unfair practices nor penalize the poultry dealers. As former GIPSA Administrator Jim Baker commented during his tenure, "We have the responsibility but not the authority."

When violations of the Act are discovered in the livestock industry, GIPSA has the authority to take administrative actions, including holding hearings and assessing civil and criminal penalties. However, GIPSA does not have this administrative enforcement authority in the poultry industry.

When violations of the Act are discovered in the poultry industry, GIPSA can only issue an order to cease illegal conduct. In extreme cases, GIPSA can send the complaint to the Justice Department. >From the poultry company's perspective, breaking the law and increasing company profits through fraudulent or deceptive practices carries little financial or legal risk.

The proposed poultry act will give all contract poultry growers the same legal protection under the Packers and Stockyards Act as other livestock producers. The proposed poultry act will help end the unfair practices in the poultry industry.

For more information, contact Steve Etka at 703-354-3303 Camp

For your information, the chicken lady I spoke of raised the hens that laid the eggs. She was excluded from any of the protections of the PSA because her hens were mainly used to lay the eggs to hatch the broilers. Her chickens did end up in soup after their laying days were over, but that didn't count under the finely crafted legislation adding poultry dealers to the PSA that looked good but had no teeth.

Tam: "That said we get the last laugh because he, in all he gloating, just proved something, that I have been asking all along. I asked If what Econ said was true, then how did Tyson become what they are today. If you look back you will see that this is true. I thought by his statement they had broke a court order or had the courts looking the other way while they became the giants they are. BUT, Now that he has admitted that what he posted was crap "

My post wasn't crap. Your reading of it was.

 

[Tam]

Tam: "That said we get the last laugh because he, in all he gloating, just proved something, that I have been asking all along. I asked If what Econ said was true, then how did Tyson become what they are today. If you look back you will see that this is true. I thought by his statement they had broke a court order or had the courts looking the other way while they became the giants they are. BUT, Now that he has admitted that what he posted was crap "

From Econ

My post wasn't crap. Your reading of it was.

from Econ

Yes,I knew the court order was old and not applicable to the recent events in the industry.

If it was so old it didn't apply to recent events then it was crap posted to mislead. When you didn't clarify it was posted to mislead after you were asked straight out if it true, made it even worst crap ment to mislead. Which made you look even more pathetic when you finally did admit you posted it to mislead. I don't know how you learn what is true and what is not but I and most other as questions like, If what you say is true then why did this happen, or there is a standing court order isn't there? both of which you didn't say anything about it being old and not applicable to recent events which made this whole conversation crap perpetrated by no other than YOU Econ. And you wonder why your credibility is lower than a snakes belly. :roll: