The sky is not falling Rod--SH.

[agman]

IF PACKERS CAN MANIPULATE PRICES, WHY WOULD THEY SUSTAIN LOSSES???

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

I think alot of people in this forum are taking a relatively short term view of price manipulation.

SH, I realize that I've been stuck in the packer blamer camp, even though I've never outright said they DID manipulate markets. I've only presented logical arguements that state how they COULD manipulate markets.

Anyway, take this for however you want: It would be tough for a company to have a huge effect on prices over the short term, even though they may be exerting alot of influence. Instead, most well run companies will take a long term view of profitability. The price influence they exert may only amount to a few cents in the short term, and may not even be noticeable, but over the longer term, that can really add up. Thats why you can't simply look at overall prices, but profitability of everyone who is involved in the market over the long term.

Rod

You make a valid point however you overlook the fact of relative change. Not every segment enacts the same level of efficiency or change at the same time. Each sector is exposed to different elements at different times. As such, there are short run dislocations that occur in the various sectors of the beef industry and just as in every other industry. That is not manipulation, it is just the real world of business as sectors strive to maximize returns. You operate no differently if you are successful which I expect you are. Have a cool one and GO BRONCO'S

 

[agman]

1. What circumstances allow packers to manipulate markets at sometimes and not at others?

While Econ doesn't need my help here, and I may be mucking things up, I don't think I've seen him say that packers only manipulate the market occasionally. I think what hes saying (and if I'm full of crap, Econ, tell me) is that the amount of market manipulation may not be able to erase other market pressures, but its still there and its still exerting its influence. Or perhaps its not exerting its influence, but the manipulation itself is still illegal and still there.

Rod

In all due respect you are wrong on this issue. SH's question is appropriate per Conman's own comments. Furthermore he changed his position from packers manipulating the beef market only on occasion to manipulating the other competing meats.

He has more twists than a pretzel and never runs out of manipulation theories. Remember that theories are not fact and theories from Conman are his own fantasies. He has not provided readers on this forum one factual bit of evidence to support his endless claims.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Anyway, take this for however you want: It would be tough for a company to have a huge effect on prices over the short term, even though they may be exerting alot of influence. Instead, most well run companies will take a long term view of profitability. The price influence they exert may only amount to a few cents in the short term, and may not even be noticeable, but over the longer term, that can really add up. Thats why you can't simply look at overall prices, but profitability of everyone who is involved in the market over the long term.

Rod

You make a valid point however you overlook the fact of relative change. Not every segment enacts the same level of efficiency or change at the same time. Each sector is exposed to different elements at different times. As such, there are short run dislocations that occur in the various sectors of the beef industry and just as in every other industry. That is not manipulation, it is just the real world of business as sectors strive to maximize returns.

Certainly, but its just another reason why we can't really look at the short term say 'Here's proof', in either direction. As far as the efficiencies of the various segments, we're getting into an area that would take months of number crunching to even come remotely close to calculating. However, if a segment of the market is increasing efficiency more rapidly than another segment, that segment should be seeing increasing profit margins.

 

[Econ101]

So conman answers number 3 the packers are just generous.

If the packers are just generous then just sell when they are being generous.

If the packers can only manipulate the markets for periods of time then get their not nicees kicked at other times it disproves any manipulation.

If that scenario was correct that they can only manipulate it at times, and they can only make $26 while manipulating it, why do some small packers survive? They haven't got the volume to manipulate the market, but they stay in business. It isn't possible for the big boys to make a profit without manipulation but smaller packers can?

I think conman's "voices" are getting confused.

No, Gay Jason on the downlow, Tyson is not generous---except to themselves. They do give away a lot of food. It is the sell it or smell it deal and keeping it off of markets that prompts them most times.

Smaller packers do not have the market power to manipulate markets. They can help a bigger player manipulate markets by going along with them, however. Some small packers survive because they are not in the low cost high volume, low quality game.

Making 670% more profits due to market manipulation is not an "they only make $26 while manipulating it" statement unless you are the packer or packer backer. They always want more. Like rkaiser said, they want it all.

I hope you get your operation reversed. It is an elective surgery.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Packers can manipulate markets. Pickett prove that."

1. Pickett didn't prove a damn thing. Pickett lost!

Conman: "Pickett did not claim that Tyson manipulated the markets or broke the law all of the time. They did prove that it was manipulated at certain intervals."

2. Pickett didn't prove a damn thing. Pickett lost!

Conman: "The argument that they could manipulate them all of the time, or that it would be in their best interest to do so shows how little you know about the markets."

3. The argument that they can only manipulate markets under certain conditions or only manipulate markets when it's in their best interest to do so shows how little you know about the markets which is virtually nothing.

Conman: "During the manipulation periods, their margins increased."

4. Hahaha! So anytime packers are profitable, they are manipulating markets and when they're not profitable, they're not manipulating markets.

What an idiot!



~SH~

1. It aint over till the fat lady sings. Even then it can be reversed later.

2. See #1.

3. Careful how you word this, as it is important. They would not be able to manipulate the market the same way without captive supply in its variious forms. When this is all over and forgotten it will happen again. There is always the next unethical man who thinks he can fool everyone and manipulate the market. Pack the places where you can get caught and dumb up the regulatory agencies. Have funding to land grant universities come in earmarked forms so the studies can be manipulated and you get the answer you want. There will always be another Vukina down the road.

It is always the case that they can manipulate only under certain conditions. They cultured those conditions and then did it. When I said they do it when it is in their best interests, I meant just that. I did not say that they could not manipulate it at other times. Other times may or may not be strategically important. They may have the power to do it, but it may not pay off. You really took what I said here and paraphrased it into something totally different than what I said. It shows your reading comprehension skills are low or that you just don't understand what I wrote. Try again. We have been over this sort of thing before and you never seem to learn. Maybe you should move to Canada, get free medical care, and have the operation I keep advising Jason to get.

4. Whether packers are profitable or not has nothing to do with whether or not they manipulate the markets. What do you think---we have to guarentee that crime pays?

 

[Econ101]

1. What circumstances allow packers to manipulate markets at sometimes and not at others?

While Econ doesn't need my help here, and I may be mucking things up, I don't think I've seen him say that packers only manipulate the market occasionally. I think what hes saying (and if I'm full of crap, Econ, tell me) is that the amount of market manipulation may not be able to erase other market pressures, but its still there and its still exerting its influence. Or perhaps its not exerting its influence, but the manipulation itself is still illegal and still there.
Rod

1. In all due respect you are wrong on this issue. SH's question is appropriate per Conman's own comments. Furthermore he changed his position from packers manipulating the beef market only on occasion to manipulating the other competing meats.

2. He has more twists than a pretzel and never runs out of manipulation theories. Remember that theories are not fact and theories from Conman are his own fantasies. He has not provided readers on this forum one factual bit of evidence to support his endless claims.

1. I haven't changed my position one bit, Agman. I came on to this board saying that Tyson benefitted swinging the beef markets in its poultry business. I am not the one that keeps arguing that they have to manipulate the markets all the time to prove that they manipulate the markets at all. That is your silly argument that holds no water. Tyson is using its market power in both markets to drive out the competiton and have it all to themselves. You are just a packer backer trying to bring up old arguments I have already refuted. You need to move to Canada too and join SH and Jason on the Yellow brick road to Oz for your operation. Maybe you can get a group deal. The Canadians might not want to subsidize your medical costs however.

2. What is happening is there for all to see. I have posted numerous independent sources for reference. He who is willingly blind will not be able to see.

 

[Jason]

So now conman switches his story again. Surprize surprize.

He said packers are generous from time to time by not manipulating the markets now he switches to they want all the profit they can get all the time.

So we go back to the question if they can manipulate the markets and want to do so why don't they?

They can't. That's why.

A packer having times of profit doesn't prove they manipulate the market.

 

[Sandhusker]

I have no problem at all understanding Econ. Some of you yeahoos don't like what he says so you simply dummy up. You think you are dragging his credibilty thru the mud, but the rest of us who have basic reading comprehension skills can see who's credibilty is suffering.

 

[Econ101]

So now conman switches his story again. Surprize surprize.

He said packers are generous from time to time by not manipulating the markets now he switches to they want all the profit they can get all the time.

So we go back to the question if they can manipulate the markets and want to do so why don't they?

They can't. That's why.

A packer having times of profit doesn't prove they manipulate the market.

You are right about your last sentence. They don't have anything to do with one another. It is a non sequitur. It does not (necessarily) follow. In the Pickett case, Tyson did have higher profits due to their market manipulation. They could have manipulated the markets and lost money. I am glad you finally got that straightened out, Jason.

 

[Jason]

Ok conman so now explain how Tyson(IBP) was only able to make $26 per head when they supposedly manipulated markets?

To average $3.88 they had to lose money the rest of the time.

At what time did they make profits without manipulation?

Explain how small companies can make legitimate profits but larger ones can't.

When you take a phony stance you show how shallow your supposed economic knowledge is in the real world.

I supposed you will switch your position back again and say the profits shown in Pickett are only from manipulation and ignore the longer term profit margins of packers.

Under your kind of economics packers need laws to garantee them profits if they can't profit under real world conditions without so called manipulation.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Making 670% more profits due to market manipulation is not an "they only make $26 while manipulating it" statement unless you are the packer or packer backer."

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! You are still trying to compare two figures that are not comparable EVEN AFTER WE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.

The $3.88 per head was an average of the 5 largest packers THROUGH THE NINETIES.

The $26 per head was an average FOR IBP during this era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation (somewhere around 2001 - 2004).

THE TWO FIGURES ARE NOT COMPARABLE!!!!!

So where do you come up with this 670% more profit bullshit? All that is is a smoke screen. Hell if ibp was only making a dollar a head for a particular time period and their profits increased to $6.70 per head, that is a 670% increase in profit. That tells you nothing.


Let's break down the variables for Conman so he can MAYBE understand them BETTER:

1. Different time periods have different market factors that allow profitability at some times and not at others.

2. Different packing companies have different costs, different efficiencies, and different values placed on different beef and beef by products.

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU COMPARE TWO TIME PERIODS WITH DIFFERENT PACKERS.

You're such an idiot!

Sandbag: "I have no problem at all understanding Econ."

That's not surprising. He's just as deceptive as you and he sings your packer blaming song. That's all you need to understand since facts and truth have never mattered to you. That's also why you support R-CULT. The need to blame trumps your need to base your decisions on facts.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

1.

Ok conman so now explain how Tyson(IBP) was only able to make $26 per head when they supposedly manipulated markets?

2. To average $3.88 they had to lose money the rest of the time.

3. At what time did they make profits without manipulation?

4. Explain how small companies can make legitimate profits but larger ones can't.

5. When you take a phony stance you show how shallow your supposed economic knowledge is in the real world.

6. I supposed you will switch your position back again and say the profits shown in Pickett are only from manipulation and ignore the longer term profit margins of packers.

7. Under your kind of economics packers need laws to garantee them profits if they can't profit under real world conditions without so called manipulation.

1. Okay, Gay Jason on the downlow. Only? Is the 26 not higher than the long term industry average of 3.88? Get real. Even if it was zero and they manipulated the market to get an advantage in their substitutes it would be market manipulation. It just happens that Agman calculated it to be a number that is much higher than the industry long term average. Whether they made money manipulating the market or not does not show whether or not they manipulated the market. They are two different questions and answers entirely. If a bank robber goes into a bank, robs it, and only gets fake money, did he commit the robbery? Your argument here is for the birds (in more ways than one; it is really for the poultry).

2. So what? What is your point?

3. Ask Agman, but I will not certify his calculations or interpretation.

4. Small and large companies can make legitimate profits. They have to have ethical management to do so. Look at Whole Foods.

5. Same to you. You are the one who has a hard time with the "hundred dolla" economic words, not I. Do they have secondary education in Canada for people like you? I have already pointed out a few resources for you to look into. Go to wikpedia or something.

6. The longer term profit margins have nothing to do with whether or not they manipulated the markets. That is your argument and it just doesn't make sense. It is a non sequitur.

7. Being a Canadian you should know all about guarenteeing profits for packers. Too bad you allowed your fellow taxpayers to that.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Making 670% more profits due to market manipulation is not an "they only make $26 while manipulating it" statement unless you are the packer or packer backer."

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! You are still trying to compare two figures that are not comparable EVEN AFTER WE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU.

The $3.88 per head was an average of the 5 largest packers THROUGH THE NINETIES.

The $26 per head was an average FOR IBP during this era of "SUPPOSED" market manipulation (somewhere around 2001 - 2004).

THE TWO FIGURES ARE NOT COMPARABLE!!!!!

So where do you come up with this 670% more profit BS? All that is is a smoke screen. Hell if ibp was only making a dollar a head for a particular time period and their profits increased to $6.70 per head, that is a 670% increase in profit. That tells you nothing.


Let's break down the variables for Conman so he can MAYBE understand them BETTER:

1. Different time periods have different market factors that allow profitability at some times and not at others.

2. Different packing companies have different costs, different efficiencies, and different values placed on different beef and beef by products.

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU COMPARE TWO TIME PERIODS WITH DIFFERENT PACKERS.

You're such an idiot!

Sandbag: "I have no problem at all understanding Econ."

That's not surprising. He's just as deceptive as you and he sings your packer blaming song. That's all you need to understand since facts and truth have never mattered to you. That's also why you support R-CULT. The need to blame trumps your need to base your decisions on facts.


~SH~

SH, the numbers were put forth by you in your arguments to begin with. I just used your own numbers because I did not want to get into an argument on how they were calculated. They totally support all my conclusions. I thank you for bringing them forth althought I do not certify the accuracy of the numbers still.

"So where do you come up with this 670% more profit BS? All that is is a smoke screen. Hell if ibp was only making a dollar a head for a particular time period and their profits increased to $6.70 per head, that is a 670% increase in profit. That tells you nothing."

If it was a negative number it would be an even harder number to calculate. This argument points out the same problem Agman has with his demand index, although the demand index allows one to make incorrect economic assumptions. He is the one who initiated or encouraged (or whatever word he used) to perpetuate those misconceptions.

The fact is that during the time period of manipulation, the profits per head went over a calculated long term average that was calculated by Agman and used in arguing these points by SH and Jason.

I am just using the "facts" that you brought to the discussion.

 

[Jason]

So conman again reverts to his homosexual fascination instead of backing his phony position.

How can small packers make money without manipulating the markets if larger packers can't?

It doesn't happen in the real world. I don't care what happens in conman's fantasy world.

 

[Anonymous]

I thought you didn't read my garbage Conman, here you are responding again.

Must have lied again huh? Imagine that!

Conman: "They totally support all my conclusions."

They don't support a damn thing. IBP's profits during the 90's were very likely higher than the average of the 5 major packers so there would be no way to know what the increase in their profitability was from the 90's to the 2000's. You misused the information because you weren't smart enough to understand it.

Besides, your conclusions are based on what you want to believe, not on what the facts will support. Your only agenda is to "BWAME DA PACKAH".

Conman: "This argument points out the same problem Agman has with his demand index, although the demand index allows one to make incorrect economic assumptions. He is the one who initiated or encouraged (or whatever word he used) to perpetuate those misconceptions."

For Agman to absorb an insult from you is not unlike being run over by a babby buggy. You can't contradict anything he has stated because you're an idiot and prove it with every post. You're not even smart enough to realize that you're not smart.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

1. So conman again reverts to his homosexual fascination instead of backing his phony position.

2. How can small packers make money without manipulating the markets if larger packers can't?

3. It doesn't happen in the real world. I don't care what happens in conman's fantasy world.

1. You started the name calling. I would prefer it stopped. Don't cry "poor me" when you start the post with name calling.

2. Lots of ways. What does that have to do with anything? There are local packers that make money off of cutting meat for private parties. What is your point here?

3. You are not an informed person, Gay Jason on the downlow.

 

[mwj]

1. So conman again reverts to his homosexual fascination instead of backing his phony position.

2. How can small packers make money without manipulating the markets if larger packers can't?

3. It doesn't happen in the real world. I don't care what happens in conman's fantasy world.

1. You started the name calling. I would prefer it stopped. Don't cry "poor me" when you start the post with name calling.

2. Lots of ways. What does that have to do with anything? There are local packers that make money off of cutting meat for private parties. What is your point here?


Was this suposed to be the answer to a question? If you have something to add we would like to hear it. If you want to talk about sex take it to a PM. You do a lot of talking about your children but you have no prob. with posting trash here for others children to read! Just my opinion for what it is worth.

3. You are not an informed person, Gay Jason on the downlow.

 

[Jason]

Nice diversion again.

How can small plants make money if large plants that are more efficient can't without manipulation?

Simple question, but if conman answers it he blows all his theories out of the water.

If Tyson couldn't make a profit without manipulation no plant can unless they have a magic way to force consumers to pay more.

We could go back to that lie of conman's, how consumers can be forced to buy what Tyson tells them to. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

1. So conman again reverts to his homosexual fascination instead of backing his phony position.

2. How can small packers make money without manipulating the markets if larger packers can't?

3. It doesn't happen in the real world. I don't care what happens in conman's fantasy world.

1. You started the name calling. I would prefer it stopped. Don't cry "poor me" when you start the post with name calling.

2. Lots of ways. What does that have to do with anything? There are local packers that make money off of cutting meat for private parties. What is your point here?


Was this suposed to be the answer to a question? If you have something to add we would like to hear it. If you want to talk about sex take it to a PM. You do a lot of talking about your children but you have no prob. with posting trash here for others children to read! Just my opinion for what it is worth.

3. You are not an informed person, Gay Jason on the downlow.

I wouldn't mind of all name calling was eliminated on this board. In respect to your request, Jason will be called Gason from now on when he gets my handle wrong. Just tell your kids it is a foreign name.

By the way, your Senator Lugar has been no help for the average producer. Under the last GIPSA official that tried to carry out the act, Jim Baker, he had a shouting match in the hallway because of the Justice Department not taking any action on the cases handed to them. Kerry had to settle things down. Actions like these have a lot more harm than any name calling on this board to the families of the american farmer.

And yet you remain silent.

Where is the question you want answered, mwj?

Sorry, mwj, that was the hoiser state, not yours.

 

[Econ101]

Nice diversion again.

How can small plants make money if large plants that are more efficient can't without manipulation?

Simple question, but if conman answers it he blows all his theories out of the water.

If Tyson couldn't make a profit without manipulation no plant can unless they have a magic way to force consumers to pay more.

We could go back to that lie of conman's, how consumers can be forced to buy what Tyson tells them to. :roll:

Who said large plants can't make money without manipulation? Tyson is playing the market concentration game right now.

Of course large plants can make money without manipulation. Whether it is a well run and managed Tyson plant or another company's plant, it can definetely be done. It should be done, and when manipulation is a part of increased profitability or not, it should be prosecuted. We don't have to guarentee success to market manipulators to prosecute them. That is an absurd assertion.

No one should guarentee Tyson or any other company profitability. Even if their existence in the market place is requires market manipulation. That would not be the free market working.

Tell me Gason, what you are thinking here.