The sky is not falling Rod--SH.

[Jason]

Conman your own words say you believe Tyson(IBP) was guilty of manipulation as per Pickett. (even though the courts say you are wrong).

In the Pickett case the best profit proven was $26 per head during that whole so called manipulation.

When the industry AVERAGE through the 90's was $3.88, there were times of loss.

Either you believe packers losing money is manipulation, or they can't make a profit without the so called manipulation.

You have stated small packers don't have the clout to manipulate markets. Yet some survive and no company can survive with continued sustained losses.

So answer the question of how small packers can be better at making a profit?

You also content Tyson will pressure small plants out of business. So now they can not only make money when Tyson can't but they can withstand Tyson's so called cheating.

You haven't held a rational position since you started posting here so I doubt you will be smart enough to even understand your own backwards theory.

Why would anyone expect a self proclaimed economics expert that doesn't even own cattle to know much about the industry?

I think SH might have been right when he suggested you could be Taylor from the Pickett trial.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I wouldn't mind of all name calling was eliminated on this board."

I'm sure you would but you are a Conman and you need to be addressed as such.

Conman: "Tyson is playing the market concentration game right now."

Explain it! Anyone can make cheap statements!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman your own words say you believe Tyson(IBP) was guilty of manipulation as per Pickett. (even though the courts say you are wrong).

In the Pickett case the best profit proven was $26 per head during that whole so called manipulation.

When the industry AVERAGE through the 90's was $3.88, there were times of loss.

1. Either you believe packers losing money is manipulation, or they can't make a profit without the so called manipulation.

You have stated small packers don't have the clout to manipulate markets. Yet some survive and no company can survive with continued sustained losses.

2. So answer the question of how small packers can be better at making a profit?

3. You also content Tyson will pressure small plants out of business. So now they can not only make money when Tyson can't but they can withstand Tyson's so called cheating.

4. You haven't held a rational position since you started posting here so I doubt you will be smart enough to even understand your own backwards theory.

5. Why would anyone expect a self proclaimed economics expert that doesn't even own cattle to know much about the industry?

6. I think SH might have been right when he suggested you could be Taylor from the Pickett trial.

1. Gason, Whether packers can make money or not has no bearing on whether or not they are breaking the PSA. I don't know why you get that so confused. No one owes them a profit. They could manipulate the markets, make some customers real mad at them and their costs could go up because the buyers avoid them. They could do all of that without a factor of manipulation. The two are not related.

2. By being better at their business than Tyson. As I said before, we have a local butcher that cuts meat from mostly local animals and Tyson has not put him out of business. Go ask your local butcher that custom cuts how he stays in business. Every case is different.

3. Some have. Others haven't. What does that have to do with anything? When Tyson uses its poultry division to carry the beef division and have negative margins for a period of time in beef, it is bound to affect the competition in beef in a negative way. Do you disagree? Tyson is playing the low cost market concentration game.

4. You are one to talk.

5. Another unbacked claim from someone who doesn't know the economic terms for the structure of the industry. Maybe you took such a hit with the BSE Canadian thing that hundred dollar words are just too expensive for you. I thought you got some taxpayer money in that deal to help bail you out, Gason.

6. You wouldn't have the ability to have an informed opinion on that so why speculate?

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "I wouldn't mind of all name calling was eliminated on this board."

1. I'm sure you would but you are a Conman and you need to be addressed as such.

Conman: "Tyson is playing the market concentration game right now."

2. Explain it! Anyone can make cheap statements!


~SH~

1. From you, SH, I don't mind. It was your original thought.

2. It is sprinkeled in here and there.

 

[Jason]

Seems like being called Taylor hits a nerve.

As expected Conman can't explain how more efficient packers can't make a profit without manipulation, now he adds they can manipulate the market and still lose money.

In point 2 conman finally gets something right, small packers have to be very good at business to survive. Yet then immediately after in point 3 he claims Tyson is forcing the dreaded market concentration. They would have to be able to break small packers if this were true. But remember point 2 small packers are surviving.

I actually agree with the statement of no one owes the packers a profit. So why is conman so concerned about Tyson? He seems bent on bad mouthing large packers but Tyson in particular. If small packers are competing against Tyson, what is the problem? They obviously can't force a well run company out of business.

4,5 &6 obviously hit too close to home. Conman has no cattle, has no idea of real world economics, just an axe to grind. If not taylor, someone just as nuts.

 

[Econ101]

Seems like being called Taylor hits a nerve.

1. As expected Conman can't explain how more efficient packers can't make a profit without manipulation, now he adds they can manipulate the market and still lose money.

2. In point 2 conman finally gets something right, small packers have to be very good at business to survive. Yet then immediately after in point 3 he claims Tyson is forcing the dreaded market concentration. They would have to be able to break small packers if this were true. But remember point 2 small packers are surviving.

3. I actually agree with the statement of no one owes the packers a profit. So why is conman so concerned about Tyson? He seems bent on bad mouthing large packers but Tyson in particular. If small packers are competing against Tyson, what is the problem? They obviously can't force a well run company out of business.

4,5 &6 obviously hit too close to home. Conman has no cattle, has no idea of real world economics, just an axe to grind. If not taylor, someone just as nuts.

1. Yes, Gason, that is true, the two are not related (except by those who want to argue with themselves). Packers making money or not making money is not against the law. Are you saying that packers have to manipulate the market to make money? They should go out of business and change names if that is the case.

2. They have been able to break a lot of the smaller packers, Gason. Some are surviving, but some are not. Making beef a commodity instead and playing the lowball game is not good for cattlemen. Quality is also sacrificed on many occasions.

3. When Tyson can subsidize the beef operations with its poultry operations and then vice versa, they will have a competitive advantage in both over companies that do not have this setup. Tyson is using its market power in both to steal the producer surplus. You don't even know what the producer surplus is, Gason.

Real world economics? You don't know the definition.

 

[Jason]

So instead of answering any questions conman Taylor switches positions again. Now he just assured us a packer can lose money while manipulating the market.

I think each packer is responsible for their own profits or losses. Those that have survived with the slim margins have done so by good business sence not manipulation.

Theories that large corps always cheat is unproven, as is a theory that small corps never cheat.

There has been no proof brough that Tyson can drop beef prices by living off chicken. They have competition in Chicken as well as beef. To say they can force chicken higher because they want to break beef packers is rediculous. They would get their head handed to them in the chicken markets.

It all comes back to the lie conman stated earlier, that Tyson somehow can force consumers as to what they buy and at what price.

Consumers dictate what happens all the way back to the cow. Smart producers have to have foresight to be at the right place when the consumer is ready to buy.

 

[Econ101]

1.

So instead of answering any questions conman Taylor switches positions again. Now he just assured us a packer can lose money while manipulating the market.

2. I think each packer is responsible for their own profits or losses. Those that have survived with the slim margins have done so by good business sence not manipulation.

3. Theories that large corps always cheat is unproven, as is a theory that small corps never cheat.

4. There has been no proof brough that Tyson can drop beef prices by living off chicken. They have competition in Chicken as well as beef. To say they can force chicken higher because they want to break beef packers is rediculous. They would get their head handed to them in the chicken markets.

5. It all comes back to the lie conman stated earlier, that Tyson somehow can force consumers as to what they buy and at what price.

6. Consumers dictate what happens all the way back to the cow. Smart producers have to have foresight to be at the right place when the consumer is ready to buy.

1. Do you deny this fact?

2. You don't know that.

3. I never said large corporations always cheat. Are you trying to argue with yourself again?

4. By who? They control most of the chicken market in the U.S. They have a few "partners in crime" that goes way up to the regulatory agencies, Congress, and even the executive branch.

5. That is your argument, not mine. Tyson has a lot more influence on that than you think. Food is inelastic, Gason. Go learn what that means. The black man said the hog says the color of the wind is red.

6. So consumers dictated your little Canadian beef crash, eh, Gason? Why did you need a little taxpayer handout, Gason? Consumers dictate what happens all the way back to the cow.

 

[Jason]

As usual you don't even have a clue of what you post.

#6 consumers were ultimately responsible for what happened in Canada due to BSE.

Reason 1. The example of the UK and every BSE positive nation prior to Canada where beef consumption dropped drastically after the announcement of BSE.

Reason 2. Canada chose to be very open and honest about proceedures and testing etc.

Reason 3. Consumers have chosen BSE to be a non-issue in North America based on reason 2.

The Canadian beef industry would have been a non entity if consumers decided they would stop buying beef. Instead they chose to look at the situation and weigh the risk and decided the safegards in place were/are sufficient. In Canada beef consumption INCREASED after BSE, a definate different outcome than would have been expected by looking at previous countries that announced a positive.

When you learn what happens in the real world please feel free to respond. Until then your constant lies will be exposed as your personal agenda against Tyson for making you look foolish at the Pickett trial.

 

[Econ101]

As usual you don't even have a clue of what you post.

#6 consumers were ultimately responsible for what happened in Canada due to BSE.

Reason 1. The example of the UK and every BSE positive nation prior to Canada where beef consumption dropped drastically after the announcement of BSE.

Reason 2. Canada chose to be very open and honest about proceedures and testing etc.

Reason 3. Consumers have chosen BSE to be a non-issue in North America based on reason 2.

The Canadian beef industry would have been a non entity if consumers decided they would stop buying beef. Instead they chose to look at the situation and weigh the risk and decided the safegards in place were/are sufficient. In Canada beef consumption INCREASED after BSE, a definate different outcome than would have been expected by looking at previous countries that announced a positive.

When you learn what happens in the real world please feel free to respond. Until then your constant lies will be exposed as your personal agenda against Tyson for making you look foolish at the Pickett trial.

As usual you don't even have a clue of what you post.

Consumers decide they want illegal drugs, too, Gason. Does that mean that our governments should allow illegal drugs? If demand for illegal drugs goes up, does that mean that we should cave into that demand and change the laws?

Consumers haven't had a choice on the BSE issue and you continually call for them to not have that choice by not making information available to them. Do you always sell houses without letting people look under the rug for the hidden dirt?


#6 consumers were ultimately responsible for what happened in Canada due to BSE.

Reason 1. The example of the UK and every BSE positive nation prior to Canada where beef consumption dropped drastically after the announcement of BSE.

Reason 2. Canada chose to be very open and honest about proceedures and testing etc.

Reason 3. Consumers have chosen BSE to be a non-issue in North America based on reason 2.

The Canadian beef industry would have been a non entity if consumers decided they would stop buying beef. Instead they chose to look at the situation and weigh the risk and decided the safegards in place were/are sufficient. In Canada beef consumption INCREASED after BSE, a definate different outcome than would have been expected by looking at previous countries that announced a positive.

When you learn what happens in the real world please feel free to respond. Until then your constant lies will be exposed as your personal agenda.

 

[Jason]

Consumers decide they want illegal drugs, too, Gason. Does that mean that our governments should allow illegal drugs? If demand for illegal drugs goes up, does that mean that we should cave into that demand and change the laws?

Consumers haven't had a choice on the BSE issue and you continually call for them to not have that choice by not making information available to them. Do you always sell houses without letting people look under the rug for the hidden dirt?

If no one bought drugs they wouldn't be for sale.

Nice diversion again.

Consumers have not been forced to buy beef since BSE was announced. They made the decision to continue buying beef, due in large part I believe to the open communication Canadian officials have put forth.

To openly say or imply beef is not safe with no proof to the contrary is irresponsible at best. If you have definate proof that beef is not safe feel free to provide it.

I have eaten beef all my life and will continue to do so. It is not illegal or harmful like mind altering drugs. It is a high quality food that sustains life. Producers without that pride of product hurt the industry more than idiot conmen that imply phones are tapped and Tyson rules the world.

 

[Econ101]

Consumers decide they want illegal drugs, too, Gason. Does that mean that our governments should allow illegal drugs? If demand for illegal drugs goes up, does that mean that we should cave into that demand and change the laws?

Consumers haven't had a choice on the BSE issue and you continually call for them to not have that choice by not making information available to them. Do you always sell houses without letting people look under the rug for the hidden dirt?

If no one bought drugs they wouldn't be for sale.

Nice diversion again.

Consumers have not been forced to buy beef since BSE was announced. They made the decision to continue buying beef, due in large part I believe to the open communication Canadian officials have put forth.

To openly say or imply beef is not safe with no proof to the contrary is irresponsible at best. If you have definate proof that beef is not safe feel free to provide it.

I have eaten beef all my life and will continue to do so. It is not illegal or harmful like mind altering drugs. It is a high quality food that sustains life. Producers without that pride of product hurt the industry more than idiot conmen that imply phones are tapped and Tyson rules the world.

So, now tell us how this has any relevance to price manipulation.