flounder said:[
what do i think paul engler et al will be most remembered for ?
TSS
mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
Monday, August 29, 2005
11th Circ. upholds Judge Strom's dismissing cattlemen's suit against Tyson
Hard feelings and burning wallets remain after 11th circuit upholds decision by Nebraska Federal Judge Lyle Strom to vacate a jury's $1billion verdict against Tyson meats under the federal Packers and Stockyards Act and enter judgment in Tysons favor. 11th Circuit orders substantial costs against Plaintiffs. Court also chides Plaintiff's counsel for "emotional" arguments and weak expert witnesses. Farm and Food: Go forth and make serfs of all By ALAN GUEBERT and news of the costs judgment against the farmers Effectively killed the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, which is supposed to "assure fair competition and fair trade practices, safeguard farmers and ranchers, and protect consumers and members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair business practices that can unduly affect meat and poultry distribution and prices." Largely gutted the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mandate to "promote fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American agriculture." Gave agribusiness giants permission to run U.S markets like wholly-owned subsidiaries+. And it was all done in the name of "efficiency," a word not found in either the Packers and Stockyards Act or the U.S. Constitution. How in the world did a lawsuit against Tyson Fresh Meats — in which a jury awarded $1.28 billion to cattlemen because Tyson's use of contracted cattle cut cash cattle prices — end up granting giant meatpackers market power they could only dream of? Simple, says Roger McEowen, an ag law professor at Iowa State University. "The judges in this case created a standard that isn't in the Packers and Stockyards Act; a standard that says 'The PSA exists to aid efficiency so packers can compete with each other.'" Michael Stumo, legal counsel for the Organization for Competitive Markets, agrees. He participated in the original Alabama lawsuit against Tyson, (called the Pickett case for plaintiff Henry Lee Pickett), in which a jury handed Tyson a $1.28 billion lump to the head, a penalty overturned by trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom of Nebraska. The plaintiffs appealed. "The appellate court basically changed a competition enforcement statute, the (Packers and Stockyards Act,) into an efficiency statute," Stumo said. In doing so, the court said that if there is a "business justification"— here, efficiency — for violating the act, then no violation occurs. This standard, adds Stumo, "is not in the Packers and Stockyards Act text nor it is in antitrust law. But the 11th Circuit believes it should be no matter that a jury has already said it's not and the actual law says it's not." Indeed, the decision () is remarkable for not only what it includes but also what it excludes. For example, nowhere in its 33 pages is there one reference to any of the amicus briefs submitted to the court in support of the jury's original judgment against Tyson. Somehow, though, the court did find space — and, more importantly, a reason — to include trial judge Strom's snide and away-from-the-jury characterization of Auburn University's C. Robert Taylor, Pickett's expert witness who proved to the jury that Tyson's use of captive cattle led to 5 percent lower cash cattle prices. The remark by Strom — "I'd say, Dr. Taylor, you're nuts." — is not only silly, wrong and inflammatory, it's immaterial. That's why the jury never heard it. Also, the Aug. 16 opinion chastises Nebraska attorney David Domina, one of plaintiff Pickett's lead attorneys in the case, for his opening statement the court characterizes as "emotional." So what? The court's view of Domina's statement has nothing to do with its task: determine if the case was decided fairly and correctly under the law, not whether an attorney reaches for a jury's heartstrings or even stands on his head in the attempt. "This is a very hostile opinion," says Peter Carstensen, a professor at the University of Wisconsin's law school and an antitrust specialist, "that shows a profound failure on the part of the court to understand that a legal framework is absolutely essential to make markets work." Like McEowen and Stumo, Carstensen views the decision as a gut-splitter for the Packers and Stockyards Act and its overarching USDA agency, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. "This opinion basically creates a lawless market because it says that if a meatpacker's conduct is consistent with some business purpose, then anything goes—even serfdom." As such, the Packers and Stockyards Act is functionally dead, he says, and the "only thing that can salvage it is if someone pours a hardening agent into backbones at USDA so it stands up and writes tough rules on marketing contracts." But, he adds, given the fact that USDA itself is largely a captive of meatpackers, "That's not going to happen." Congress can make it happen, though, by resuscitating, then updating, the Packers and Stockyards Act in the 2007 Farm Bill. Let's start by calling it the Anti-Serfdom Act. Alan Guebert is a freelance agricultural journalist. He can be reached at [email protected] or at 21673 Lago Dr., Delavan, IL 61734. ranchers must pay Tyson's expenses in federal cattle-pricing case q By staff and wire reports MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A handful of cattlemen, including two Nebraskans, their $1 billion verdict in their favor reversed in a price-fixing lawsuit against corporate giant Tyson Fresh Meats, now have to pay the nation's largest beef packer more than $70,000 in court expenses. "They've thrown our industry into the Tyson meat grinder and said 'Welcome to serfdom,"' cattleman Mike Callicrate, a plaintiff in the beef lawsuit, said Friday. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta unanimously upheld an Alabama U.S. district court decision ordering five cattlemen, including Nebraskans Chris Abbott of Gordon and Robert Rothewell of Arthur, and Rothwell's corporation, to pay Tyson, of Springdale, Ark., expenses totaling $70,198.60 for the trial conducted last year in Montgomery. The amount covers expenses such as transportation and office supplies, but does not include attorney fees. The lawsuit accused Tyson of using illegal cattle-buying practices to manipulate beef prices. Tyson countered that it used legitimate business practices that do not subvert the market principles of supply and demand. The plaintiffs were represented in the case by David Domina, an Omaha attorney. "It's obvious we're disappointed with the restults," Domina said. It's typical for the losing side in a civil case to pay the expenses of the winner, according to Domina, and the larger issue is the appeal he will bring of the case as a whole. Domina said he will appeal to the entire 13 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that effort fails, he will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. "These were well intentioned people trying to the right thing for their industry," Domina said of the plaintiffs. In the ruling, the appeals court said "this case was not a close and difficult one" and noted that those who filed the suit "lost every aspect of the case and Tyson prevailed on it." Thomas C. Green, Tyson's lead attorney, said the appeals court decision proves that corporations have the freedom to make contracts in the agricultural sector. "I think the plaintiffs need to get a grip and relax," Green said. "Their view of the law has always been one-sided and obviously shortsighted." Callicrate called the court developments were an example of a complete failure of justice. "These judges are not looking at the law," he said. "They are looking at what benefits big business." In a separate ruling last week, the three-judge 11th Circuit panel unanimously affirmed a June 2004 ruling by the trial judge, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle Strom of Nebraska, who threw out the jury's finding that Tyson used contracts with a select few beef producers to manipulate cattle market prices. As part of its verdict, the jury recommended Tyson pay $1.28 billion to a class of cattlemen affected over an eight-year period. But Strom, instead of ruling on the size of the class and amount of damages, found that the cattlemen had failed to show sufficient evidence against Tyson, and reversed the verdict. In their appeal, attorneys for the cattlemen had asked the 11th Circuit to find that the jury based its decision on a reasonable review of the evidence. They said that in another case the 11th Circuit had refused to "second-guess the jury" if its action was reasonable. But the appeals court disagreed. On the matter of costs, teh appeals court said the cattlemen must pay Tyson's expenses despite the beef packer's wealth and their "limited financial resources."
posted by stan_sipple | 10:48 PM
0 Comments:
Tex said:mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
mrj, are you for real? These things are NOT based on suspicion of their motives and actions but OF THEIR ACTIONS.
Phil Gramm was an economics prof. before he became a politician. He knows economics and economic or market games. His wife was an economist also so there is no excuse here about them knowing or not knowing what was happening. He knew why we had the Glasss Steagal Act but had clients that wanted to use other people's money to make tons of money with the risk being put not on them, but on others, so they got rid of the Glass Steagal Act and put our whole banking system in jeapordy.
We are paying for it with a slow economy and have to work out of the consequences.
Gramm knew our financial system inside and out and most of the big players. He and his wife courted the dark side and too many politicians who didn't have a clue allowed him to organize the largest destruction of our economy since the Great Depression by breaking down the laws that protected the economy from such mischief. I really don't think you have a clue about any of these issues or what has recently happened--- these are not just suspicions.
Picower and Engler's roles are analogous but not completely the same. They both benefited from a scam, one a ponzi sheme and the other a market scam (which are related, beefman). I think Engler's value was not all based on market fraud, but a part of it was. As one of the larger feedlots on the grid pricing, he was an essential element of the market manipulation that took over 2.5 billion dollars (this was the economic estimate of damages) out of cattleman's pockets. Engler profited from his role in the market scam.
Tex
flounder said:Mike said:flounder said:mike, you would not know where to start to tell the truth would you.
i blame, and always have blamed the NSLP/USDA for that blunder.
So go biatch to the USDA. No one here, that I am aware of, works for them or has any say in the matters you seem to champion.
Go somehwere, anywhere, just get the f__k outta here.................................................
I've already suggested you go back and finish high school.............
and i have already told you mike that all the education in the world from auburn university or any other university can't help some, and you are living proof of that :lol: :lol2: :nod:
TSS
Beefman said:flounder said:Mike said:So go biatch to the USDA. No one here, that I am aware of, works for them or has any say in the matters you seem to champion.
Go somehwere, anywhere, just get the f__k outta here.................................................
I've already suggested you go back and finish high school.............
and i have already told you mike that all the education in the world from auburn university or any other university can't help some, and you are living proof of that :lol: :lol2: :nod:
TSS
Food safety for whom? Corporate wealth versus people's health
GRAIN, May 2011
School children in the US were served 200,000 kilos of meat contaminated with a deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria before the nation's second largest meat packer issued a recall in 2009……………yada, yada, yada…..blah, blah, blah.
From <http://www.grain.org/about/?org>
GRAIN is a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems. Our support takes the form of independent research and analysis, networking at local, regional and international levels, and fostering new forms of cooperation and alliance-building. Most of our work is oriented towards, and carried out in, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Is there a non-stop network of floundering organizations that basically puke each other's misinformation around? You're no different that then the saps at PETA and HSUS. At least they're honest with their intentions. Why don't you be honest about your intentions, and confirm you shovel garbage nonstop in an attempt to get the world to stop consuming beef.
Beefman said:Tex said:mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
mrj, are you for real? These things are NOT based on suspicion of their motives and actions but OF THEIR ACTIONS.
Phil Gramm was an economics prof. before he became a politician. He knows economics and economic or market games. His wife was an economist also so there is no excuse here about them knowing or not knowing what was happening. He knew why we had the Glasss Steagal Act but had clients that wanted to use other people's money to make tons of money with the risk being put not on them, but on others, so they got rid of the Glass Steagal Act and put our whole banking system in jeapordy.
We are paying for it with a slow economy and have to work out of the consequences.
Gramm knew our financial system inside and out and most of the big players. He and his wife courted the dark side and too many politicians who didn't have a clue allowed him to organize the largest destruction of our economy since the Great Depression by breaking down the laws that protected the economy from such mischief. I really don't think you have a clue about any of these issues or what has recently happened--- these are not just suspicions.
Picower and Engler's roles are analogous but not completely the same. They both benefited from a scam, one a ponzi sheme and the other a market scam (which are related, beefman). I think Engler's value was not all based on market fraud, but a part of it was. As one of the larger feedlots on the grid pricing, he was an essential element of the market manipulation that took over 2.5 billion dollars (this was the economic estimate of damages) out of cattleman's pockets. Engler profited from his role in the market scam.
Tex
Engler is only guilty of running a successful organization, which is a fact that really runs against your grain.
Engler / Cactus purchase and feed approx 1.0 M head annually. Let's assume you have cattle for sale at a TX salebarn. Based on your comments, and if you hold true to your convictions, you'd have to stand up at the salebarn and indicate your cattle ARE NOT for sale to anyone who is there to purchase cattle for Cactus. Correct?
(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or
(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or
(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)
Tex said:Beefman, how can you get so confused? This is almost as much confusion as Tam brings to a conversation.
Engler is in the analogous position of Picower in the Madoff scheme. Picower did not set up the scam, but was a major beneficiary and probably knew what was going on (or should have) to the market as a whole and how destructive it was to the market price as a whole (cash price).
Although Engler was in this position and benefited from it, the only people who were on the hook for the market scam that was being done were the packers. Here is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act Engler needs to be worried about, Section 202
(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or
(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or
(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)
Just because one might be involved in breaking the above provisions, doesn't meant the people he is buying from are breaking those provisions or have any knowledge of it. Most people in a Ponzi scheme don't have a clue that it is a ponzi scheme or that it is illegal. The biggest liability is to those setting up the ponzi scheme, not those who don't have a clue about it but are unwitting participants.
I don't believe in this idea that one is all bad or all good. Good people do illegal things and so do bad people, sometimes without knowing. Sometimes without knowing in the beginning then figuring it out. The donation by Engler was good, but his part in market manipulation and sweetheart deals that helped the meat packers capture the markets was bad. Engler being a competitive buyer for cattle was good. If he took the cattle on consignment in his feed yards and then took out the best cattle to trade with some he bought to be put in his private stash (I am not saying he did this), then it would be bad. These are just a few examples of why your broad stroke (Tam's move) just doesn't hold water.
The guy at the sale barn's best decision is to take the highest dollar offered for his product. It doesn't matter who the buyer is.
On the larger scale, if a buyer in the market is colluding with their competition to not show up at a sale barn so there would be no competition or agree not to bid their own interests so their cattle friend buyer could get a better deal from the local producers, that would break the Packers and Stockyards Act without question.
Did Engler do these kind of things?
Tex
Beefman said:Tex said:Beefman, how can you get so confused? This is almost as much confusion as Tam brings to a conversation.
Engler is in the analogous position of Picower in the Madoff scheme. Picower did not set up the scam, but was a major beneficiary and probably knew what was going on (or should have) to the market as a whole and how destructive it was to the market price as a whole (cash price).
Although Engler was in this position and benefited from it, the only people who were on the hook for the market scam that was being done were the packers. Here is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act Engler needs to be worried about, Section 202
(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or
(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or
(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)
Just because one might be involved in breaking the above provisions, doesn't meant the people he is buying from are breaking those provisions or have any knowledge of it. Most people in a Ponzi scheme don't have a clue that it is a ponzi scheme or that it is illegal. The biggest liability is to those setting up the ponzi scheme, not those who don't have a clue about it but are unwitting participants.
I don't believe in this idea that one is all bad or all good. Good people do illegal things and so do bad people, sometimes without knowing. Sometimes without knowing in the beginning then figuring it out. The donation by Engler was good, but his part in market manipulation and sweetheart deals that helped the meat packers capture the markets was bad. Engler being a competitive buyer for cattle was good. If he took the cattle on consignment in his feed yards and then took out the best cattle to trade with some he bought to be put in his private stash (I am not saying he did this), then it would be bad. These are just a few examples of why your broad stroke (Tam's move) just doesn't hold water.
The guy at the sale barn's best decision is to take the highest dollar offered for his product. It doesn't matter who the buyer is.
On the larger scale, if a buyer in the market is colluding with their competition to not show up at a sale barn so there would be no competition or agree not to bid their own interests so their cattle friend buyer could get a better deal from the local producers, that would break the Packers and Stockyards Act without question.
Did Engler do these kind of things?
Tex
I asked you a legitimate question, to see if you'd follow your convictions. I knew you wouldn't answer, and like your buddy flounder, you'd pull something out of the drawer that was totally insignificant. You're too predictable. Either that, or it's a Friday the 13th thing.
If you smell a ponzi scheme, marketing scam or some other illegal activity, and if you think section 202 was violated, why don't you be a hero, put together a class action, roll up your sleeves and get after it.
There's at least 60 different marketing alliances out there. Most of those participants take home more $ / cwt than Engler does for finished cattle which are marketed on the same day. Plus, grass roots alliance participants are the ones that are responsible for getting these programs off the ground in the first place. Are these producers in on scams and ponzi schemes too? What's the difference between alliances and Engler?
mrj said:Tex, arthritis pain tells me I'm all too real!
My point, since you fail to get it: unless you know and talk to those people you accuse of crimes, you CANNOT know what they are or were thinking. You most likely do not know what actions they have taken to precipitate the results you claim.
A few malicious whiners and frauds hide behind internet aliases to assassinate the character of publicly known people all too often, IMO.
mrj
Beefman said:Tex said:Beefman, how can you get so confused? This is almost as much confusion as Tam brings to a conversation.
Engler is in the analogous position of Picower in the Madoff scheme. Picower did not set up the scam, but was a major beneficiary and probably knew what was going on (or should have) to the market as a whole and how destructive it was to the market price as a whole (cash price).
Although Engler was in this position and benefited from it, the only people who were on the hook for the market scam that was being done were the packers. Here is the part of the Packers and Stockyards Act Engler needs to be worried about, Section 202
(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or
(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or
(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)
Just because one might be involved in breaking the above provisions, doesn't meant the people he is buying from are breaking those provisions or have any knowledge of it. Most people in a Ponzi scheme don't have a clue that it is a ponzi scheme or that it is illegal. The biggest liability is to those setting up the ponzi scheme, not those who don't have a clue about it but are unwitting participants.
I don't believe in this idea that one is all bad or all good. Good people do illegal things and so do bad people, sometimes without knowing. Sometimes without knowing in the beginning then figuring it out. The donation by Engler was good, but his part in market manipulation and sweetheart deals that helped the meat packers capture the markets was bad. Engler being a competitive buyer for cattle was good. If he took the cattle on consignment in his feed yards and then took out the best cattle to trade with some he bought to be put in his private stash (I am not saying he did this), then it would be bad. These are just a few examples of why your broad stroke (Tam's move) just doesn't hold water.
The guy at the sale barn's best decision is to take the highest dollar offered for his product. It doesn't matter who the buyer is.
On the larger scale, if a buyer in the market is colluding with their competition to not show up at a sale barn so there would be no competition or agree not to bid their own interests so their cattle friend buyer could get a better deal from the local producers, that would break the Packers and Stockyards Act without question.
Did Engler do these kind of things?
Tex
I asked you a legitimate question, to see if you'd follow your convictions. I knew you wouldn't answer, and like your buddy flounder, you'd pull something out of the drawer that was totally insignificant. You're too predictable. Either that, or it's a Friday the 13th thing.
If you smell a ponzi scheme, marketing scam or some other illegal activity, and if you think section 202 was violated, why don't you be a hero, put together a class action, roll up your sleeves and get after it.
There's at least 60 different marketing alliances out there. Most of those participants take home more $ / cwt than Engler does for finished cattle which are marketed on the same day. Plus, grass roots alliance participants are the ones that are responsible for getting these programs off the ground in the first place. Are these producers in on scams and ponzi schemes too? What's the difference between alliances and Engler?
Engler / Cactus purchase and feed approx 1.0 M head annually. Let's assume you have cattle for sale at a TX salebarn. Based on your comments, and if you hold true to your convictions, you'd have to stand up at the salebarn and indicate your cattle ARE NOT for sale to anyone who is there to purchase cattle for Cactus. Correct?
mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
Beefman said:mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
MRJ; I recorded the show, finally had a chance to watch it last night. Cactus Feeders were, and continue to be pioneers in the cattle feeding industry. I'm sure you can catch clips at the website you mentioned. Their accomplishments are many.
Tex said:Beefman said:mrj said:Which is the worse sin, vindictiveness, greed, or foul accusations, such as against Mr. Paul Engler and Phil Gramm based ONLY on suspicion of their motives and actions????
BTW anyone wishing to LEARN something factual about Engler business, which IMHO, demonstrates the exemplary citizens they are, could check out this week edition of Cattlemen to Cattlemen aired last night on the RFID TV channel, or at www.cattlemen2cattlemen.com.
mrj
MRJ; I recorded the show, finally had a chance to watch it last night. Cactus Feeders were, and continue to be pioneers in the cattle feeding industry. I'm sure you can catch clips at the website you mentioned. Their accomplishments are many.
I would be the last one to want to bash someone for capitalizing on their innovation and making a profit from it---unless there was some crooked things going on. In the case of Picower, he had to pay back money he got from Madoff but there isn't enough evidence to support that he was part of the dark side of the Ponzi scheme, just a major beneficiary of it for himself and mostly his charities. While Engler was a poster boy for the benefits of the market manipulation that Pickett proved to a jury that the meat packers operated and so fits the position of Picower in the Madoff scheme, the details of if he knew about the market manipulation are sealed in court records or prevented from seeing the light of day because of an inefficient or on the take judicial system. We already know our politicians are pretty much on the take. The people they put in these positions of power are also.
The Packers and Stockyards Act hasn't been enforced the way it should have been because the profits generated help buy the political system.
This doesn't just happen in agriculture, although the members of the Agriculture Committees in Congress in the House and Senate have been some of the most egregious in selling out family farmers over and over again, but is also shown with Wall Street and the big money that came from there.
Let us recap it: Phil Gramm pushed the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act, another depression area lesson law, and replaced it with a law that allowed Investment banks to use the capital of banks who took deposits and loaned money--basically the average American's banking system. That money was used to generate profits for the big Investment banks with the use of the commercial bank deposits instead of putting their own money at risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank
The taxpayers HAD to bail out the commercial banking system so the Investment banks got to keep all those transactional profits they made by leveraging up the housing market via financing that took the economy down.
We simply have the best Congress money can buy and money will pit this party against that party while advertising their spin on NPR, commercials on TV, and law and PR firms to keep it that way. We have the illusion of two parties but in reality, the sausage that comes out is largely for the table of the rich and powerful who were in the room when the sausages was being made and inserting their preferential seasonings and ingredients while we were not looking.
Tex
Beefman said:Tex said:Beefman said:MRJ; I recorded the show, finally had a chance to watch it last night. Cactus Feeders were, and continue to be pioneers in the cattle feeding industry. I'm sure you can catch clips at the website you mentioned. Their accomplishments are many.
I would be the last one to want to bash someone for capitalizing on their innovation and making a profit from it---unless there was some crooked things going on. In the case of Picower, he had to pay back money he got from Madoff but there isn't enough evidence to support that he was part of the dark side of the Ponzi scheme, just a major beneficiary of it for himself and mostly his charities. While Engler was a poster boy for the benefits of the market manipulation that Pickett proved to a jury that the meat packers operated and so fits the position of Picower in the Madoff scheme, the details of if he knew about the market manipulation are sealed in court records or prevented from seeing the light of day because of an inefficient or on the take judicial system. We already know our politicians are pretty much on the take. The people they put in these positions of power are also.
The Packers and Stockyards Act hasn't been enforced the way it should have been because the profits generated help buy the political system.
This doesn't just happen in agriculture, although the members of the Agriculture Committees in Congress in the House and Senate have been some of the most egregious in selling out family farmers over and over again, but is also shown with Wall Street and the big money that came from there.
Let us recap it: Phil Gramm pushed the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act, another depression area lesson law, and replaced it with a law that allowed Investment banks to use the capital of banks who took deposits and loaned money--basically the average American's banking system. That money was used to generate profits for the big Investment banks with the use of the commercial bank deposits instead of putting their own money at risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank
The taxpayers HAD to bail out the commercial banking system so the Investment banks got to keep all those transactional profits they made by leveraging up the housing market via financing that took the economy down.
We simply have the best Congress money can buy and money will pit this party against that party while advertising their spin on NPR, commercials on TV, and law and PR firms to keep it that way. We have the illusion of two parties but in reality, the sausage that comes out is largely for the table of the rich and powerful who were in the room when the sausages was being made and inserting their preferential seasonings and ingredients while we were not looking.
Tex
Thank you. Your post was informative, entertaining, and helped me better understand your thoughts. I do not subscribe to your opinion the entire population of judges, politicians, dog catchers, Captain Kangaroo and whoever else is dishonest, bought off, and in cahoots with whatever evil dreaded Wall street company is now supposedly screwing everyone to the wall. Your sausage description was good. My response to your sausages can be summed up in one word. Opportunity. If you don't like the sausage ingredients and seasonings being offered, our system offers opportunity to the person who can either do it better, or different than what's available. This ain't a dictatorship where you get your sausage handed to you through a window by some faceless commie. You get to run, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Opportunity awaits. Go to amazon.com and do a search for "sausages". You get 1,893 hits. Lots of different products and opportunity. Paul Engler chased an opportunity. He also knows he'll get replaced in the future by someone who can do it different or better than he does. If you screw up along the way, you'll get your head handed to you. Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger………my guess is he's having a tough day today. He's toast. Finished. Few people in our industry have received the scrutiny Paul Engler has. Your pot-shot gun continues to fire blanks. Time to move on to the next opportunity.
