Conman: "A series of snapshots, SH, that amounted to 2.48 billion give or take."
SH: That damage number was just as phony as Taylor's "THEORIES" that he hadn't tested. That damage number was higher than ibp's total profits which proved just how worthless it was. Even if the plaintiffs had proven a PSA violation, there is no way they would be entitled to more than ibp's profits for that time period. This is not about "mental anguish". Tyson doesn't owe anyone a living.
Nobody could explain how those phony damage figures were derived. It was one more chapter in a completely phony case.
Econ: When market manipulation occurs, there are deadweight losses to the economy. Those inefficiencies mean that there is NEVER an equal amount gained by those employing the manipulation in the manipulation that Pickett proved. Your claim that Tyson's liabilty is limited to their profitabilty during that time period is just plain ludicrous. Of course that is a term that is being associated with you more and more, SH. Tyson doesn't owe anyone a living, but no one owes Tyson a living either. "The knife cuts both ways."---SH.
Conman: "Yes, that included the times that the cash market was over the formula market."
SH: HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW????
PROVE IT!
You can't prove that you damn liar!
The "PICKETT ERA" was the snapshot in time where packer profits were higher than normal. It was not representative of a 10 year average. It was a snapshot in time when the ball was in the packer's court to the tune of $26 per head. WHOOPI DO!
Econ: This came from you, SH. Don't you remember saying it? Part of the problem with the concentration game is that it entails certain risks. Tyson should not be shielded from those risks just because they throw money around to the politicians in D.C.
Conman: "It is a pretty big statistical number, wouldn't you say? 5% of the price, on average."
SH: The damage number is just as phony as the rest of the case.
Econ: Only to those who don't know a thing about economics--- that includes you and the 11th circuit, SH.
Conman: "No, they did not lose because of this, they lost because a judge thought he knew more about the case than the jurors---which is where the founding fathers put the ultimate decision. The appellate judges just reinterpreted the Packers and Stockyards Act and took away all of the protections the law gave to farmers. Legislating from the bench."
SH: Yeh, that's what they all say when they can't back their position with actual facts. You lost because you didn't have a case. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs in the formula market is not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction.
Econ; I keep telling you, SH, the problem is not that they dropped the price in the cash market as they had their needs met, the problem was that the formula price and other captive supplies were tied to the cash price. If the cash price was from a thinned market and then discriminated against in offers to purchase, there was market fraud. This is exactly prohibited in Section 202 of the PSA. I am posting the citation. Notice the "or"s in between the prohibitions. They were put there by someone who knew how economic frauds in markets happen. The 11th circuit tried to take the "or"s out and replace them with "and"s.
Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:
(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or
(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or
(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article 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
(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
Conman: "It is part of the market concentration game. That little margin really came from the poultry side of their operations, SH. That is where they really made the money, as I have said before."
SH: That margin came from their beef division you idiot. You don't know what you're talking about again.
To suggest that Tyson would let their poultry profits carry their beef division is another stupid baseless conspiracy theory of yours.
Tyson has to compete with Excel and Swift and USBP for the same cattle. If they don't pay up, the others will. They all need cattle.
If Tyson let their poultry division carry their beef division financially, what equity would they have to buy out other companies????
You just make stuff up as you go along.
Econ: "To suggest that Tyson would let their poultry profits carry their beef division is another stupid baseless conspiracy theory of yours." This quote by you, SH, shows how much an idiot you are. Read the news. This is exactly what happened. I have posted articles that show this is exactly what happened. Maybe you could call Tyson and ask them to return some of their profits in their poultry side to their producers so that your little statement can be true. Would you care to make a wager out of it or are you going to keep the cheap talk up?
Conman: "No, SH, it is the presumption that some companies operate with managemtent that is crooked. In light of the recent events on capital hill, and in industry, this is not a far out assumption at all. Pickett took it from an assertion to a rendering of a verdict with 12 jurors."
SH: Pickett didn't prove a damn thing. Unless you have proof of market manipulation, YOU GOT NOTHING.
Econ: Yes, they did. You just believe in a conspiracy of 12 jurors. I happen to believe that the money that comes into the republican party form those in current leadership is what influences decisions. John Cornyn sponsored the voluntary Cool. You connect the dots. Here is the quote from the Public Citizen article already posted. I put Cornyn's name in bold for your convenience:
Among the investigation's other findings:
* Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
* These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.
* Key lobbyists from the meat industry who fought COOL before it became law later were hired in strategic positions at the USDA, which was charged with crafting the regulations to implement COOL. Under their watch the agency estimated an initial one-year implementation cost of up to $3.9 billion, with few benefits, which served to bolster critic's views that COOL would be too expensive to warrant implementing.
* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA's demands.
* Well-placed Reps. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have been the two ringleaders in the effort to delay, and ultimately derail, COOL. And they have been well supported by agribusiness interests. Bonilla has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the last three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. As the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, he has twice delayed the start date for the COOL program. Bonilla's delaying tactics have enabled Cornyn and Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to build support for their legislation, which would make the mandatory labeling program voluntary – at least for meat products – effectively killing it. Goodlatte's actions have greatly pleased industry, which has given him more than $103,000 in the last three election cycles, ranking him No. 3 in the amount of contributions COOL opponents gave to sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation.
It is a good thing you were not at the helm when the dots needed to be connected for 911. I can't say the current administration was any more competent. The world trade towers were already a target for terrorists and already had a bomb incident.
Conman: "Tyson is not just in the cattle business, they are in the poultry business also. They can squeeze the margins in the cattle business and still make a lot of money in the poultry business. This puts all their competitors on shaky footing. They can then buy their competitors. It is the concentration game, SH. The loss leader to market domination and future excessive rents."
SH: Another baseless unsupported conspiracy theory.
If they can buy their competitors, why didn't they buy National Beef?
If they could buy their competitors, WHY DID TYSON BUY IBP???
Once again the obvious is too obvious for a conspiracy theorist like you.
Tyson is not going to let their poultry division carry their beef division.
Econ: They have to make it look like there is competititon. This is the same old game that was played that caused the PSA to be written and passed in the twenties, SH. Maybe you should not have been snoozing in history class.
Would you like to suggest that Tyson give up its recent profits in poultry to a charity (not politicians) so that your statement can be correct and not seen as an outright lie?
Conman: "Of course these are market manipulation games and you have shown you do not know enough about economics to even comment on them."
SH: Nobody has less credibility at this site than you. You can't hardly make a post without lying. You have been proven to be a phony repeatedly because you can't back anything and you make things up contradicting your own previous arguments.
You're a complete phony.
~SH~
Econ: The truth is laid out for anyone to see. You are full of baseless opinions and packer backer rhetoric. Don't tell me that you are suggesting that the 11th circuit is that stupid? Either incompetent or corrupt. Incompetent is the better of the two, but it would tend to disqualify them for their positions.
