Tyson gets out checkbook

[Anonymous]

Conman: "They proved it to the jury. That is who is supposed to judge the case, not corrupt or incompetent judges."

Pickett convinced a jury that a difference in price between the cash market and the formula market was market manipulation. The same way you kept spouting off the same bullsh*t. You were wrong and so was the jury. Pickett did not prove market manipulation and that is why they lost the case and why the Judge's decision was upheld by the 11th circuit.

Conspiracy theorist packer blamers like you lost and couldn't accept it so you make up more conspiracy theories to justify your loss.

Conman: "Can you point out the illusion? I fail to see anything other than facts presented."

The illusion of the justice system being bought off by corporate interests. ILLUSION, not facts. You have no facts for anything. All you have is a need to blame and lies.

Conman: "I have asked you time and time again to put it into context with my original post instead of some snippet taken out of context. You have failed to do so. Looks like you are the one slithering here, SH."

I asked you if you said "prices can't go up unless the supply comes down" and you admitted to saying it. Now you want to create the illusion that you didn't like the pathetic deceptive individual you are.

Conman: "You know so little about supply and demand, prices, and market manipulation, SH. Do I need to post the article here again for you, SH? You are just plain wrong on this one and the facts of recent history prove me correct."

All you know is that poulty profits were higher than beef profits for a particular quarter. That's all you know. YOU DON'T KNOW WHY! You just came up with another dumb assed conspiracy theory to explain it that you can't prove. Par for your pathetic deceptive course.

Conman: "What did you teach me here, SH?"

That packers are margin operators. How many times have I posted that and you think you need to tell me? You don't need to tell me anything because you don't know anything.

Conman: "You are the one with the connect the dots problem here, SH, not I."

Illusions don't earn convictions! That's why your packer blaming chronies lost in Pickett.

Conman: "Just because Tyson did not do something you claim is market manipulation means nothing except that you just keep making stuff up."

I'm not claiming anything as market manipulation CONMAN, you are.

Prove that I have made anything up CHEAP TALKER. USPB bought national, not Tyson. Tyson bought ibp. Using your stupid conspiracy logic, ibp should have bought Tyson out since ibp "SUPPOSEDLY" had all the market power from manipulation. The obvious is just too obvious for an idiot like you.

It is you that make's things up ("the packers aren't paying for ID'd cattle") while I'm the one who basis his views on facts as opposed to a need to blame.

Conman: "How did Tyson get the market share they have in poultry and beef?"

They bought ibp who you claimed should have bought out some other packing company since they "SUPPOSEDLY" had all this market power from manipulating the markets. INSTEAD THEY WERE BOUGHT OUT THEMSELVES. Can't explain it can you you damn phony?

Conman: "That is exactly what the cash price was; a price that was depressed by the collusive actions of Tyson and others. That is what happens when the cash price is the basis for captive supply pricing and the market participants discriminate against the cash price."

Oh, so now you change your story again. A minute ago you said the PSA being based on price fixing and collusion was my opinion only. It's really difficult for a liar like you to keep your stories straight isn't it? There was no "COLLUSIVE ACTION". That's another lie. The market participants did not discriminate against the cash price. THAT'S ANOTHER LIE. Excel and Swift's needs had nothing to do with what ibp had tied up in the formula market. ibp/Tyson is "A MARKET" not "THE MARKET".

How long until you repeat this back to me like it was your original thought?

You're a complete phony. It's just a shame that there isn't a name to go with your continous lies.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "They proved it to the jury. That is who is supposed to judge the case, not corrupt or incompetent judges."

Pickett convinced a jury that a difference in price between the cash market and the formula market was market manipulation. The same way you kept spouting off the same bullsh*t. You were wrong and so was the jury. Pickett did not prove market manipulation and that is why they lost the case and why the Judge's decision was upheld by the 11th circuit.

Conspiracy theorist packer blamers like you lost and couldn't accept it so you make up more conspiracy theories to justify your loss.

Econ: There were 6 questions (or was it 7?)the jurors answered, SH. Can you list them or do you want to keep misrepresenting them? I have the ruling and know the answers, do you?

Conman: "Can you point out the illusion? I fail to see anything other than facts presented."

The illusion of the justice system being bought off by corporate interests. ILLUSION, not facts. You have no facts for anything. All you have is a need to blame and lies.

Econ: Their interpretation of the case was based on the London case. In that case they interpreted the "or"s as "and"s. Do you want to start your own thread on this one or are you content with remaining factually void?

Conman: "I have asked you time and time again to put it into context with my original post instead of some snippet taken out of context. You have failed to do so. Looks like you are the one slithering here, SH."

I asked you if you said "prices can't go up unless the supply comes down" and you admitted to saying it. Now you want to create the illusion that you didn't like the pathetic deceptive individual you are.

Econ: I asked that you put in context. You have not.

Conman: "You know so little about supply and demand, prices, and market manipulation, SH. Do I need to post the article here again for you, SH? You are just plain wrong on this one and the facts of recent history prove me correct."

All you know is that poulty profits were higher than beef profits for a particular quarter. That's all you know. YOU DON'T KNOW WHY! You just came up with another dumb assed conspiracy theory to explain it that you can't prove. Par for your pathetic deceptive course.

Econ: Just one quarter?

Conman: "What did you teach me here, SH?"

That packers are margin operators. How many times have I posted that and you think you need to tell me? You don't need to tell me anything because you don't know anything.

Econ: Is that your biggest claim? I would have conceded that they are margin operators. There is no disagreement there for me. In poultry, however, their contracts are a little different. They take all the profits when the markets go up, not the producers. That is how they rake it in when beef and poultry go up at the same time.

Conman: "You are the one with the connect the dots problem here, SH, not I."

Illusions don't earn convictions! That's why your packer blaming chronies lost in Pickett.

Econ: No, they were overuled by judges who had to reinterpret the "or"s into "and"s. My 5 year old knows the difference between those words. It is too bad the 11th circuit can't.

Conman: "Just because Tyson did not do something you claim is market manipulation means nothing except that you just keep making stuff up."

I'm not claiming anything as market manipulation CONMAN, you are.

Prove that I have made anything up CHEAP TALKER. USPB bought national, not Tyson. Tyson bought ibp. Using your stupid conspiracy logic, ibp should have bought Tyson out since ibp "SUPPOSEDLY" had all the market power from manipulation. The obvious is just too obvious for an idiot like you.

It is you that make's things up ("the packers aren't paying for ID'd cattle") while I'm the one who basis his views on facts as opposed to a need to blame.

Econ: Post the comment, SH. ""the packers aren't paying for ID'd cattle". In the Texas ID program who had to pay for the premise ID? Was it the packers?

Conman: "How did Tyson get the market share they have in poultry and beef?"

They bought ibp who you claimed should have bought out some other packing company since they "SUPPOSEDLY" had all this market power from manipulating the markets. INSTEAD THEY WERE BOUGHT OUT THEMSELVES. Can't explain it can you you damn phony?

Econ: Did Tyson not buy up a lot of poultry companies, Hudson, and IBP?
Here is a little chance for you to say exactly how Tyson got the market power they have in the proteins industry, SH.

Conman: "That is exactly what the cash price was; a price that was depressed by the collusive actions of Tyson and others. That is what happens when the cash price is the basis for captive supply pricing and the market participants discriminate against the cash price."

Oh, so now you change your story again. A minute ago you said the PSA being based on price fixing and collusion was my opinion only. It's really difficult for a liar like you to keep your stories straight isn't it? There was no "COLLUSIVE ACTION". That's another lie. The market participants did not discriminate against the cash price. THAT'S ANOTHER LIE. Excel and Swift's needs had nothing to do with what ibp had tied up in the formula market. ibp/Tyson is "A MARKET" not "THE MARKET".

How long until you repeat this back to me like it was your original thought?

You're a complete phony. It's just a shame that there isn't a name to go with your continous lies.



~SH~

Econ: Why did the jury come back answering the questions as they did, SH? Did they have some kind of conspiracy against Tyson, or did they just do their job after listening to the testimony?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "There were 6 questions (or was it 7?)the jurors answered, SH. Can you list them or do you want to keep misrepresenting them? I have the ruling and know the answers, do you?"

DIVERSION and another lie.

What does those questions that have to do with Pickett losing the case?

Show me where I misrepresented those questions you damn liar!

Conman: "Their interpretation of the case was based on the London case. In that case they interpreted the "or"s as "and"s. Do you want to start your own thread on this one or are you content with remaining factually void?"

Blah blah blah! You packer blamers lost because you never had a case and you can't accept the fact that you lost so you make up more conspiracy theories to justify your loss. Typical of the "factually void".

Conman: "I asked that you put in context. You have not."

You admitted to saying it. There was nothing taken out of context. You are trying to justify your stupid statement by "IMPLYING" that I took it out of context.

You're a total phony.

Conman: "Econ: Just one quarter?"

Doesn't matter how many quarters. Tyson would not "INTENTIONALLY" let beef profits slip to benefit poultry. That's just one more bullsh*t conspiracy theory of yours.

Conman: "They take all the profits when the markets go up, not the producers. That is how they rake it in when beef and poultry go up at the same time."

Perhaps you should save poultry farmers from their contracts as well as cattle feeders. You'd be that arrogant.

Conman: "No, they were overuled by judges who had to reinterpret the "or"s into "and"s. My 5 year old knows the difference between those words. It is too bad the 11th circuit can't."

Sure! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Had to come up with some lame excuse for losing didn't you?

Conman: "Post the comment, SH. ""the packers aren't paying for ID'd cattle". In the Texas ID program who had to pay for the premise ID? Was it the packers?"

I just showed you where packers were paying premiums for traceable cattle, don't try to lie your way out of that one too.

Conman: "Did Tyson not buy up a lot of poultry companies, Hudson, and IBP?"

Ibp was not a poultry company you idiot!

Conman: "Here is a little chance for you to say exactly how Tyson got the market power they have in the proteins industry, SH."

Why can't you admit that ibp never bought anyone out. THEY WERE BOUGHT OUT THEMSELVES. You claimed they would use their "MARKET POWER" from "MARKET MANIPULATION" to buy out the competition and I proved to you that they were bought out themselves. PROVING YOU WRONG, AGAIN!

Conman: "Why did the jury come back answering the questions as they did, SH? Did they have some kind of conspiracy against Tyson, or did they just do their job after listening to the testimony?"

They bought into Taylor's phony "UNTESTED" theories but the judge and 11th circuit saw right through it. They know more about the law than a jury does.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "There were 6 questions (or was it 7?)the jurors answered, SH. Can you list them or do you want to keep misrepresenting them? I have the ruling and know the answers, do you?"

DIVERSION and another lie.

What does those questions that have to do with Pickett losing the case?

Show me where I misrepresented those questions you damn liar!


Econ: Then list them.

Conman: "Their interpretation of the case was based on the London case. In that case they interpreted the "or"s as "and"s. Do you want to start your own thread on this one or are you content with remaining factually void?"

Blah blah blah! You packer blamers lost because you never had a case and you can't accept the fact that you lost so you make up more conspiracy theories to justify your loss. Typical of the "factually void".

Econ: Did you read the ruling or do we just have the pleasure of hearing you make up stuff?

Conman: "I asked that you put in context. You have not."

You admitted to saying it. There was nothing taken out of context. You are trying to justify your stupid statement by "IMPLYING" that I took it out of context.

You're a total phony.

Econ: How do you know if it was taken out of context? You haven't posted it in context yet.

Conman: "Econ: Just one quarter?"

Doesn't matter how many quarters. Tyson would not "INTENTIONALLY" let beef profits slip to benefit poultry. That's just one more bullsh*t conspiracy theory of yours.

Econ: Another fish. Sure, Tyson would like to make money in everything and not lose money in anything, but they have to deal with the market, don't they? Tyson pulled their market play and they knew what would happen. It is you that can not even look at recent history, not I.

Conman: "They take all the profits when the markets go up, not the producers. That is how they rake it in when beef and poultry go up at the same time."

Perhaps you should save poultry farmers from their contracts as well as cattle feeders. You'd be that arrogant.

Econ: Yes, I would.

Conman: "No, they were overuled by judges who had to reinterpret the "or"s into "and"s. My 5 year old knows the difference between those words. It is too bad the 11th circuit can't."

Sure! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Had to come up with some lame excuse for losing didn't you?

Econ: Sleeping again, SH? I wasn't involved in the case so how did I lose? My 5 year old still knows the difference between "or" and "and".

Conman: "Post the comment, SH. ""the packers aren't paying for ID'd cattle". In the Texas ID program who had to pay for the premise ID? Was it the packers?"

I just showed you where packers were paying premiums for traceable cattle, don't try to lie your way out of that one too.

Econ: Why are they pushing the premise M-ID in Texas and having farmers pay for it? Seems you tried to make a statement and make it a universal statement but were caught. Pretty misleading, SH. Would that fit into your definition of perjury or lying?

Conman: "Did Tyson not buy up a lot of poultry companies, Hudson, and IBP?"

Ibp was not a poultry company you idiot!

Econ: Tyson owns both. They have market power in the proteins industry, not just in chicken, pork, or poultry. It makes their market power even greater when they own the substitutes.

Conman: "Here is a little chance for you to say exactly how Tyson got the market power they have in the proteins industry, SH."

Why can't you admit that ibp never bought anyone out. THEY WERE BOUGHT OUT THEMSELVES. You claimed they would use their "MARKET POWER" from "MARKET MANIPULATION" to buy out the competition and I proved to you that they were bought out themselves. PROVING YOU WRONG, AGAIN!

Econ: That is your argument, not mine. Do I need to refer you back to who is responsible for the market power tricks when under what ownership or can you go back and read the old thread yourself? In the 1800s they had holding companies that controlled industry.

Conman: "Why did the jury come back answering the questions as they did, SH? Did they have some kind of conspiracy against Tyson, or did they just do their job after listening to the testimony?"

They bought into Taylor's phony "UNTESTED" theories but the judge and 11th circuit saw right through it. They know more about the law than a jury does.


~SH~

Econ: They don't even know the difference between "or" and "and". I would trust my 5 year old before I would trust the 11th circuit judges, as Pickett found out.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Then list them."

First answer my questions:

What does those questions have to do with Pickett losing their case?

Show me where I misrepresented those questions you damn liar!

Conman: "Econ: Did you read the ruling or do we just have the pleasure of hearing you make up stuff?"

I posted Judge Strom's ruling you idiot.

Conman: "How do you know if it was taken out of context? You haven't posted it in context yet."

You already admitted to saying it. There is no reason to quote you again.

Conman: "Tyson pulled their market play and they knew what would happen. It is you that can not even look at recent history, not I."

Your point is that Tyson intentionally let beef profits slip to benefit pork so they could buy out their competition. That was the stupid statement you made. I suppose now you'll claim you never made that stupid statement either huh?

Conman: "I wasn't involved in the case so how did I lose?"

Because you are a packer blamer who wanted a different verdict than the one you can't accept. That's how you lost.

Conman: "Why are they pushing the premise M-ID in Texas and having farmers pay for it? Seems you tried to make a statement and make it a universal statement but were caught. Pretty misleading, SH."

Don't try you deceptive antics with me. You were the idiot that stated that packers wouldn't pay for traceable cattle and I proved you wrong so you diverted. Typical of your slithering deceptive ways.

Conman: "Tyson owns both. They have market power in the proteins industry, not just in chicken, pork, or poultry. It makes their market power even greater when they own the substitutes."

Ibp was not a poultry company you moron.

Conman: "That is your argument, not mine. Do I need to refer you back to who is responsible for the market power tricks when under what ownership or can you go back and read the old thread yourself?"

DIVERSION!

You were the one who claimed ibp would buy out their competition due to market power games that exist in your conspiring mind. I had to point out to you that ibp was bought out themselves.

Keep diverting around addressing the stupidity of your statements. That's what I would expect from a complete phony like you.

Conman: "They don't even know the difference between "or" and "and". I would trust my 5 year old before I would trust the 11th circuit judges, as Pickett found out."

Cheesy excuse to justify the Pickett loss.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Then list them."

First answer my questions:

What does those questions have to do with Pickett losing their case?

Show me where I misrepresented those questions you damn liar!

Econ: So do you know the questions or not?
yes
no

Circle one.

Conman: "Econ: Did you read the ruling or do we just have the pleasure of hearing you make up stuff?"

I posted Judge Strom's ruling you idiot.

Econ: The question was did you read it?

Conman: "How do you know if it was taken out of context? You haven't posted it in context yet."

You already admitted to saying it. There is no reason to quote you again.

Econ: Yes and I believe you admited to calling yourself something with the words I took out of context from your own posts, SH. What does either prove?

Conman: "Tyson pulled their market play and they knew what would happen. It is you that can not even look at recent history, not I."

Your point is that Tyson intentionally let beef profits slip to benefit pork so they could buy out their competition. That was the stupid statement you made. I suppose now you'll claim you never made that stupid statement either huh?

Econ: Tyson economists knew what they were doing. Do you disagree with that?

Conman: "I wasn't involved in the case so how did I lose?"

Because you are a packer blamer who wanted a different verdict than the one you can't accept. That's how you lost.

Econ: I rather liked the jury verdict. It was the legislating from the bench afterwards that was the problem.

Conman: "Why are they pushing the premise M-ID in Texas and having farmers pay for it? Seems you tried to make a statement and make it a universal statement but were caught. Pretty misleading, SH."

Don't try you deceptive antics with me. You were the idiot that stated that packers wouldn't pay for traceable cattle and I proved you wrong so you diverted. Typical of your slithering deceptive ways.

Econ: So are you going to get the packers to pay the $20.00? Where do we sign up?

Conman: "Tyson owns both. They have market power in the proteins industry, not just in chicken, pork, or poultry. It makes their market power even greater when they own the substitutes."

Ibp was not a poultry company you moron.

Econ: Who said it was? That was your statement, not mine. If you would like to make an argument with yourself, please do it with pms.

Conman: "That is your argument, not mine. Do I need to refer you back to who is responsible for the market power tricks when under what ownership or can you go back and read the old thread yourself?"

DIVERSION!

You were the one who claimed ibp would buy out their competition due to market power games that exist in your conspiring mind. I had to point out to you that ibp was bought out themselves.

Keep diverting around addressing the stupidity of your statements. That's what I would expect from a complete phony like you.

Econ: So is ibp now a part of Tyson? Is Tyson the largest poultry company or not? Did Tyson buy ibp and also hudson? Is there more market power or less for Tyson in the meats than before? If you want to argue with yourself, again, I say do it in the pms.

Conman: "They don't even know the difference between "or" and "and". I would trust my 5 year old before I would trust the 11th circuit judges, as Pickett found out."

Cheesy excuse to justify the Pickett loss.



~SH~

Econ: No, it was a cheesy decision to make Pickett lose.

 

[Anonymous]

Pickett sealed their own doom by basing their case on nothing but conspiracy theories and phony "untested theories".


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Pickett sealed their own doom by basing their case on nothing but conspiracy theories and phony "untested theories".


~SH~

Picket expected a fair and competent judiciary. He did not get it. He got some judges that obviously don't know a thing about economics and yet want to cast dispersions on a real good economist. He got some judges that decided they knew better than the ones who wrote the law and passed it and who would legislate from the bench. He got a system of justice that is skewed towards big corporations. The 11th circuit is known for that. The real theory being tested wasn't about the Pickett case at all. It was about the integrity of the 11th circuit court.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Picket expected a fair and competent judiciary. He did not get it. He got some judges that obviously don't know a thing about economics and yet want to cast dispersions on a real good economist. He got some judges that decided they knew better than the ones who wrote the law and passed it and who would legislate from the bench. He got a system of justice that is skewed towards big corporations. The 11th circuit is known for that. The real theory being tested wasn't about the Pickett case at all. It was about the integrity of the 11th circuit court."

Pickett got a fair trial and they lost because they could't prove their phony "THEORIES". Most judges wouldn't have even heard such a phony case. That's why the case was tried in Alabama instead of the cattle feeding states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, or Oklahoma where people understand cattle feeding. Juries in those states would have laughed their phony case out of the courtroom. They wanted to find a jury that didn't know who to believe. Pickett lost because they didn't have a case and Judge Stroms decision was held up UNANYMOUSLY by the 11th circuit. CRY ME A RIVER!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Conman: "Picket expected a fair and competent judiciary. He did not get it. He got some judges that obviously don't know a thing about economics and yet want to cast dispersions on a real good economist. He got some judges that decided they knew better than the ones who wrote the law and passed it and who would legislate from the bench. He got a system of justice that is skewed towards big corporations. The 11th circuit is known for that. The real theory being tested wasn't about the Pickett case at all. It was about the integrity of the 11th circuit court."

Pickett got a fair trial and they lost because they could't prove their phony "THEORIES". Most judges wouldn't have even heard such a phony case. That's why the case was tried in Alabama instead of the cattle feeding states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, or Oklahoma where people understand cattle feeding. Juries in those states would have laughed their phony case out of the courtroom. They wanted to find a jury that didn't know who to believe. Pickett lost because they didn't have a case and Judge Stroms decision was held up UNANYMOUSLY by the 11th circuit. CRY ME A RIVER!


~SH~

Courts look for impartial juries with no predisposed notions of the case. Your arguement that the case should been tried in cattle feeding states where "people understand cattle feeding" shows your lack of knowledge on the judicial system. Jurors in cattle feeding states are more likely to have formed opinions from reading local news, talk at the coffee shop, friends and reletives who are feeding and who have had dealings with the defendant and/or plaintiffs. Guess we shouldn't be surprised, showing lack of knowledge is your modus operandi. Yet, you continue to post ad nauseum.... I guess we should be thankful for the comedic relief.

Thanks, Man. You brighten my day. My son and best buddy is an autistic 7 year old. Oftentimes I get long in the face worrying about him, but then I read your posts and realize somewhere there is a father's son who makes my boy look like Einstein. I appreciate it, SH. Thanks again.

I love you, Man. :wink:

 

[agman]

Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Pickett failed to prove market manipulation, period. They lost their case and they lost on appeal.

Econ: They proved it to the jury. That is who is supposed to judge the case, not corrupt or incompetent judges.

Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen."

No, an illusion you created which does not prove payoffs. Just another conspiracy to add to your list.

Econ: Can you point out the illusion? I fail to see anything other than facts presented.

Conman: "Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."

Quit trying to slither around what you stated. You even admitted to saying it when I asked you because you knew I was going to hammer you with the actual quote. You made a stupid statement because you simply didn't know any better.

Econ: I have asked you time and time again to put it into context with my original post instead of some snippet taken out of context. You have failed to do so. Looks like you are the one slithering here, SH.

Conman: "Econ: Shows how much you know about market frauds. Stock buyers know the price of the shares they buy but they can still be defrauded (although it is illegal)."

APPLES AND ORANGES!

There is no fraud when the issue is how the base price is derived AND YOU KNOW HOW THE BASE PRICE IS DERIVED BEFORE SELLING.

Econ: Talk about a fruit basket here, SH!!!

Conman: "Econ: You don't know Tyson's intentions any more than you knew if they lost more money in Canada where you lost your little bet, SH. Intentions sometimes don't matter when the facts are presented and show what really happened. Does the PSA have anything in it regarding proving intentions? Look hard, maybe you will learn something, SH."

If I don't know Tyson's intentions, how could you? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT THEY SACRIFICED BEEF TO THE BENEFIT OF POULTRY???

The dumb assed point you are trying to make here is that Tyson sacrificed beef to the benefit of poultry and I'm telling you the fact that Tyson's beef profits in comparison to their poultry profits has more to do with consumer buying practices than anything Tyson did to affect those markets. To suggest otherwise is just one more of your many baseless unsupported conspiracy theories.

Econ: You know so little about supply and demand, prices, and market manipulation, SH. Do I need to post the article here again for you, SH? You are just plain wrong on this one and the facts of recent history prove me correct.

Conman: "The 11th Circuit actually got the Robinson-Patman example wrong---you would understand that if you knew that packers are margin producers. Their game is played in the middle, not just on one side."

There you go again. Arrogantly lecturing me on the things that I taught you. You are so pathetic!

Econ: What did you teach me here, SH? Can you spell out the error in the appellate decision regarding the Robinson-Patman Act example in the decision? Put up or shut up.

Conman: "Econ: And shown with actual evidence."

Evidence of campaign contributions being paid is not evidence of how those contributions influenced Judge Strom's decision. It's another "ILLUSION" which is par for your deceptive course.

Econ: You are the one with the connect the dots problem here, SH, not I.

Conman: "Econ: You are jumping, here SH. National is your little argument, not mine. Stick with the facts please."

You made the suggestion that ibp plays market games to eventually buy out their competition.

I told you the fact that Tyson could have bought out National if that was true and they didn't. I also told you the fact that Tyson bought ibp rather than ibp using their "SUPPOSED" market manipulation to buy someone else.

I presented the facts and true to form, you had no response. EMPTY AGAIN!

Econ: Just because Tyson did not do something you claim is market manipulation means nothing except that you just keep making stuff up. How did Tyson get the market share they have in poultry and beef?

Conman: "Econ: That is just your opinion, SH. That and 50 cents is just 50 cents."

That is a fact! If you study the history of the PSA, it's roots were in price fixing by packers colluding to set the price of cattle. The PSA addresses that very issue. No opinion, facts! Facts you will not refute.

You are so "factually void".


Why don't you reveal your identity so everyone can see who the fool is????


~SH~

Econ: That is exactly what the cash price was; a price that was depressed by the collusive actions of Tyson and others. That is what happens when the cash price is the basis for captive supply pricing and the market participants discriminate against the cash price.

PSST Fraud-man, don't lie and deceive by using a quote from me incorrectly ]"Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."
Your use of that statement in your defense of the Pickett case is a total lie. Another comprehension problem on your part. I can prove I made that statement in reference to a 468,000 head increase in feeder and calf supplies outside of feedyards and the normal price impact that increase in supply would have "all other things being equal".

You have now used that statement the second time and you were corrected the previous time so that is how you qualify as a complete and blatant liar. Trapped youself in another lie did you?

Second point..... Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen." [/quote] Contributions do not necessarily equate to buying influence. Who are you to say how anyone would have voted if there were no contributions. You have no proof of payoffs; just another bunch of factless accustaions. Did it ever dawn on your midget mind that perhaps those who vote against your will are one hell of alot more knowledgeable that you and your bag of fantasy accusations? That would not take much even for a politician.

Third point...Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Did you day "some" judges? You have a real comprehension problem and propensity to distort and lie. The facts are it was a UNAMIOUS decision on ALL counts; your side lost. In addition, NOT EVEN ONE federal judge in the ENTIRE 11th District would even call for a vote on an En Banc hearing of the Appellate Court's unanimous decision. What is it that you do not understand about the word "UNANIMOUS"?

You are the man with the wizard vocabulary!! There is no "some judges" as you falsely claim. It was UNANIMOUS on ALL counts by ALL judges. You trapped yourself in another distortion and lie. Your imaginary intellect gets bested by your midget mind again. ALL the judges are wrong and only Conman is correct-my laugh for the day! You are just too easy Conman, but that is what lying will do. You lose track and then you trap yourself!!! Contact SH, he might be sympathetic enough to show you how to get your flappin lips out of that bear trap. Damn, that must hurt a self-annointed intellectual like you!!

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Courts look for impartial juries with no predisposed notions of the case. Your arguement that the case should been tried in cattle feeding states where "people understand cattle feeding" shows your lack of knowledge on the judicial system. Jurors in cattle feeding states are more likely to have formed opinions from reading local news, talk at the coffee shop, friends and reletives who are feeding and who have had dealings with the defendant and/or plaintiffs. Guess we shouldn't be surprised, showing lack of knowledge is your modus operandi. Yet, you continue to post ad nauseum.... I guess we should be thankful for the comedic relief."

Courts normally try cases where the "damages" supposedly occurred. Mike Callicrate had already lost a case in the cattle feeding states, that's why they tried this on in Alabama. They had to find a jury that didn't know enough about cattle feeding transactions to know who to believe. Luckily, Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw through the phoniness that the jury didn't or "dropping your price to reflect your previous purchases (demand)" would have been considered market manipulation.

The Pickett verdict proved that our courts still operate on fact and not emotion.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Pickett failed to prove market manipulation, period. They lost their case and they lost on appeal.

Econ: They proved it to the jury. That is who is supposed to judge the case, not corrupt or incompetent judges.

Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen."

No, an illusion you created which does not prove payoffs. Just another conspiracy to add to your list.

Econ: Can you point out the illusion? I fail to see anything other than facts presented.

Conman: "Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."

Quit trying to slither around what you stated. You even admitted to saying it when I asked you because you knew I was going to hammer you with the actual quote. You made a stupid statement because you simply didn't know any better.

Econ: I have asked you time and time again to put it into context with my original post instead of some snippet taken out of context. You have failed to do so. Looks like you are the one slithering here, SH.

Conman: "Econ: Shows how much you know about market frauds. Stock buyers know the price of the shares they buy but they can still be defrauded (although it is illegal)."

APPLES AND ORANGES!

There is no fraud when the issue is how the base price is derived AND YOU KNOW HOW THE BASE PRICE IS DERIVED BEFORE SELLING.

Econ: Talk about a fruit basket here, SH!!!

Conman: "Econ: You don't know Tyson's intentions any more than you knew if they lost more money in Canada where you lost your little bet, SH. Intentions sometimes don't matter when the facts are presented and show what really happened. Does the PSA have anything in it regarding proving intentions? Look hard, maybe you will learn something, SH."

If I don't know Tyson's intentions, how could you? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT THEY SACRIFICED BEEF TO THE BENEFIT OF POULTRY???

The dumb assed point you are trying to make here is that Tyson sacrificed beef to the benefit of poultry and I'm telling you the fact that Tyson's beef profits in comparison to their poultry profits has more to do with consumer buying practices than anything Tyson did to affect those markets. To suggest otherwise is just one more of your many baseless unsupported conspiracy theories.

Econ: You know so little about supply and demand, prices, and market manipulation, SH. Do I need to post the article here again for you, SH? You are just plain wrong on this one and the facts of recent history prove me correct.

Conman: "The 11th Circuit actually got the Robinson-Patman example wrong---you would understand that if you knew that packers are margin producers. Their game is played in the middle, not just on one side."

There you go again. Arrogantly lecturing me on the things that I taught you. You are so pathetic!

Econ: What did you teach me here, SH? Can you spell out the error in the appellate decision regarding the Robinson-Patman Act example in the decision? Put up or shut up.

Conman: "Econ: And shown with actual evidence."

Evidence of campaign contributions being paid is not evidence of how those contributions influenced Judge Strom's decision. It's another "ILLUSION" which is par for your deceptive course.

Econ: You are the one with the connect the dots problem here, SH, not I.

Conman: "Econ: You are jumping, here SH. National is your little argument, not mine. Stick with the facts please."

You made the suggestion that ibp plays market games to eventually buy out their competition.

I told you the fact that Tyson could have bought out National if that was true and they didn't. I also told you the fact that Tyson bought ibp rather than ibp using their "SUPPOSED" market manipulation to buy someone else.

I presented the facts and true to form, you had no response. EMPTY AGAIN!

Econ: Just because Tyson did not do something you claim is market manipulation means nothing except that you just keep making stuff up. How did Tyson get the market share they have in poultry and beef?

Conman: "Econ: That is just your opinion, SH. That and 50 cents is just 50 cents."

That is a fact! If you study the history of the PSA, it's roots were in price fixing by packers colluding to set the price of cattle. The PSA addresses that very issue. No opinion, facts! Facts you will not refute.

You are so "factually void".


Why don't you reveal your identity so everyone can see who the fool is????


~SH~

Econ: That is exactly what the cash price was; a price that was depressed by the collusive actions of Tyson and others. That is what happens when the cash price is the basis for captive supply pricing and the market participants discriminate against the cash price.

Agman: PSST Fraud-man, don't lie and deceive by using a quote from me incorrectly ]"Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."
Your use of that statement in your defense of the Pickett case is a total lie. Another comprehension problem on your part. I can prove I made that statement in reference to a 468,000 head increase in feeder and calf supplies outside of feedyards and the normal price impact that increase in supply would have "all other things being equal".


Econ: I did not use the saying, "All other things held equal", in reference to the Pickett trial. The fact that the time periods being analyzed were very very short with a sumation of these findings made the statement unnecessary as you know from previous discussions, Agman. This is something the demand index has real problems with in its application. The sumation of these time periods is a different animal all together. Actually, Agman, I did not refute the numbers you brought regarding the "all other things being held equal" as it applied to the increased supply or 468k that you mentioned. I was just noting the fact that you had to say it to be economically correct. This means to me that you are economically literate but wish to decieve, which puts you into the category of corrupt instead of incompetent (I have not argued that you are incompetent). I am sure you have the numbers you brought regarding the price decrease as it relates to increased supply (an argument I have continually made).

In short, I have a problem with the economic interpretation you bring in analyizing the Pickett issues, not so much with the numbers you calculate. The methodology of obtaining your numbers is important in determining their interpretation.

Although I may have said that "prices can not go up unless supplies come down", the quote was for a specific set of circumstances. The "all other things being held constant" phrase is just an economic condition that economists use to not have to calculate every little thing that affects price (as you are saying Taylor was required to do). Taylor did not need to do this because of the short time periods in his analysis (again, I have not been privey to the actual calculations as you claim to be). This happens to be the biggest flaw with the "demand index" you were so instrumental in developing. The calculated values of the demand index are not applicable to conclusions when the meat group is being coordinated. You are smart enough to know that, you have admitted that Tyson's knows that, and yet you allow the demand index calculated values to be used as a basis for interpretation in time periods that are vastly different than Taylor's calculations. The further out in time you are, the less applicable the numbers are. You know this and yet you refuse to get into a substantive discussion on the merits of the arguments. Who is the fraud-man here?

Agman: You have now used that statement the second time and you were corrected the previous time so that is how you qualify as a complete and blatant liar. Trapped youself in another lie did you?

Econ: Corrected? No, you just did not have all the information to be able to determine what it was I was talking about and then you frog (fraud) jumped to some conclusions that were incorrect. You are beginning to sound a little like Jason, here, Agman. Funny, these are the same things that have happened in the Pickett case.


Agman: Second point..... Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen." [/quote] Contributions do not necessarily equate to buying influence. Who are you to say how anyone would have voted if there were no contributions. You have no proof of payoffs; just another bunch of factless accustaions. Did it ever dawn on your midget mind that perhaps those who vote against your will are one hell of alot more knowledgeable that you and your bag of fantasy accusations? That would not take much even for a politician.

Econ: If you don't think money influences politicians, Agman, why don't we just ban them altogether? After all, if they don't influence politicians, they are not necessary expenditures of stockholder money. Your argument here is as weak as any in light of the recent relevations on the hill with the marriage of K street and the current republican leadership and the abramoff scandals. This shows you are not able to connec the dots either. Good thing you are not in charge of connecting the dots of terrorist activity.

Agman: Third point...Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Did you day "some" judges? You have a real comprehension problem and propensity to distort and lie. The facts are it was a UNAMIOUS decision on ALL counts; your side lost. In addition, NOT EVEN ONE federal judge in the ENTIRE 11th District would even call for a vote on an En Banc hearing of the Appellate Court's unanimous decision. What is it that you do not understand about the word "UNANIMOUS"?

Econ: Yes, there is a REAL problem with the 11th circuit. As I said before, my 5 year old knows the difference between "or" and "and". Too bad these judges do not, and instead want to legislate from the bench and give the campaign contributors (Tyson) funneled contributions to the people who recommend their apointments and advancements.

Agman: You are the man with the wizard vocabulary!! There is no "some judges" as you falsely claim. It was UNANIMOUS on ALL counts by ALL judges. You trapped yourself in another distortion and lie. Your imaginary intellect gets bested by your midget mind again. ALL the judges are wrong and only Conman is correct-my laugh for the day! You are just too easy Conman, but that is what lying will do. You lose track and then you trap yourself!!! Contact SH, he might be sympathetic enough to show you how to get your flappin lips out of that bear trap. Damn, that must hurt a self-annointed intellectual like you!![/quote]

Econ: Back to your tell again, Agman. Can't you offer any substance to your points? The judges in the 11th circuit are just part of the judges in the U.S. They are not all. They are just some. I see all you can muster for your arguments is little fish. Come back when you want to discuss these issues substantively or have bigger fish to bring to the table. You couldn't feed anyone with the fish you have brought except a few judges who don't mind the stink.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Courts look for impartial juries with no predisposed notions of the case. Your arguement that the case should been tried in cattle feeding states where "people understand cattle feeding" shows your lack of knowledge on the judicial system. Jurors in cattle feeding states are more likely to have formed opinions from reading local news, talk at the coffee shop, friends and reletives who are feeding and who have had dealings with the defendant and/or plaintiffs. Guess we shouldn't be surprised, showing lack of knowledge is your modus operandi. Yet, you continue to post ad nauseum.... I guess we should be thankful for the comedic relief."

Courts normally try cases where the "damages" supposedly occurred. Mike Callicrate had already lost a case in the cattle feeding states, that's why they tried this on in Alabama. They had to find a jury that didn't know enough about cattle feeding transactions to know who to believe. Luckily, Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw through the phoniness that the jury didn't or "dropping your price to reflect your previous purchases (demand)" would have been considered market manipulation.

The Pickett verdict proved that our courts still operate on fact and not emotion.


~SH~

SH:

Luckily, Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw through the phoniness that the jury didn't or "dropping your price to reflect your previous purchases (demand)" would have been considered market manipulation.

The Pickett verdict proved that our courts still operate on fact and not emotion.


~SH~

I would agree with your statement if the captive supply price was not tied to the cash price. That is what makes your arguments incorrect, SH.

The Pickett verdict proved that our courts(11th circuit at least) still operate on the fact that they are people too and work towards thier own self interest instead of upholding the law as written and passed by congress. Even my 5 year old understands that.

 

[agman]

Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Pickett failed to prove market manipulation, period. They lost their case and they lost on appeal.

Econ: They proved it to the jury. That is who is supposed to judge the case, not corrupt or incompetent judges.

Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen."

No, an illusion you created which does not prove payoffs. Just another conspiracy to add to your list.

Econ: Can you point out the illusion? I fail to see anything other than facts presented.

Conman: "Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."

Quit trying to slither around what you stated. You even admitted to saying it when I asked you because you knew I was going to hammer you with the actual quote. You made a stupid statement because you simply didn't know any better.

Econ: I have asked you time and time again to put it into context with my original post instead of some snippet taken out of context. You have failed to do so. Looks like you are the one slithering here, SH.

Conman: "Econ: Shows how much you know about market frauds. Stock buyers know the price of the shares they buy but they can still be defrauded (although it is illegal)."

APPLES AND ORANGES!

There is no fraud when the issue is how the base price is derived AND YOU KNOW HOW THE BASE PRICE IS DERIVED BEFORE SELLING.

Econ: Talk about a fruit basket here, SH!!!

Conman: "Econ: You don't know Tyson's intentions any more than you knew if they lost more money in Canada where you lost your little bet, SH. Intentions sometimes don't matter when the facts are presented and show what really happened. Does the PSA have anything in it regarding proving intentions? Look hard, maybe you will learn something, SH."

If I don't know Tyson's intentions, how could you? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT THEY SACRIFICED BEEF TO THE BENEFIT OF POULTRY???

The dumb assed point you are trying to make here is that Tyson sacrificed beef to the benefit of poultry and I'm telling you the fact that Tyson's beef profits in comparison to their poultry profits has more to do with consumer buying practices than anything Tyson did to affect those markets. To suggest otherwise is just one more of your many baseless unsupported conspiracy theories.

Econ: You know so little about supply and demand, prices, and market manipulation, SH. Do I need to post the article here again for you, SH? You are just plain wrong on this one and the facts of recent history prove me correct.

Conman: "The 11th Circuit actually got the Robinson-Patman example wrong---you would understand that if you knew that packers are margin producers. Their game is played in the middle, not just on one side."

There you go again. Arrogantly lecturing me on the things that I taught you. You are so pathetic!

Econ: What did you teach me here, SH? Can you spell out the error in the appellate decision regarding the Robinson-Patman Act example in the decision? Put up or shut up.

Conman: "Econ: And shown with actual evidence."

Evidence of campaign contributions being paid is not evidence of how those contributions influenced Judge Strom's decision. It's another "ILLUSION" which is par for your deceptive course.

Econ: You are the one with the connect the dots problem here, SH, not I.

Conman: "Econ: You are jumping, here SH. National is your little argument, not mine. Stick with the facts please."

You made the suggestion that ibp plays market games to eventually buy out their competition.

I told you the fact that Tyson could have bought out National if that was true and they didn't. I also told you the fact that Tyson bought ibp rather than ibp using their "SUPPOSED" market manipulation to buy someone else.

I presented the facts and true to form, you had no response. EMPTY AGAIN!

Econ: Just because Tyson did not do something you claim is market manipulation means nothing except that you just keep making stuff up. How did Tyson get the market share they have in poultry and beef?

Conman: "Econ: That is just your opinion, SH. That and 50 cents is just 50 cents."

That is a fact! If you study the history of the PSA, it's roots were in price fixing by packers colluding to set the price of cattle. The PSA addresses that very issue. No opinion, facts! Facts you will not refute.

You are so "factually void".


Why don't you reveal your identity so everyone can see who the fool is????


~SH~

Econ: That is exactly what the cash price was; a price that was depressed by the collusive actions of Tyson and others. That is what happens when the cash price is the basis for captive supply pricing and the market participants discriminate against the cash price.

Agman: PSST Fraud-man, don't lie and deceive by using a quote from me incorrectly ]"Econ: "All other things held equal"--quote from Agman."
Your use of that statement in your defense of the Pickett case is a total lie. Another comprehension problem on your part. I can prove I made that statement in reference to a 468,000 head increase in feeder and calf supplies outside of feedyards and the normal price impact that increase in supply would have "all other things being equal".


Econ: I did not use the saying, "All other things held equal", in reference to the Pickett trial. The fact that the time periods being analyzed were very very short with a sumation of these findings made the statement unnecessary as you know from previous discussions, Agman. This is something the demand index has real problems with in its application. The sumation of these time periods is a different animal all together. Actually, Agman, I did not refute the numbers you brought regarding the "all other things being held equal" as it applied to the increased supply or 468k that you mentioned. I was just noting the fact that you had to say it to be economically correct. This means to me that you are economically literate but wish to decieve, which puts you into the category of corrupt instead of incompetent (I have not argued that you are incompetent). I am sure you have the numbers you brought regarding the price decrease as it relates to increased supply (an argument I have continually made).

In short, I have a problem with the economic interpretation you bring in analyizing the Pickett issues, not so much with the numbers you calculate. The methodology of obtaining your numbers is important in determining their interpretation.

Although I may have said that "prices can not go up unless supplies come down", the quote was for a specific set of circumstances. The "all other things being held constant" phrase is just an economic condition that economists use to not have to calculate every little thing that affects price (as you are saying Taylor was required to do). Taylor did not need to do this because of the short time periods in his analysis (again, I have not been privey to the actual calculations as you claim to be). This happens to be the biggest flaw with the "demand index" you were so instrumental in developing. The calculated values of the demand index are not applicable to conclusions when the meat group is being coordinated. You are smart enough to know that, you have admitted that Tyson's knows that, and yet you allow the demand index calculated values to be used as a basis for interpretation in time periods that are vastly different than Taylor's calculations. The further out in time you are, the less applicable the numbers are. You know this and yet you refuse to get into a substantive discussion on the merits of the arguments. Who is the fraud-man here?

Agman: You have now used that statement the second time and you were corrected the previous time so that is how you qualify as a complete and blatant liar. Trapped youself in another lie did you?

Econ: Corrected? No, you just did not have all the information to be able to determine what it was I was talking about and then you frog (fraud) jumped to some conclusions that were incorrect. You are beginning to sound a little like Jason, here, Agman. Funny, these are the same things that have happened in the Pickett case.


Agman: Second point..... Conman: "Econ: Facts presented with the help of Public Citizen."

Contributions do not necessarily equate to buying influence. Who are you to say how anyone would have voted if there were no contributions. You have no proof of payoffs; just another bunch of factless accustaions. Did it ever dawn on your midget mind that perhaps those who vote against your will are one hell of alot more knowledgeable that you and your bag of fantasy accusations? That would not take much even for a politician.

Econ: If you don't think money influences politicians, Agman, why don't we just ban them altogether? After all, if they don't influence politicians, they are not necessary expenditures of stockholder money. Your argument here is as weak as any in light of the recent relevations on the hill with the marriage of K street and the current republican leadership and the abramoff scandals. This shows you are not able to connec the dots either. Good thing you are not in charge of connecting the dots of terrorist activity.

Agman: Third point...Conman: "No, it was because Tyson didn't want to pay out for the damages it inflicted on the economy and it got some judges from the 11th circuit to go along with them by legislating on the bench."

Did you day "some" judges? You have a real comprehension problem and propensity to distort and lie. The facts are it was a UNAMIOUS decision on ALL counts; your side lost. In addition, NOT EVEN ONE federal judge in the ENTIRE 11th District would even call for a vote on an En Banc hearing of the Appellate Court's unanimous decision. What is it that you do not understand about the word "UNANIMOUS"?

Econ: Yes, there is a REAL problem with the 11th circuit. As I said before, my 5 year old knows the difference between "or" and "and". Too bad these judges do not, and instead want to legislate from the bench and give the campaign contributors (Tyson) funneled contributions to the people who recommend their apointments and advancements.

Agman: You are the man with the wizard vocabulary!! There is no "some judges" as you falsely claim. It was UNANIMOUS on ALL counts by ALL judges. You trapped yourself in another distortion and lie. Your imaginary intellect gets bested by your midget mind again. ALL the judges are wrong and only Conman is correct-my laugh for the day! You are just too easy Conman, but that is what lying will do. You lose track and then you trap yourself!!! Contact SH, he might be sympathetic enough to show you how to get your flappin lips out of that bear trap. Damn, that must hurt a self-annointed intellectual like you!![/quote]

Econ: Back to your tell again, Agman. Can't you offer any substance to your points? The judges in the 11th circuit are just part of the judges in the U.S. They are not all. They are just some. I see all you can muster for your arguments is little fish. Come back when you want to discuss these issues substantively or have bigger fish to bring to the table. You couldn't feed anyone with the fish you have brought except a few judges who don't mind the stink.[/quote]

This case was in the 11th Circuit you fool. Did "some" judges outside the 11th circuit rule on this case - NO. Trying to cover your losses again by diverting. You make my day with your twists, turns and outright lies. You are one really pathetic person. Who do you think you are kidding? No one with a pea for a brain would believe anything you say. You have lied and twisted comments to that extent. Talking about fish, you would not qualify as a guppie except in your own mind. Get a life that is not predicated on accusations, lies and innuendos.

 

[Econ101]

Agman: "This case was in the 11th Circuit you fool. Did "some" judges outside the 11th circuit rule on this case - NO. Trying to cover your losses again by diverting. You make my day with your twists, turns and outright lies. You are one really pathetic person. Who do you think you are kidding? No one with a pea for a brain would believe anything you say. You have lied and twisted comments to that extent. Talking about fish, you would not qualify as a guppie except in your own mind. Get a life that is not predicated on accusations, lies and innuendos."

Econ: Agman, I know the case is in the 11th circuit. You are the one that made a big deal out of me saying "some judges". You are right pointing out that it irrelevant to the discussion. I really do wish you would stay on topic.

Now, will you get back on topic and answer my questions that I posed on your calculations for your "demand" numbers or would you like to divert to some other little word in my post so you don't have to answer? Do you want me to ask them again? Just show your work, Agman. That is all I am asking.

Now, as far as what I have said about campaign contributions, do you have ANY evidence to the contrary of what I have said or are you just stating your opinion? Are you ready to say unequivicably that the Abramoff money made no difference and that neither do the contributions this industry has been giving to politicians ultimately responsible for allowing the frauds that have recently been exposed at GIPSA, the AMS, and the whole BSE fiasco and the implementation of MCOOL? Are you hearing the voices on capital hill for oversight hearings that are being blocked by the current leadership that have taken these contributions? Tell us the answers, Agman.

I think it is plain to see who is the fraud here.

 

[agman]

Agman: "This case was in the 11th Circuit you fool. Did "some" judges outside the 11th circuit rule on this case - NO. Trying to cover your losses again by diverting. You make my day with your twists, turns and outright lies. You are one really pathetic person. Who do you think you are kidding? No one with a pea for a brain would believe anything you say. You have lied and twisted comments to that extent. Talking about fish, you would not qualify as a guppie except in your own mind. Get a life that is not predicated on accusations, lies and innuendos."

Econ: Agman, I know the case is in the 11th circuit. You are the one that made a big deal out of me saying "some judges". You are right pointing out that it irrelevant to the discussion. I really do wish you would stay on topic.

Now, will you get back on topic and answer my questions that I posed on your calculations for your "demand" numbers or would you like to divert to some other little word in my post so you don't have to answer? Do you want me to ask them again? Just show your work, Agman. That is all I am asking.

Now, as far as what I have said about campaign contributions, do you have ANY evidence to the contrary of what I have said or are you just stating your opinion? Are you ready to say unequivicably that the Abramoff money made no difference and that neither do the contributions this industry has been giving to politicians ultimately responsible for allowing the frauds that have recently been exposed at GIPSA, the AMS, and the whole BSE fiasco and the implementation of MCOOL? Are you hearing the voices on capital hill for oversight hearings that are being blocked by the current leadership that have taken these contributions? Tell us the answers, Agman.

I think it is plain to see who is the fraud here.

If you disagree with the numbers I cited then produce your own genius. Your rhetoric and unsupported claims are old hat. You don't even know where to begin to refute results I have presented so how could you ever provide any credible critique? You have never completed any research on your own yet you think you have an answer to everyone else's' work.

You blatantly lied regarding Taylor testing his theories when he in fact said under oath he did not test his theories regarding how marketing agreements could lower prices. Since his conclusion, which was untesed, fit your bias you were willing to lie to readers to support your own unsupported accusations.

You have also blatanly lied regarding my statement refereced above "all other factors being equal". That statement as I pointed out referenced increased feeder cattle supplies and potential price impact. Your lack of comprehension and your willingess to twist and lie got you trapped again. Any reference I made regarding the "demand index" was that it is common and accepted methodology when doing multi-regression analysis or econometric modeling to hold one or more variables constant to determine their real impact if any. It is unfortunate that a self-annointed econ expert (fool) like you would try to dismiss that process. Again you showed your lack of comprehension and real ignorance of subject matter-as if you have not demonstrated to everyone those deficiencies and tendencies before. In your haste to impress readers with you self-acclaimed superior knowledge you confused and or co-mingled two separate issues to divert and attempt to confuse readers.

You our are all foam and no beer!! You remain a total fool who twists and lies constantly to protect a failed position. No one believes the garbage dissertations you put forth. You don't even believe your own garbage, that is why you twist constantly and divert constantly. You have lied so often and twisted statements to suit your bias that it is totally laughable. That remains your only contribution to this forum; you are a laugh a day. Better luck next time trying to lie your way out of a failed position.

 

[Econ101]

Agman: "This case was in the 11th Circuit you fool. Did "some" judges outside the 11th circuit rule on this case - NO. Trying to cover your losses again by diverting. You make my day with your twists, turns and outright lies. You are one really pathetic person. Who do you think you are kidding? No one with a pea for a brain would believe anything you say. You have lied and twisted comments to that extent. Talking about fish, you would not qualify as a guppie except in your own mind. Get a life that is not predicated on accusations, lies and innuendos."

Econ: Agman, I know the case is in the 11th circuit. You are the one that made a big deal out of me saying "some judges". You are right pointing out that it irrelevant to the discussion. I really do wish you would stay on topic.

Now, will you get back on topic and answer my questions that I posed on your calculations for your "demand" numbers or would you like to divert to some other little word in my post so you don't have to answer? Do you want me to ask them again? Just show your work, Agman. That is all I am asking.

Now, as far as what I have said about campaign contributions, do you have ANY evidence to the contrary of what I have said or are you just stating your opinion? Are you ready to say unequivicably that the Abramoff money made no difference and that neither do the contributions this industry has been giving to politicians ultimately responsible for allowing the frauds that have recently been exposed at GIPSA, the AMS, and the whole BSE fiasco and the implementation of MCOOL? Are you hearing the voices on capital hill for oversight hearings that are being blocked by the current leadership that have taken these contributions? Tell us the answers, Agman.

I think it is plain to see who is the fraud here.

Agman: If you disagree with the numbers I cited then produce your own genius. Your rhetoric and unsupported claims are old hat. You don't even know where to begin to refute results I have presented so how could you ever provide any credible critique? You have never completed any research on your own yet you think you have an answer to everyone else's' work.

Econ: So you are not going to show your work. It figures. I called your hand and you would rather fold them. Thanks for bringing numbers that validate my claims that you called me on.

Agman: You blatantly lied regarding Taylor testing his theories when he in fact said under oath he did not test his theories regarding how marketing agreements could lower prices. Since his conclusion, which was untesed, fit your bias you were willing to lie to readers to support your own unsupported accusations.

Econ: So we are back to that one, eh, Agman? What do you think the trial was for? Did you read the questions the jury was to answer? That question was for the jury to answer. They did. You just can't accept the answer. You want to make it an issue that is not there. Why don't you go answer the question above instead of folding when someone calls you?

Agman: You have also blatanly lied regarding my statement refereced above "all other factors being equal". That statement as I pointed out referenced increased feeder cattle supplies and potential price impact. Your lack of comprehension and your willingess to twist and lie got you trapped again. Any reference I made regarding the "demand index" was that it is common and accepted methodology when doing multi-regression analysis or econometric modeling to hold one or more variables constant to determine their real impact if any. It is unfortunate that a self-annointed econ expert (fool) like you would try to dismiss that process. Again you showed your lack of comprehension and real ignorance of subject matter-as if you have not demonstrated to everyone those deficiencies and tendencies before. In your haste to impress readers with you self-acclaimed superior knowledge you confused and or co-mingled two separate issues to divert and attempt to confuse readers.

Econ: I am not dismissing that process. I am saying that the calculations that Taylor made, due to the short time periods, did not have to hold anything else constant as your analysis did. His calculations, therefore, are far more accurate than yours. The more assumptions you have to make in calculating, the more those assumptions affect the calculated values. You may be getting some of the listed reasons behind why marketing agreements could lower prices with the calculations of how much they actually lowered prices. This is an elementary error, but then again, you are prone to those.

Agman: You our are all foam and no beer!! You remain a total fool who twists and lies constantly to protect a failed position. No one believes the garbage dissertations you put forth. You don't even believe your own garbage, that is why you twist constantly and divert constantly. You have lied so often and twisted statements to suit your bias that it is totally laughable. That remains your only contribution to this forum; you are a laugh a day. Better luck next time trying to lie your way out of a failed position.

Econ: Maybe it isn't me twisting what I am saying, maybe it is a reading comprehension problem on your part. You are so willing to attribute things to me that I have not said or take my words out of context. It is your bias that is the problem here, not my twists and "diversions". You are no different with the Pickett issues.

Go back and read the original numbered points SH posted and my responses. It is very revealing.

 

[Anonymous]

Coman: "His calculations [Taylor's calculations], therefore, are far more accurate than yours."

Hahaha!

How the hell would you know that? You were just bitching that Agman doesn't provide his data now you claim to know how accurate it is???

How can you believe that readers could be so stupid as to not pick up on your continous contradictions?

You are a complete phony!

Conman: " Go back and read the original numbered points SH posted and my responses. It is very revealing."

Why would Agman want to waste his valuable time reading how you dance, divert, deny, discredit, deceive, and dodge every question that is asked you?

What was revealing is how big of an idiot you are. You had no answer for the fact that Tyson is "A MARKET", not "THE MARKET". You had no answer for the fact that for your theory to have merit, Excel, Swift, USPB, and Tyson would all have to have an equal amount of formula cattle to have an equal affect on the cash market base price.

You are a complete idiot and you prove it with every post.

Why won't you tell us your name? Afraid to have a name that matches up with your complete phoniness?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Coman: "His calculations [Taylor's calculations], therefore, are far more accurate than yours."

Hahaha!

How the hell would you know that? You were just bitching that Agman doesn't provide his data now you claim to know how accurate it is???

How can you believe that readers could be so stupid as to not pick up on your continous contradictions?

You are a complete phony!


Econ: If you were smart enough to know what we were talking about here, SH, you would know the reasons why. Heck, you could even read my post and find out.

Conman: " Go back and read the original numbered points SH posted and my responses. It is very revealing."

Why would Agman want to waste his valuable time reading how you dance, divert, deny, discredit, deceive, and dodge every question that is asked you?

What was revealing is how big of an idiot you are. You had no answer for the fact that Tyson is "A MARKET", not "THE MARKET". You had no answer for the fact that for your theory to have merit, Excel, Swift, USPB, and Tyson would all have to have an equal amount of formula cattle to have an equal affect on the cash market base price.

You are a complete idiot and you prove it with every post.

Why won't you tell us your name? Afraid to have a name that matches up with your complete phoniness?


~SH~

Econ: Prove that they are really competing, SH. You have brought that up time and time again, yet it is just your opinion. Eye witnesses to the bidding process have refuted your claims, as they did in court during the Pickett trial. You are just a gopher trapper in S.D., why should anyone believe what you have to say when you start talking out of your area of expertise where you have been known to trap even yourself?