Tyson gets out checkbook

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Heck, you could even read my post and find out."

I read your posts to address your lies, not to learn anything because you are a total phony. That's why you won't reveal your name.

Conman: "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."

What more proof do you need than three facts:

1. How cattle markets move in sync with boxed beef prices.
2. The profits of the major packers are reported to GIPSA.
3. The bids vary from packer to packer on a daily basis.

If there was no competition, MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.

THE OBVIOUS IS SIMPLY TOO OBVIOUS FOR SOMEONE AS DENSE AS YOU.

Conman: "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?"

ANOTHER DAMN LIE!

Talk is cheap. Step up to the plate and refute anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. You can't because your a fake. Same reason you won't reveal your identity.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Heck, you could even read my post and find out."

I read your posts to address your lies, not to learn anything because you are a total phony. That's why you won't reveal your name.

Conman: "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."

What more proof do you need than three facts:

1. How cattle markets move in sync with boxed beef prices.
2. The profits of the major packers are reported to GIPSA.
3. The bids vary from packer to packer on a daily basis.

If there was no competition, MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.

THE OBVIOUS IS SIMPLY TOO OBVIOUS FOR SOMEONE AS DENSE AS YOU.

Conman: "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?"

ANOTHER DAMN LIE!

Talk is cheap. Step up to the plate and refute anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. You can't because your a fake. Same reason you won't reveal your identity.


~SH~

1. How cattle markets move in sync with boxed beef prices.

Econ: Boy, the changes in the packer margins blow this argument right out of the water as does the Canadian salmon run. Get a clue, SH.

2. The profits of the major packers are reported to GIPSA.

Econ: So what? Profits of public companies are reported in their annual reports. That didn't mean a thing to Enron, Adelphia, or World Com. GIPSA wouldn't know what to do with that information if they were told as the recent investigatory report on GIPSA shows.

3. The bids vary from packer to packer on a daily basis.

Econ: So what? Do you think that means anything? The prices of the above mentioned companies fluctuated on their respective exchanges also. What does that have to do with the Pickett case or price manipulation? Do you think that stating obvious unrelated facts makes a case? Pickett had a lot more than that.

If there was no competition, MARKETS WOULD NOT MOVE.

THE OBVIOUS IS SIMPLY TOO OBVIOUS FOR SOMEONE AS DENSE AS YOU.

Econ: What happens when someone on Ranchers.net calls someone from Kadoka, S.D. a fruitbasket?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Boy, the changes in the packer margins blow this argument right out of the water as does the Canadian salmon run. Get a clue, SH."

Salmon run???

Can't you even compose an original thought?

You're too stupid to understand the Canadian situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity due to a closed border so there is no need in even discussing that but you sure like to sink your teeth into it since you are so "factually void" to support your theories with U.S. examples.

You don't know a damn thing about this "so called" salmon run other than what you've read here and WANTED TO BELIEVE.

If you knew anything about this industry at all, you would know that there is very little variation between how boxed beef prices track with live cattle prices.

You can make your cheap assed remarks all day but you will NEVER prove that live cattle prices do not track with boxed beef prices in the U.S. cattle industry. There isn't a cattle market analyst out there that does not track boxed beef prices to predict cattle prices.

The fact that you would even question that proves what a complete idiot you are.

Conman: "So what? Profits of public companies are reported in their annual reports. That didn't mean a thing to Enron, Adelphia, or World Com. GIPSA wouldn't know what to do with that information if they were told as the recent investigatory report on GIPSA shows."

Enron and World Com doesn't have a damn thing to do with the packing industry. The two are not even comparable.

Conman: "So what? Do you think that means anything?"

Not to an idiot like you, obviously!


WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION???

WHAT WAS THE PROOF THAT PICKETT PROVIDED???

You can't answer those questions because all you have is your cheap worthless little meaningless statements.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Boy, the changes in the packer margins blow this argument right out of the water as does the Canadian salmon run. Get a clue, SH."

SH: Salmon run???

Can't you even compose an original thought?

You're too stupid to understand the Canadian situation of having more cattle than slaughter capacity due to a closed border so there is no need in even discussing that but you sure like to sink your teeth into it since you are so "factually void" to support your theories with U.S. examples.

You don't know a damn thing about this "so called" salmon run other than what you've read here and WANTED TO BELIEVE.


Econ: So now you know what other people know? Tell me, then, SH, who am I?

If you knew anything about this industry at all, you would know that there is very little variation between how boxed beef prices track with live cattle prices.

Econ: So supply and demand don't have anything to do with it? Are the margins consistent all the time? We have already been down this discussion before, SH. Don't you remember anything? How will you advance the knowledge in your little brain if you keep forgeting what you learned before?

You can make your cheap assed remarks all day but you will NEVER prove that live cattle prices do not track with boxed beef prices in the U.S. cattle industry. There isn't a cattle market analyst out there that does not track boxed beef prices to predict cattle prices.

The fact that you would even question that proves what a complete idiot you are.

Econ: The Canadian situation proves the point, as I have taught you before, SH. What is your point in this argument of cattle tracking boxed beef? You keep repeating it as if it has some significance to your argument. Please do tell us what that significance is. Here, I will try one on you:

Fresh slaughtered meat is red.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Conman: "So what? Profits of public companies are reported in their annual reports. That didn't mean a thing to Enron, Adelphia, or World Com. GIPSA wouldn't know what to do with that information if they were told as the recent investigatory report on GIPSA shows."

Enron and World Com doesn't have a damn thing to do with the packing industry. The two are not even comparable.

Econ: There is something comparable in everything if you are smart enough to see it. You might not be.

Conman: "So what? Do you think that means anything?"

Not to an idiot like you, obviously!


WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION???

WHAT WAS THE PROOF THAT PICKETT PROVIDED???

You can't answer those questions because all you have is your cheap worthless little meaningless statements.



~SH~

Econ: Go ask the jury. They seemed to be convinced.

 

[Anonymous]

Why should I go ask the jury? Obviously you are also convinced but the question is, BY WHAT? What convinced you??? How many times have you said, "Pickett proved it to a jury". So what's the problem? Why can't you bring that proof that convinces you?

I'll tell you why you can't bring the proof that convinces you, because it doesn't exist. You packer blaming conspiracy theorists live in the "ILLUSIONAL WORLD" not the factual one.

You need someone or something to blame.


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

added note -

The salmon run has been scaled down to a Northern Pike run as excessive profits have being scaled down on fats and only seen in the cull cow sector here in Canada EH! :wink:

New plant development has forced Cargill and Tyson to dig into their war chest for fat cattle to put these start up smart asses in their place.

 

[Econ101]

Why should I go ask the jury? Obviously you are also convinced but the question is, BY WHAT? What convinced you??? How many times have you said, "Pickett proved it to a jury". So what's the problem? Why can't you bring that proof that convinces you?

I'll tell you why you can't bring the proof that convinces you, because it doesn't exist. You packer blaming conspiracy theorists live in the "ILLUSIONAL WORLD" not the factual one.

You need someone or something to blame.


~SH~

What convinced me? I know the math behind the computations. It is related to the same mathematical fraud Tyson is doing in the poultry business. They have been using it for some time over there. The questions I had answered on this board and through some of those involved in the case convinced me. Mathematical computations get the emotion and the bias out, if done right. The use of mathmatical analysis takes it out of an allegation and into fact for me. So far neither you nor agman have been able to disuade me yet from my conclusions. I wish you could have. It would have made life a lot easier.

 

[Sandhusker]

Why should I go ask the jury? Obviously you are also convinced but the question is, BY WHAT? What convinced you??? How many times have you said, "Pickett proved it to a jury". So what's the problem? Why can't you bring that proof that convinces you?

I'll tell you why you can't bring the proof that convinces you, because it doesn't exist. You packer blaming conspiracy theorists live in the "ILLUSIONAL WORLD" not the factual one.

You need someone or something to blame.


~SH~

How can the proof not exist when 12 jurors - mostly college educated professionals - all reached a unamious decision? Was this just another packer blaming comspiracy? Has the conspiracy spread even to non-beef producing states and people who are not in the industry at all?

You have no rational explanation for the juror's decision do you?

 

[Econ101]

Why should I go ask the jury? Obviously you are also convinced but the question is, BY WHAT? What convinced you??? How many times have you said, "Pickett proved it to a jury". So what's the problem? Why can't you bring that proof that convinces you?

I'll tell you why you can't bring the proof that convinces you, because it doesn't exist. You packer blaming conspiracy theorists live in the "ILLUSIONAL WORLD" not the factual one.

You need someone or something to blame.


~SH~

How can the proof not exist when 12 jurors - mostly college educated professionals - all reached a unamious decision? Was this just another packer blaming comspiracy? Has the conspiracy spread even to non-beef producing states and people who are not in the industry at all?

You have no rational explanation for the juror's decision do you?

Just the conspiracy theories he keeps spouting off about about people on this board.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "What convinced me? I know the math behind the computations. It is related to the same mathematical fraud Tyson is doing in the poultry business. They have been using it for some time over there. The questions I had answered on this board and through some of those involved in the case convinced me. Mathematical computations get the emotion and the bias out, if done right. The use of mathmatical analysis takes it out of an allegation and into fact for me. So far neither you nor agman have been able to disuade me yet from my conclusions. I wish you could have. It would have made life a lot easier."

Blah, blah, blah!

Nothing but empty generalizing statements. Never anything tangible. Imagine that?

Sandbag: "You have no rational explanation for the juror's decision do you?"

That's not hard at all.

The plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is market manipulation but it's not because Tyson is "a market", not "the market".

The plaintiffs kept sinking their teeth into a difference between the cash price and the formula price being market manipulation.

An Alabama jury is going to side with a large corporation over a bunch of poor little packer victims? Get real!

The jury's "tell" was when they couldn't come up with a rational explanation for their damages.

The supreme court will not hear this phony case. Write it down.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "What convinced me? I know the math behind the computations. It is related to the same mathematical fraud Tyson is doing in the poultry business. They have been using it for some time over there. The questions I had answered on this board and through some of those involved in the case convinced me. Mathematical computations get the emotion and the bias out, if done right. The use of mathmatical analysis takes it out of an allegation and into fact for me. So far neither you nor agman have been able to disuade me yet from my conclusions. I wish you could have. It would have made life a lot easier."

Blah, blah, blah!

Nothing but empty generalizing statements. Never anything tangible. Imagine that?

Sandbag: "You have no rational explanation for the juror's decision do you?"

That's not hard at all.

The plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is market manipulation but it's not because Tyson is "a market", not "the market".

The plaintiffs kept sinking their teeth into a difference between the cash price and the formula price being market manipulation.

An Alabama jury is going to side with a large corporation over a bunch of poor little packer victims? Get real!

The jury's "tell" was when they couldn't come up with a rational explanation for their damages.

The supreme court will not hear this phony case. Write it down.


~SH~

SH, the jurors were not supposed to be on trial here.

 

[Bill]

Sandhusker:

How can the proof not exist when 12 jurors - mostly college educated professionals - all reached a unamious decision?

:lol: :lol: :lol: College educated professionals? :lol: :lol: :lol:

College education does not indicate intelliegence and most certainly not common sense. For proof of that we need look no further than some of those who post on this site. :roll:

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker:

How can the proof not exist when 12 jurors - mostly college educated professionals - all reached a unamious decision?

:lol: :lol: :lol: College educated professionals? :lol: :lol: :lol:

College education does not indicate intelliegence and most certainly not common sense. For proof of that we need look no further than some of those who post on this site. :roll:

Nor does it indicate knowledge of the cattle business, especially of methods of buying and selling cattle.

Neither does it prevent envy of people owning "big" businesses and belief that, those with perceived "deep pockets" somehow "owe" the "little guy".

MRJ

 

[Mike]

Sandhusker:

How can the proof not exist when 12 jurors - mostly college educated professionals - all reached a unamious decision?

:lol: :lol: :lol: College educated professionals? :lol: :lol: :lol:

College education does not indicate intelliegence and most certainly not common sense. For proof of that we need look no further than some of those who post on this site. :roll:

Nor does it indicate knowledge of the cattle business, especially of methods of buying and selling cattle.

Neither does it prevent envy of people owning "big" businesses and belief that, those with perceived "deep pockets" somehow "owe" the "little guy".

MRJ

OK. So now jurors who sit on a "Murder" trial should know all about murder? Or one who sits on a "Tax Evasion" trial should know all about tax evasion?

You folks are being childish and ridiculous.

 

[Bill]

Sandhusker:



:lol: :lol: :lol: College educated professionals? :lol: :lol: :lol:

College education does not indicate intelliegence and most certainly not common sense. For proof of that we need look no further than some of those who post on this site. :roll:

Nor does it indicate knowledge of the cattle business, especially of methods of buying and selling cattle.

Neither does it prevent envy of people owning "big" businesses and belief that, those with perceived "deep pockets" somehow "owe" the "little guy".

MRJ

OK. So now jurors who sit on a "Murder" trial should know all about murder? Or one who sits on a "Tax Evasion" trial should know all about tax evasion?

You folks are being childish and ridiculous.

Like that has never happened on this site before! :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

My point was that "college educated professionals" may impress some enough to comment on it but it doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

We would be a lot better off as a society if common sense was a pre-requisite of the decision making processes instead of "college educated professionals".

 

[Anonymous]

My point was that "college educated professionals" may impress some enough to comment on it but it doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

We would be a lot better off as a society if common sense was a pre-requisite of the decision making processes instead of "college educated professionals".

Bill--Actually if the attorneys, corporate world, and some judges get their way- They want to have hired "Professional Jurors", made up of lawyers, accountants, business management, etc. people for these trials involving Corportate interests.....

They want to throw common sense and ever day knowledge of the common man out the window and replace it with some high paying professional juror jobs- all of which would/could then be subject to the same under the table monetary influences which now is contagious in Washington D.C. :???:

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "SH, the jurors were not supposed to be on trial here."

Then why did you ask for a rational explanation for their decision?

You trapped yourself again.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "SH, the jurors were not supposed to be on trial here."

Then why did you ask for a rational explanation for their decision?





~SH~

Where did I ask for that explanation, SH?


You trapped yourself again.

Don't attribute your ignorance to me and then call me on that ignorance.