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.