• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Vertical Integration

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex,

Haha! As expected, Tex dodges another bullet with a volley of statements to avoid answering the question.

You're a dandy Tex. Laws are subject to intent and interpretation and that is not for you to interpret but rather for judges who place common sense and understanding of the intent of the law ahead of a need to blame.


Tex: "The law is pretty clear, SH, that packers can not discriminate in pricing for cattle of same quality."

That's right Tex, the law is pretty clear. There can be no price discrimination when feeders have so many marketing options available to them and nobody is forced to sell under any particular market. A fact that you cannot refute and continue to divert. There can be no price discrimination when the cash market can be higher than the grid pricing market it follows for as many times as it is lower. Another fact you cannot refute and continue to divert.

Here is something else that you cannot refute that is glaringly obvious. If feeders are being taken advantage of, why was this case not carried by many feeders instead of salebarn managers who have proclaimed themselves industry messiahs and a packer blaming feeder that can't tell the truth even when under oath? Do the salebarn managers really believe that the feeding industry needs them to save them from themselves?


~SH~

SH, the packers made up the grid pricing and based it on the cash market. When the grid takes up all of the supply, the cash market, which set the grid market pricing was thinned and subject to manipulation. The litigants proved it to the jury and the poor 80 something year old judge didn't know enough about economics to see the problem. He could not even read the law plainly but had to read his own interpretation of economics, which was not a learned interpretation at all in the field of economics, as a substitute for the jury's decision. Juries are the determinants of fact, not judges. This judge went above the power of our democracy gives judges and dismissed the jury's judgment. We now have an elite group of judges who claim the right to determine truth on their own without the input the founders of our country gave to the common citizen sitting on the jury. The appeals court in the 11th circuit then quoted themselves on making a new qualifier to make a claim under the Packers and Stockyards Act that was not ever there nor in the plain reading of the law.

Yes, the packers made the grid pricing system that offered the ability to thin the price setting cash market and then they discriminated against it. They had a portion of the market that could not set grid prices (the grid prices themselves) which depended only on the cash market for direction. They set it up that way but there were many other ways to set up grid pricing that did not discriminate against the price setting mechanism for the market. That is what the 14 day rule was made up to prevent. No, when given a choi8ce between bad and worse, you don't necessarily have to chose bad or worse. You can make your claim under the law that you are treated no worse than the other market participants or have a claim under the PSA for damages. That is exactly the deceptive device that was prohibited under the act. These are not new things, just old things repackaged.

Your convoluted reasoning is no excuse for dismissing laws prohibiting certain actions.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Again Tex, the obvious fact that you continue to deny is that the producers had other marketing options. They did not have to sell in the cash market nor did they have to sell to only one packer. Based on that fact, there can be no market manipulation. I know, the obvious is just too obvious for those bent on blame.

Try as you may to discredit Judge Strom because he didn't buy into Taylor's "untested theories", Judge Stroms decision was upheld by the circuit court of appeals and in turn the circuit court of appeals decision was upheld by the supreme court. You packer blamers simply cannot accept the fact that there can be no market manipulation WHEN NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL TO ANY PARTICULAR PACKER UNDER ANY PARTICULAR MARKETING STRATEGY.

You are also wrong about packers coming up with grid pricing. Grid pricing was driven by producers who wanted to be paid for their cattle on grade and yield basis. To do so they needed a method to determine the base price before assigning values to carcass merit. The weekly weighted average base price from the week prior can work for or against you depending on the direction of the market. Something else you would know if you knew anything about marketing fat cattle.

You don't have a clue Tex!


~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Again Tex, the obvious fact that you continue to deny is that the producers had other marketing options. They did not have to sell in the cash market nor did they have to sell to only one packer. Based on that fact, there can be no market manipulation. I know, the obvious is just too obvious for those bent on blame.

Try as you may to discredit Judge Strom because he didn't buy into Taylor's "untested theories", Judge Stroms decision was upheld by the circuit court of appeals and in turn the circuit court of appeals decision was upheld by the supreme court. You packer blamers simply cannot accept the fact that there can be no market manipulation WHEN NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL TO ANY PARTICULAR PACKER UNDER ANY PARTICULAR MARKETING STRATEGY.

You are also wrong about packers coming up with grid pricing. Grid pricing was driven by producers who wanted to be paid for their cattle on grade and yield basis. To do so they needed a method to determine the base price before assigning values to carcass merit. The weekly weighted average base price from the week prior can work for or against you depending on the direction of the market. Something else you would know if you knew anything about marketing fat cattle.

You don't have a clue Tex!


~SH~

SH, people in ponzi schemes have other options too but that doesn't mean a ponzi scheme doesn't exist. Your logic, as usual, is flawed.

Strom was not the one who needed to be convinced. It was the jury and they were. Strom was hand picked for the case and out of district. The trial was in Alabama because one of the litigants was from Alabama. Why was there a judge from Nebraska especially when Nebraska was short of judges?

It seems a hand picked judge out of district trumps a jury in the United States.

I will not go into the malfeasance the judge reportedly employed in his jury instructions that you have touted regarding Calicrate and his claim of a packer executive that ultimately proved to be true.


"Other options" does not in any way mean manipulation was avoided. The cash market was discriminated around 5 cents per lb for the same quality cattle that were bought by packers under the grid and that is why the jury awarded the billion dollar verdict.

Packers were prohibited from price manipulation by the prohibitions in Section 202. They did it and it was proven to the jury.

We don't have a legal system in the U. S. anymore, we have a judiciary out of control and willing to overstep the framers of the Constitution's limits written in the Constitution of the United States. The judge had the other cases against the other packers who were doing the same thing (Cargill and others colluding in the same scheme).

Personally I think liberal or corrupt judges willing to second guess the Congress's laws like this need to be removed from the bench, especially when they protect companies who are cheating people.

You can not deny that the cash market was the price setting mechanism, can you, SH?

Tex
 

mrj

Well-known member
As an innocent bystancer to this conversation, one does wonder about the practice of "jury shopping", meaning that the plaintiffs in a case often choose to have it heard in a jurisdiction well known for juries favoring the 'victim' over the 'ogre' (usually a 'big' bus., or a corporation believed to have deep pockets).

I think I recall correctly that there were such accusations in that case at that time.

What effect did that idea have upon where the judge came from, and/or the outcomes of those various trials? Anyone???
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
As an innocent bystancer to this conversation, one does wonder about the practice of "jury shopping", meaning that the plaintiffs in a case often choose to have it heard in a jurisdiction well known for juries favoring the 'victim' over the 'ogre' (usually a 'big' bus., or a corporation believed to have deep pockets).

I think I recall correctly that there were such accusations in that case at that time.

What effect did that idea have upon where the judge came from, and/or the outcomes of those various trials? Anyone???


Mrj, one of the plaintiffs was from Alabama so the trial could be held there in his jurisdiction. That is how jurisdiction works. Judges, on the other hand, go with that jurisdiction that they have been appointed to. This looked more like judge shopping than jury shopping.


As far as the jury being biased, where is the evidence? Is there only an accusation? Sounds like a few people who lost calling the game unfair because they didn't win.

Where is the evidence of jury shopping that was not legal? If Pickett or another litigant for the plaintiff was not from Alabama, then your jury shopping charge may have some merit. It may also have merit if you can prove jury bias. I don't think you have been able to do either.

The judge, on the other hand, was certainly out of jurisdiction.

Do facts matter to you any at all or is it innuendos and excuses that make your day?

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex,

It wouldn't be hard to find a plaintiff in any state that thinks he was discriminated against. That doesn't make it fact but it's real convenient to try the case in Alabama when most of the cattle are fed and processed in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas where you risk the chance of finding a jury that actually understands live cattle marketing. You can't sell a "THEORY" unless you find a jury ignorant of cattle marketing strategies.

You mean they couldn't find a plaintiff in the largest cattle feeding states??? Oh wait, they already tried the same case in Kansas and lost didn't they?? Hmmmmm????

Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious. Hey, let's go to "anti-corporate" alabama and see if we have any better luck there???


Tex: "The cash market was discriminated around 5 cents per lb for the same quality cattle that were bought by packers under the grid and that is why the jury awarded the billion dollar verdict."

Want to dance again???

Here, let's start with the first question you can divert....

1. How does a packer know, when he is buying cattle on the hoof, that they are the same quality cattle as the grid cattle he already bought until they get them processed???

Hmmmmm????

Think you can determine quality grade, yield grade, and dressing percentage on the hoof when only one fleck of marbling determines the difference between a high select and low choice carcass????

Yeh, I wouldn't answer that question either if I was you Tex.

The fact is, you don't know the TRUE RETAIL VALUE of the cattle you buy until you pull the hide off and grade them. That is an undeniable fact. Comparing live cattle prices to grid prices is apples to oranges from that fact alone.


2. What was the choice/select spread at the time??? Wouldn't that have an impact on whether or not packers are willing to risk the carcass quality merits when buying cattle on the hoof??

You won't answer that either so I'll answer it for you.

The fact is that a packer buyer does not know the true value of cattle until they are processed so they are going to buy accordingly particularly if concerned about quality grade in a wide choice/select spread.

Do you even know what choice/select spread means??? Do you know how it varies depending on supply and demand?? The choice /select spread is not a constant Tex. It can vary greatly from week to week.

The risks are far less for the packer when he knows the price in the grid will affect the carcass merits of the cattle they buy.

To try to use a "price discrimination" argument by comparing live cattle prices to grid prices is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard when the true value of a carcass is based on it's quality grade, yield grade, and dressing percentage and that Tex you cannot argue because it's a fact. To compare live cattle prices to grid prices is comparing apples to oranges.

Next point you cannot argue, there is just as many times that the live cattle price is higher than the grid prices the week prior than visa versa. Why is that Tex??? It's because either beef demand has increased or cattle supplies has decreased relative to competing meats.

When the live cattle price is higher than the grid price the week prior, would the grid price be discriminated against??? Why not?? Same thing in reverse!!! But wait, that would mean that all prices would be discriminatory wouldn't it??? Can't make a case that way can you??

You wonder why you lost this case EVEN IN ALABAMA????


Tex: "You can not deny that the cash market was the price setting mechanism, can you, SH?"

No and you cannot deny these related facts that trump this ...

1. There is just as many times that the cash market is higher than the grid market that preceeded it.

2. You cannot compare grid pricing to live cattle pricing at any time because grid pricing is based on carcass merit and live cattle pricing is based on a guess of that carcass merit.

3. Markets are not stable from week to week so you cannot compare the grid price of one week to the cash price of another week EVEN IF YOU KNEW THE CARCASS MERIT OF THE LIVE CATTLE WAS THE SAME AS THE GRID CATTLE.

4. Producers did not have to sell to any particular packer in the cash market. If Tyson's market was lower than the grid market the previous week, THEY HAVE OTHER PACKER OPTIONS IN THE CASH MARKET.

5. They knew what the price was that they were taking in the cash market.

You cannot argue any one of these facts which is why your case blew up in your face.

I'm just amazed that you could find a jury that would ignore these obvious facts unless they weren't presented or they didn't understand them.


Tex: "Do facts matter to you any at all or is it innuendos and excuses that make your day?"

Haha! Ain't you the tomcat? Do the facts that I have just listed matter to you????

You are the innuendo and excuse maker. You remind me of Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war.


~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex,

It wouldn't be hard to find a plaintiff in any state that thinks he was discriminated against. That doesn't make it fact but it's real convenient to try the case in Alabama when most of the cattle are fed and processed in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas where you risk the chance of finding a jury that actually understands live cattle marketing. You can't sell a "THEORY" unless you find a jury ignorant of cattle marketing strategies.

You mean they couldn't find a plaintiff in the largest cattle feeding states??? Oh wait, they already tried the same case in Kansas and lost didn't they?? Hmmmmm????

Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious. Hey, let's go to "anti-corporate" alabama and see if we have any better luck there???


Tex: "The cash market was discriminated around 5 cents per lb for the same quality cattle that were bought by packers under the grid and that is why the jury awarded the billion dollar verdict."

Want to dance again???

Here, let's start with the first question you can divert....

1. How does a packer know, when he is buying cattle on the hoof, that they are the same quality cattle as the grid cattle he already bought until they get them processed???

Hmmmmm????

Think you can determine quality grade, yield grade, and dressing percentage on the hoof when only one fleck of marbling determines the difference between a high select and low choice carcass????

Yeh, I wouldn't answer that question either if I was you Tex.

The fact is, you don't know the TRUE RETAIL VALUE of the cattle you buy until you pull the hide off and grade them. That is an undeniable fact. Comparing live cattle prices to grid prices is apples to oranges from that fact alone.


2. What was the choice/select spread at the time??? Wouldn't that have an impact on whether or not packers are willing to risk the carcass quality merits when buying cattle on the hoof??

You won't answer that either so I'll answer it for you.

The fact is that a packer buyer does not know the true value of cattle until they are processed so they are going to buy accordingly particularly if concerned about quality grade in a wide choice/select spread.

Do you even know what choice/select spread means??? Do you know how it varies depending on supply and demand?? The choice /select spread is not a constant Tex. It can vary greatly from week to week.

The risks are far less for the packer when he knows the price in the grid will affect the carcass merits of the cattle they buy.

To try to use a "price discrimination" argument by comparing live cattle prices to grid prices is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard when the true value of a carcass is based on it's quality grade, yield grade, and dressing percentage and that Tex you cannot argue because it's a fact. To compare live cattle prices to grid prices is comparing apples to oranges.

Next point you cannot argue, there is just as many times that the live cattle price is higher than the grid prices the week prior than visa versa. Why is that Tex??? It's because either beef demand has increased or cattle supplies has decreased relative to competing meats.

When the live cattle price is higher than the grid price the week prior, would the grid price be discriminated against??? Why not?? Same thing in reverse!!! But wait, that would mean that all prices would be discriminatory wouldn't it??? Can't make a case that way can you??

You wonder why you lost this case EVEN IN ALABAMA????


Tex: "You can not deny that the cash market was the price setting mechanism, can you, SH?"

No and you cannot deny these related facts that trump this ...

1. There is just as many times that the cash market is higher than the grid market that preceeded it.

2. You cannot compare grid pricing to live cattle pricing at any time because grid pricing is based on carcass merit and live cattle pricing is based on a guess of that carcass merit.

3. Markets are not stable from week to week so you cannot compare the grid price of one week to the cash price of another week EVEN IF YOU KNEW THE CARCASS MERIT OF THE LIVE CATTLE WAS THE SAME AS THE GRID CATTLE.

4. Producers did not have to sell to any particular packer in the cash market. If Tyson's market was lower than the grid market the previous week, THEY HAVE OTHER PACKER OPTIONS IN THE CASH MARKET.

5. They knew what the price was that they were taking in the cash market.

You cannot argue any one of these facts which is why your case blew up in your face.

I'm just amazed that you could find a jury that would ignore these obvious facts unless they weren't presented or they didn't understand them.


Tex: "Do facts matter to you any at all or is it innuendos and excuses that make your day?"

Haha! Ain't you the tomcat? Do the facts that I have just listed matter to you????

You are the innuendo and excuse maker. You remind me of Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war.


~SH~

Obviously, SH, the litigants should have asked your opinion on where to have the case. :lol:

This judge knew that there were other major packers who were sued on the same basis in Nebraska under his jurisdiction. This was the collusion mentioned in the PSA.

Your arguments on whether the cash market is or is not more risky for cattle buyers or goes up or down really doesn't matter under the PSA. Just because you think these are the parameters of the law doesn't make it so. The litigants only had to prove that Section 202 had been violated as indeed it had. They did not have to prove anything else that you make up. What you make up is not the law. Judges don't get to make up stuff and judges should not decide cases as this judge did.

He needs to be removed from the bench. He slipped on the slippery slope.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex: "The litigants only had to prove that Section 202 had been violated as indeed it had."

They didn't prove price discrimination for the very reasons I mentioned above which is why the verdict was overturned, why the appeals court upheld that decision and why the supreme court upheld the appeals court decision. The jury may have thought the plaintiffs proved their case but when argued against the facts of the market fundamentals listed above, there can be no discrimination. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing grid prices from one week to cash prices from another.

Here's something else for you to consider. Let's say I am the owner of a large feedlot. I have to buy 10,000 head to fill my needs. At the start of the season, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would pay more aggressively and I might pay more than I wanted to in order to get some cattle bought. As my needs were met, I will try to buy cattle more cheaply to offset the cattle that I bought that I felt I paid too much for. This is common practice throughout the industry yet you want to hold the packing industry to a different standard. If you cannot make the argument that this is price discrimination for the feeder, you cannot make the argument that this is price discrimination for the packer. The act of dropping your prices as your needs are met is the basic fundamentals of market supply and demand. Your demands are greater as you enter the market than they are as you leave the market and cattle are priced accordingly. That is not price discrimination or it would have to apply to all segments of the industry including sale barns.

You want to talk about price discrimination, how about taking $10 less per cwt for a smokey (not a diluter) that will probably feed as good as any of the rest of the cattle in the pen and many times better. Is that not true price discrimination??? The value is the same yet the salebarns will cut out off colored cattle that affect the price on the entire group to the tune of $5 per cwt at times. It's ridiculous and it happens all the time.

Now if you want to make a case on price discrimination, you would have two feeders selling on the same grid within the same week with seperate base prices. That would compare apples to apples but that is not happening.

The pickett plaintiff's had no case just as they had no case when blaming packers for USDA's faulty reporting of prices.


Don't think it goes unnoticed that you refuse to address any of the the points I have listed above that are pivotal to your inability to make your case. There can be no proof of price discrimination when comparing cattle bought on the grid in one week to cattle bought in the cash market the following week.

You lost your case for good reason.



~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Poor Tex. Did you really think I wouldn't understand that plaintiffs also can be 'chosen' to assure the 'correct' jurisdiction, even in order to get the 'desired' judge?

I make no claims to expertise, only remarking upon that which I have read in newspapers from time to time re. various cases.

It is quite common knowledge that juries in SOME jurisdictions, not just one jury, almost habitually have been prone to awarding generously in cases involving perceived (and often resented) 'deep pockets' of corporations. I have no dog in the cases I have read of........only remarking that it does happen. And that there were suggestions in media that it was possible, even probable, in your favorite case. And not, I did not save the paper, so have no proof.

BTW, where is the incontrovertible, third party verified proof to support your accusations.

Facts do matter to me, when they are claimed. I did not make that claim, since I was only stating what I and many others saw in various media sources, ...... so....where is that verification of your claimed 'facts'?

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Tex: "The litigants only had to prove that Section 202 had been violated as indeed it had."

They didn't prove price discrimination for the very reasons I mentioned above which is why the verdict was overturned, why the appeals court upheld that decision and why the supreme court upheld the appeals court decision. The jury may have thought the plaintiffs proved their case but when argued against the facts of the market fundamentals listed above, there can be no discrimination. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing grid prices from one week to cash prices from another.

Here's something else for you to consider. Let's say I am the owner of a large feedlot. I have to buy 10,000 head to fill my needs. At the start of the season, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would pay more aggressively and I might pay more than I wanted to in order to get some cattle bought. As my needs were met, I will try to buy cattle more cheaply to offset the cattle that I bought that I felt I paid too much for. This is common practice throughout the industry yet you want to hold the packing industry to a different standard. If you cannot make the argument that this is price discrimination for the feeder, you cannot make the argument that this is price discrimination for the packer. The act of dropping your prices as your needs are met is the basic fundamentals of market supply and demand. Your demands are greater as you enter the market than they are as you leave the market and cattle are priced accordingly. That is not price discrimination or it would have to apply to all segments of the industry including sale barns.

You want to talk about price discrimination, how about taking $10 less per cwt for a smokey (not a diluter) that will probably feed as good as any of the rest of the cattle in the pen and many times better. Is that not true price discrimination??? The value is the same yet the salebarns will cut out off colored cattle that affect the price on the entire group to the tune of $5 per cwt at times. It's ridiculous and it happens all the time.

Now if you want to make a case on price discrimination, you would have two feeders selling on the same grid within the same week with seperate base prices. That would compare apples to apples but that is not happening.

The pickett plaintiff's had no case just as they had no case when blaming packers for USDA's faulty reporting of prices.


Don't think it goes unnoticed that you refuse to address any of the the points I have listed above that are pivotal to your inability to make your case. There can be no proof of price discrimination when comparing cattle bought on the grid in one week to cattle bought in the cash market the following week.

You lost your case for good reason.



~SH~


The Supreme Court didn't uphold the decision of the lower court, they took a pass. Big difference here. The case in question wasn't the Pickett case, but the London case where the packer attorneys made the novel defense that as long as competitors are doing the same (collusion) then competition is not harmed. Of course this was making up law, not interpreting it. These judges in all these courts who don't want to enforce the law should quit and run for the legislature branch. They over stepped their legal authority under the constitution and played economist with legal reasoning that is barred by the very law they were interpreting with respect to collusion and deceptive devices.

SH, there is an old school joke that you may be familiar with: Two kids were playing on the playground and one of them said, "Your stupid." The other replied, "No, your stupid." This went on until the smart one told the other that he was so stupid that he didn't know the difference between his head and a hole in the ground.

The smart one got a stick and drew a two holes in the ground. One he said was the other's head. The other was a hole in the ground. He pointed this out 5 times which one was the other's head and which one was a hole in the ground.

Then he asked which the other which one was his head. The other pointed to the hole in the ground that was pointed out 5 times to be his head. The one with the stick looked up at him and hit him in the head with the stick and said, "No, dummy, that is your head."

When the choices you are given are limited, as the choice between grid and cash were limited by packers together, then the choices, whichever you choose, are subject to both be wrong.

In this case, there was a win win for packers in discriminating against the cash market due to the system they set up. Instead of acting like competitive markets would act, where competitors made sure that they obtained the best value in cash or grid, the packers colluded and drove down the cash price with their a or b choices. They made the question and the question in itself was the tool for the deceptive device, ready to be employed when they wanted. This wasn't some price discrimination on the color of the hide of the cattle, but of the cash market for the grid pricing which thinned the cash market.



This question is not for you to decide, it is for juries. The hand picked judge made that decision for the jury which was highly irregular.


Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Poor Tex. Did you really think I wouldn't understand that plaintiffs also can be 'chosen' to assure the 'correct' jurisdiction, even in order to get the 'desired' judge?

I make no claims to expertise, only remarking upon that which I have read in newspapers from time to time re. various cases.

It is quite common knowledge that juries in SOME jurisdictions, not just one jury, almost habitually have been prone to awarding generously in cases involving perceived (and often resented) 'deep pockets' of corporations. I have no dog in the cases I have read of........only remarking that it does happen. And that there were suggestions in media that it was possible, even probable, in your favorite case. And not, I did not save the paper, so have no proof.

BTW, where is the incontrovertible, third party verified proof to support your accusations.

Facts do matter to me, when they are claimed. I did not make that claim, since I was only stating what I and many others saw in various media sources, ...... so....where is that verification of your claimed 'facts'?

mrj

mrj, thanks for saying you have no facts to your accusation of jury rigging or jury shopping.

What "facts" are you talking about? I think I was pretty clear where the judge came from and it wasn't from the jurisdiction of the court where the plaintiff lived. He was out of jurisdiction. It is real easy for you to look that up about judge Strom. Just google it.

By the way, I think the last farm bill did address this question of jurisdiction in these cases saying it was where the plaintiffs were from. It might stop some of the judge shopping by these corporations but then again, the packers will have time to set up the judges they want as they know when cases come up against them years ahead of time.

Tex
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, please understand, I did not say there ARE no facts.

Further, I, and surely others, have seen media coverage of MULTIPLE cases of 'shopping' for favorable juridictions where 'rewards' have been generous.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex: "These judges in all these courts who don't want to enforce the law should quit and run for the legislature branch. They over stepped their legal authority under the constitution and played economist with legal reasoning that is barred by the very law they were interpreting with respect to collusion and deceptive devices."

Yeh, yeh and and GIPSA doesn't want to enforce YOUR INTERPRETATION of the law and the judges in Kansas didn't want to enforce YOUR INTERPRETATION of the law in that case either. How many lost cases before you finally admit you don't have a case?

Callicrate said numerous times that the packers were making HUGE Profits off the backs of producers. When IBP's financial records were subpoenaed into court it turned out to be $16 per head FOR THE LARGEST PACKER IN THEIR BEST YEARS to market everything from the rectum to the tongue and price cattle accordingly and those are the HUGE PROFITS we were hearing about. You bet TEX! Your baseless case was nothing more than a waste of valuable producer resources.

THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION just as there has been no proof of market manipulation in countless GIPSA investigations of the PSA. Oh wait, I remember one such violation of the PSA, and it happened to be against a sale barn manager who was calling for an investigation into the PSA. Funny how that works.


Tex: "When the choices you are given are limited, as the choice between grid and cash were limited by packers together, then the choices, whichever you choose, are subject to both be wrong."

LIMITED???

You have 5 major packers and numerous smaller processors to choose from under cash pricing or grid pricing or forward contract pricing your cattle on the board.

Want to debate that???


Tex: "In this case, there was a win win for packers in discriminating against the cash market due to the system they set up."

Producers asked for grid pricing so they could be paid according to carcass merit rather than a guess of that merit. Processors did not initiate grid pricing, producers did.

Care to debate that????


Tex: "Instead of acting like competitive markets would act, where competitors made sure that they obtained the best value in cash or grid, the packers colluded and drove down the cash price with their a or b choices. They made the question and the question in itself was the tool for the deceptive device, ready to be employed when they wanted. This wasn't some price discrimination on the color of the hide of the cattle, but of the cash market for the grid pricing which thinned the cash market."

How do you explain the times when the cash market is higher than the grid pricing market it follows??? How do you explain that??? Should the packers be filing suit against those who sold on the grid market in those times?? Hmmmmm??? How do you explain markets that move up and down in light of this stupid discrimination argument??? Do you deny that markets move up and down. Well, do you??? If not, then how can you argue against the fact that the reverse situation can also occur???

Why do you keep diverting the issue of how this can be price discrimination when the cash market can be higher than the grid market?? Hmmmm???

Dance, dance, dance!

Anyone that can reason this out can see why you lost your case.


Tex: "This question is not for you to decide, it is for juries. The hand picked judge made that decision for the jury which was highly irregular."

You lost because you didn't have a case and you're not presenting one here either. All you packer blamers did was waste a bunch of valuable time and resources trying to prove a baseless conspiracy theory.



~SH~
 

Tex

Well-known member
SH, you are still arguing that your head is a hole in the ground.

Packers set up the two holes in the ground. One thinned the cash market and the other had strategic reasons for avoidance.

I can not help it that packers set up grid pricing that was within the time frame but not the same as the cash market. They did it and set up the scenario. Grid pricing is not the problem, the grid pricing being used as leverage was. I happen to like the grid but that did not decrease its effectiveness as a tool of manipulation when packers colluded with their strategic interests in mind. Whether the grid price went up or down compared to the cash was not nearly as important its being used as a tool of manipulation. With independent pricing, there would be no reason to manipulate it. That reason did exist and was so used as the jury determined no matter how much you want to argue that your head is a hole in the ground.

One of the things you did not mention was the packer profits that were based on the substitutes. You will have to admit that the major players had positions in the substitutes that profited them much more than beef margins did. Tyson's price for poultry went from about 53 cents per lb. to over 90 in some cases. All of that price increase went to them, not producers, as it tends to do when there is a little more competition like in beef compared to chickens. That would relate, if the average salable carcass was 600 lbs, to an increase in profitability of 600 x .40 cents per lb increase in Georgia Dock prices of $240, not $16 per head in cattle alone. Of course if you just look at your selected data of two holes in the ground to chose your head from, I can see how you came up with $16.00 per head. For Tyson, that wasn't the whole story, now was it? Come on, pull your head out of it, SH.


You are so stuck on tactics that you can't tell your head from a hole in the ground!!!

Federal judges didn't need to do anything but apply the law as written to not be fooled. They have chosen too, which hole in the ground is their head and in so doing have shown their incompetency of economics or their corruption as Senator Grassley implicates them as being "packer courts".

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top