Econ101 said:
agman said:
Were they not the largest before supplying Wal-Mart? I believe they were. Your "cause & effect relationship seems to be misguided.
Agman, your argument here with Robert Mac is not my issue, but your ability to comment on cause and effect certainly is.
Do you think the causality with Taylor's numbers are more related to the demand determinates that were in Schroeder's paper rather than discrimination with the intent on market manipulation? What are your reasons?
If Tyson and IBP were already the largest processors in their field long before the case-ready ties to IBP how can you then claim that their relationship with Wal-Mart led to their dominant position in the industry? It is quite clear that the cause and effect relationship is severely misconstrued.
Yes, I do believe that the causality in Taylor's numbers are more related to demand determinants than any claim that IBP attempted to manipulate the market. There are many other factors that can and do influence the market short term or daily which were not analyzed by Dr Taylor. The mere fact that he failed to analyze those factors invalidates any conclusion which he claims existed.
Need I remind you again that he admitted under oath he failed to test his six theories as to how prices could be manipulated!! Is that not a legal requirement to do so? I know you refuse to ever answer a direct question so I will supply the answer for readers. The answer is "YES" . Theories advanced at trial must be tested for validity.
Your limited knowledge of the real workings in the marketplace preclude your ability to make any valid judgment per this subject. As such you continue to make claims without providing support. You lose debates with yourself-you get trapped in your phony assertions and lies. Your lack of any real knowledge is killing you.