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

What does"commodity minded" mean at Tyson?

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
RobertMac said:
Do you think Tyson's connection with Wal-mart has anything to do with their rise in prominence in the food industry? Doesn't hurt to be supplying the world's largest retailer!

Do you think Tyson's and Cargill's desire to be the first to get their hands on the cheap Brazilian cattle will threaten the USA(North American) herd with FMD?

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?
 

agman

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
I'm not sure how you become "more commodity minded" in the commodity portion of their business. I suspect that they're referring to selling sides or carcasses to other processors/stores with their own butcher shops as the "commodity" portion of their business. I don't have a sniff what kind of volume you'd have to do to place an order for non-processed beef from Tyson, but perhaps they're talking about increasing minimum volume requirements?

Rod

I am sorry Rod but what you are suggesting is highly inefficient. That is hardly the direction they are headed. Personally I believe what they will do is the wrong strategy. We will all know in several years who is right.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
RobertMac said:
Do you think Tyson's connection with Wal-mart has anything to do with their rise in prominence in the food industry? Doesn't hurt to be supplying the world's largest retailer!

Do you think Tyson's and Cargill's desire to be the first to get their hands on the cheap Brazilian cattle will threaten the USA(North American) herd with FMD?

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.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Agman said:
Were they not the largest before supplying Wal-Mart?

Yes, but haven't they grown even larger as Wal-Mart has grown? Like I said...Doesn't hurt to be supplying the world's largest retailer!

It's shaping up to be a hot and dry summer...take care and stay cool. :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Agman said:
Were they not the largest before supplying Wal-Mart?

Yes, but haven't they grown even larger as Wal-Mart has grown? Like I said...Doesn't hurt to be supplying the world's largest retailer!

It's shaping up to be a hot and dry summer...take care and stay cool. :wink:

RM, you make an interesting point but their growth hardly matches that of Wal-Mart. Tyson is not the only supplier of beef to Wal-Mart. Many packers supply case-ready product to Wal-Mart as they ramp up production. Wal-Mart also seeks additional suppliers. The problem they have is that Joe-Blow on the street corner cannot supply sufficient product to meet their volume of business. That is why they did not get into Natural and Organics sooner.

Wal-Mart is quickly moving into those areas now that some larger suppliers, who can guarantee a continuous supply, are ramping up production of Natural and Organic product. Also, with an annual growth rate of thirty percent, albeit from a small base, that segment is the fastest growing of any segment in the beef industry.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
agman said:
I am sorry Rod but what you are suggesting is highly inefficient.

Agman, care to elaborate on how it would be inefficient? The way I understand things to work, they generally have a slaughter plant separate from the processing plant. So carcasses need to go on a truck or a transport, whether they're being sold to another processor or if Tyson will process themselves. As far as minimum orders being increased, increased volume requirements means easier sorting on loading. Not exactly massive gains in efficiency, but certainly not a reduction, unless I'm missing something.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
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.

Agman, that was not the question. Circumventing my question to answer your own will not work here.

"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?"

I am not interested in the legal manuvering. I am interested in how causality for the Schroeder paper was calculated. As I said before, an incidental occurance such as the growth of tree rings that matches the data is not causality, and neither are the flimsy "economics" that the beef checkoff money funded in the report.

The cold hard fact is that you can not tell for sure why somone did something unless they answer it by telling the truth. Your "causality" argument is only a hoax. It is only a fish. A diverticuli. Only God knows the answers to the questions of "why" and the founding fathers set up the jury was to take the place of His judgement, not an elite set of judges picked by paid off politiicans. In the Pickett case, the jury sided with Pickett.

What were the factors that lead to the causality in Schroeder's "demand" and how do they compare with Taylor's?

Do the courts have an unattainable hurdle that beef checkoff money does not have to pass?

If you need another lesson on how prices could be manipulated (that the jury agreed with), I would be glad to send you to the appropriate resources that have been posted on this site.

I don't know why you continually side against producers.
 

Latest posts

Top