When meat packers own their own cattle

[Anonymous]

Nice diversion Sandbag!

Until you bring the proof of market manipulation, THERE IS NONE!

Neither of you know what was said in the courtroom. In contrast, I have read a lot of the testimony and most of the testimony from the plaintiffs was bogus.

Mike Callicrate got his "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks" statement shoved up his ars with ibp's own procurement records. He also got caught lying under oath. Why would anyone believe anything he said?


You guys want to claim normal supply and demand factors as market manipulation against packers when those same pricing mechanisms are used in every other facet of this industry. You packer blamers make me sick. Nobody ever blamed their way to prosperity. If packers are making so much money, go open a packing company and see how long you survive in an environment that is "supposedly" anti competitive.

Funny how in one breath you will state that small packing companies cannot compete. In the next breath you will say there is no competition due to the level of concentration. CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS.

That's what happens when you debate with those who don't know what they're talking about.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Nice diversion Sandbag!

Until you bring the proof of market manipulation, THERE IS NONE!

Neither of you know what was said in the courtroom. In contrast, I have read a lot of the testimony and most of the testimony from the plaintiffs was bogus.

Mike Callicrate got his "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks" statement shoved up his ars with ibp's own procurement records. He also got caught lying under oath. Why would anyone believe anything he said?


You guys want to claim normal supply and demand factors as market manipulation against packers when those same pricing mechanisms are used in every other facet of this industry. You packer blamers make me sick. Nobody ever blamed their way to prosperity. If packers are making so much money, go open a packing company and see how long you survive in an environment that is "supposedly" anti competitive.

Funny how in one breath you will state that small packing companies cannot compete. In the next breath you will say there is no competition due to the level of concentration. CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS.

That's what happens when you debate with those who don't know what they're talking about.


~SH~

What is happening in this industry--- market power being exerted on producers and the benefits being given to consumers in the short run--- creates barriers to entry and more industry concentration. As shown in the coke example, this will lead to less consumer surplus in the long run. It is only a matter of time.

SH, your defenses of "If packers are making so much money, go open a packing company and see how long you survive in an environment that is "supposedly" anti competitive." is a poor one.

If we have a class room of students all competing for a scholarship and some of the students are cheating to get higher scores, why should the teacher (or anyone) tell the other students who are not cheating to cheat to get the same result? Your "join them" argument is an argument for cheaters.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "What is happening in this industry--- market power being exerted on producers and the benefits being given to consumers in the short run--- creates barriers to entry and more industry concentration."

That's bullsh*t!

Prove it!

Bring an example of how market power is being exerted on producers while they are benefitting from record cattle prices.

Explain how the benefits are being given to consumers?

That doesn't even make sense.

You are a complete phony and you will proove it again by diverting these questions.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "What is happening in this industry--- market power being exerted on producers and the benefits being given to consumers in the short run--- creates barriers to entry and more industry concentration."

That's bullsh*t!

Prove it!

Bring an example of how market power is being exerted on producers while they are benefitting from record cattle prices.

Explain how the benefits are being given to consumers?

That doesn't even make sense.

You are a complete phony and you will proove it again by diverting these questions.



~SH~

It is only in the short term, SH. Long term they too lose. High prices of beef right now are evidence of that now.

You may know a lot about " bullsh*t!", but you know little about economics or the Pickett case.

 

[Sandhusker]

When a consumer buys a roast because it is on sale, is it to his/her own advantage?

When a feedlot buys a load of cheap calves even though they will have to move some to an alley to feed is it not for his own advantage?

When a ranchers sitting at a bull sale sees a good bull selling cheap and waves his hand to take home the deal is it not for his own advantage?

Now you're stretching it beyond common sense. With your definition, any purchase of any kind would be manipulation, which clearly is not the true definition of the word.

You're tipping your hand, Jason.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Mike Callicrate got his "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks" statement shoved up his ars with ibp's own procurement records. He also got caught lying under oath. Why would anyone believe anything he said?"

So when did Callicrate get rung up for perjery? What was his fine/sentence?

 

[Jason]

The great sandbeenie finally gets it. Manipulation doesn't really happen. Consumers buy product and that sends signals back through the chain.

 

[Sandhusker]

The great sandbeenie finally gets it. Manipulation doesn't really happen. Consumers buy product and that sends signals back through the chain.

Manipulation does happen. Manipulation of politicians in on the front pages right now down here. What you need to get is that consumers don't manipulate markets in the definition of manipulation by making simple purchases.

Jason, you're decending to SH's level. You're calling childing names and using your own definitions to make your point. Didn't I warn you what would happen to you if you hung out with fools?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "So when did Callicrate get rung up for perjery? What was his fine/sentence?"

Callicrate wasn't brought up on perjury charges. He simply lied under oath which is perjury by definition and the judge instructed the jurors to disregard portions or all of his testimony.

Would you like to defend his statements about $400 per head packer and retail profits, that Pickett jurors were dismissed because they were black, or that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks?

I didn't think so!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "So when did Callicrate get rung up for perjery? What was his fine/sentence?"

Callicrate wasn't brought up on perjury charges. He simply lied under oath which is perjury by definition and the judge instructed the jurors to disregard portions or all of his testimony.

Would you like to defend his statements about $400 per head packer and retail profits, that Pickett jurors were dismissed because they were black, or that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks?

I didn't think so!


~SH~

Then don't call him a perjuror. He is a lot closer to not being guilty on that charge than the packers are on market manipulation in the Pickett case.

I don't know the rest of his statements and no, I am not interested in defending other people's statements.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Mike Callicrate lied under oath or the judge would not have asked the jury to ignore all or some of his testimony because he found it to be "UNTRUE".

Just because he was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he didn't lie under oath. Every time I have heard him speak he's lying about something.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "So when did Callicrate get rung up for perjery? What was his fine/sentence?"

Callicrate wasn't brought up on perjury charges. He simply lied under oath which is perjury by definition and the judge instructed the jurors to disregard portions or all of his testimony.

Would you like to defend his statements about $400 per head packer and retail profits, that Pickett jurors were dismissed because they were black, or that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks?

I didn't think so!


~SH~

If Callicrate wasn't charged and convicted of perjury, he's not a purjuror. Strom, according to you, said his testimony was simply untrue - he didn't say a "lie".

President Bush said Saddam had WMD's, but none were found. What he said was "UNTRUE". By your definition of "untrue", he was lying. Is that your position there as well? Will you be consistant in your judgement?

 

[mrj]

Sandbag: "So when did Callicrate get rung up for perjery? What was his fine/sentence?"

Callicrate wasn't brought up on perjury charges. He simply lied under oath which is perjury by definition and the judge instructed the jurors to disregard portions or all of his testimony.

Would you like to defend his statements about $400 per head packer and retail profits, that Pickett jurors were dismissed because they were black, or that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks?

I didn't think so!


~SH~

If Callicrate wasn't charged and convicted of perjury, he's not a purjuror. Strom, according to you, said his testimony was simply untrue - he didn't say a "lie".

President Bush said Saddam had WMD's, but none were found. What he said was "UNTRUE". By your definition of "untrue", he was lying. Is that your position there as well? Will you be consistant in your judgement?

What a stretch of imagination, Sandhusker! Didn't that judge actually hear what Callicrate said......you know, first hand? Obviously the ONLY way Pres. Bush got the info re. WMD's could only be from, most likely, several people up the chain from those who did the actual espionage, and reported to the President. Sorry you can't see the difference, so probably my time typing is wasted on you.

There still are differences of opinion on the facts in the WMD situation, and we DO NOT KNOW whether they do or did exist or not. I truly hope that we don't have to find out the hard way.......and hope if such a thing happens it will be to some who are aiding and abetting this very real enemies of personal and religious freedoms everywhere in the world.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Callicrate wasn't brought up on perjury charges. He simply lied under oath which is perjury by definition and the judge instructed the jurors to disregard portions or all of his testimony.

Would you like to defend his statements about $400 per head packer and retail profits, that Pickett jurors were dismissed because they were black, or that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks?

I didn't think so!


~SH~

If Callicrate wasn't charged and convicted of perjury, he's not a purjuror. Strom, according to you, said his testimony was simply untrue - he didn't say a "lie".

President Bush said Saddam had WMD's, but none were found. What he said was "UNTRUE". By your definition of "untrue", he was lying. Is that your position there as well? Will you be consistant in your judgement?

What a stretch of imagination, Sandhusker! Didn't that judge actually hear what Callicrate said......you know, first hand? Obviously the ONLY way Pres. Bush got the info re. WMD's could only be from, most likely, several people up the chain from those who did the actual espionage, and reported to the President. Sorry you can't see the difference, so probably my time typing is wasted on you.

There still are differences of opinion on the facts in the WMD situation, and we DO NOT KNOW whether they do or did exist or not. I truly hope that we don't have to find out the hard way.......and hope if such a thing happens it will be to some who are aiding and abetting this very real enemies of personal and religious freedoms everywhere in the world.

MRJ

MRJ, the information Mike C. brought up was brought up (according to the news article someone posted) another way from another source. I would hardly call that part of the testimony perjury under those conditions. The $400 per head packer and retail profits could have been disproven by opening the books completely. It could have happened on some of the cattle bought. You don't really know that it wasn't. Neither do I. The "cattle markets" were national markets. Tyson could easily have stepped out of a particular cash market for 8 weeks. The definition is only really useful if parameters are set for the claim. I don't know if they were or were not. Neither do you. Did the defendants get that information in the cross examination?

The problem with SH's claim of Mike C. being a perjuror is that it is his own definition, not the legal definition. By definition, SH is misusing the term.