You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When meat packers own their own cattle
- Thread starter HAY MAKER
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
mwj
Well-known member
Econ101 said:~SH~ said:QUIT DANCING YOU DAMN PHONY AND EXPLAIN IT!
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW MARKET MANIPULATION AND WHICH DON'T?????
EXPLAIN IT OR ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!
MARKET POWER IS CONSTANT!
~SH~
SH, I have told you before that I do not relish giving you lessons that you should pay for. I just don't think you get anything out of them.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Econ 101
I sure do not have a dog in the fight between you and SH but it would sure be nice to hear some kind of reasoned answer from you :roll: If you think the cattle buisness is just some kind of ''game'' why don't you take up trivial pursuit? You think people should believe what you say but dont give us anything but opinion to go by. I am of the opinion that a person should bring a ''fact'' or two to back up statements.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
mwj said:Econ101 said:~SH~ said:QUIT DANCING YOU DAMN PHONY AND EXPLAIN IT!
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW MARKET MANIPULATION AND WHICH DON'T?????
EXPLAIN IT OR ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!
MARKET POWER IS CONSTANT!
~SH~
SH, I have told you before that I do not relish giving you lessons that you should pay for. I just don't think you get anything out of them.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Econ 101
I sure do not have a dog in the fight between you and SH but it would sure be nice to hear some kind of reasoned answer from you :roll: If you think the cattle buisness is just some kind of ''game'' why don't you take up trivial pursuit? You think people should believe what you say but dont give us anything but opinion to go by. I am of the opinion that a person should bring a ''fact'' or two to back up statements.
Have you noticed that he simply can't win? I've been involved with SH a hundred times - and you simply can't win. Your statements/ answers get twisted, wild conclusions are jumped to, words are put in your mouth, you get called names like "Master of Deception", "Illusionist", etc... you can't win. It can't be done. Go back and read what Econ has posted and what SH's take was. Not just Econ, look at anybody's else's post on virtually any topic and see what SH's reading comprehension comes up with.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "Have you noticed that he simply can't win? I've been involved with SH a hundred times - and you simply can't win. Your statements/ answers get twisted, wild conclusions are jumped to, words are put in your mouth, you get called names like "Master of Deception", "Illusionist", etc... you can't win. It can't be done. Go back and read what Econ has posted and what SH's take was. Not just Econ, look at anybody's else's post on virtually any topic and see what SH's reading comprehension comes up with."
More diversion!
These guys and the organizations they support know that the only way their positions can have merit is if they avoid being challenged to support them with supporting facts so they avoid the debate at all costs.
To avoid the debate they use diversion, they claim that I won't answer their questions so they can avoid mine, they claim that I take their statements out of context, they claim that they already answered the question, they make an issue of namecalling which they have all participated in, they make claims that wild conclusions have been reached, ANYTHING TO AVOID HAVING TO BACK THEIR POSITIONS.
As long as they can create an "ILLUSION" of being right, they don't have to PROVE THEY ARE RIGHT.
Did they provide an example of being taken out of context? NO!
Did they provide proof to back their positions? NO!
Did they provide proof of someone putting words in their mouth? NO!
Did they prove how they already backed their position when they make that claim? NO!
THEY WON'T EITHER!
Talk is cheap but that's all they have!
The only way their beliefs can have any merit is if they are not challenged to support them. Typical political games of the "factually defenseless".
~SH~
SH, Pickett proved it to a jury where it counts and you are still arguing about it. Sandhusker won a bet from you because you could only provide a possible quote from a friend at Tyson. You will not bet either Sandhusker or myself on statements you make. You are just a packer hawker. Nothing more, nothing less.
Markets require a few things to work properly. I will discuss these things after the Christmas holidays.
Markets require a few things to work properly. I will discuss these things after the Christmas holidays.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "SH, Pickett proved it to a jury where it counts and you are still arguing about it."
Pickett proved that Tyson discriminated against the cash market slightly by dropping their price in the cash market as their needs were met in the formula market. The jury believed the plaintiffs claim that this act was considered to be market manipulation. Judge Strom ruled that this act was not market manipulation but rather a normal supply and demand reaction. Judge Strom also ruled that there was no proof of market manipulation and his decision was upheld by the 11th Circuit court.
You lost and you are still arguing about it?
Conman: "Sandhusker won a bet from you because you could only provide a possible quote from a friend at Tyson."
You keep asking me to shut up about the bet yet you keep bringing it up. True to the phony you are.
CHALK UP ANOTHER LIE FOR CONMAN!
I provided a lot more proof than simply a phone call to a Tyson representative that is not my friend.
Can you even make a post without lying? You lied twice in that same sentence yet you arrogantly continue to demand proof that you lied whenever I mention it.
1. A statement from a Tyson representative was not the only proof I provided.
2. The Tyson representative is not my friend.
None of your packer blaming clones will come to your rescue here to help you back your statement. You are a liar standing alone again.
Sandbag won a bet from me because I was willing to admit that I was wrong about calendar year 2004 ONLY BASED ON MY OWN RESEARCH. Sandbag provided absolutely nothing to prove me wrong. My original statement was proven to be true but Sandbag would not accept the proof provided. He accepted our word based on our research that we were wrong about calendar year 2004 but he would not accept our word and our research that we were right about my original statement proving what a parasite he really is. A clear double standard!
If he was consistant in his "proof requirements" he would have demanded the same proof for calendar year 2004 but our word based on our research was good enough then.
Conman: "You will not bet either Sandhusker or myself on statements you make."
That's your second lie in this post!
I'll bet you $500 that you cannot provide proof that Tyson made more money at Lakeside than they lost in Boise and Pasco while the Canadian border was closed to live cattle.
Conman: "You are just a packer hawker. Nothing more, nothing less."
You are just a "factually defenseless" lying packer blaming phony. Nothing more, nothing less!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, " Sandbag provided absolutely nothing to prove me wrong"
YOU bet that YOU would provide the proof. Quit laying the blame on somebody else for the hole you got yourself into.
SH, " My original statement was proven to be true but Sandbag would not accept the proof provided."
NOBODY would accept your "proof", SH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T PROOF RELEVENT TO YOUR STATEMENT. You make a statement about money and then you prove it with slaughter numbers and selected overhead? You know dang well that claiming you brought proof is a lie - and you accuse others of lying? Fill in the blanks or shut up, SH.
SH, "If he was consistant in his "proof requirements" he would have demanded the same proof for calendar year 2004 but our word based on our research was good enough then."
You're handing me $100 to give to R-CALF and I should be demanding proof that you owe me? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "I'll bet you $500 that you cannot provide proof that Tyson made more money at Lakeside than they lost in Boise and Pasco while the Canadian border was closed to live cattle."
I've only poined out many times, even starting a new thread, that the information to prove it either way doesn't exist. You know that. That is why you can't fill in the blanks and prove your original statement. Yet, you keep bringing your $500 bet up like you've really got something there... :roll:
How about that name-calling bet?
YOU bet that YOU would provide the proof. Quit laying the blame on somebody else for the hole you got yourself into.
SH, " My original statement was proven to be true but Sandbag would not accept the proof provided."
NOBODY would accept your "proof", SH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T PROOF RELEVENT TO YOUR STATEMENT. You make a statement about money and then you prove it with slaughter numbers and selected overhead? You know dang well that claiming you brought proof is a lie - and you accuse others of lying? Fill in the blanks or shut up, SH.
SH, "If he was consistant in his "proof requirements" he would have demanded the same proof for calendar year 2004 but our word based on our research was good enough then."
You're handing me $100 to give to R-CALF and I should be demanding proof that you owe me? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SH, "I'll bet you $500 that you cannot provide proof that Tyson made more money at Lakeside than they lost in Boise and Pasco while the Canadian border was closed to live cattle."
I've only poined out many times, even starting a new thread, that the information to prove it either way doesn't exist. You know that. That is why you can't fill in the blanks and prove your original statement. Yet, you keep bringing your $500 bet up like you've really got something there... :roll:
How about that name-calling bet?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "NOBODY would accept your "proof", SH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T PROOF RELEVENT TO YOUR STATEMENT."
Nobody?
Who the hell do you think you are speaking for now Sandbag? The sheep turds in your pocket again?
Why did you thank Agman for his honesty after Agman said that I was right about my original statement? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Answer the question!
You can't selectively thank Agman for his honesty only when it suits your purpose at the time. If the information was good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004, it should be good enough to back my position regarding the entire period of time when the border was closed.
You really think you got something here by demanding individual plant financials but you haven't brought a damn thing to the table to prove this either way. All you have is a critique of what I brought to the table like the parasite you are.
Sandbag: "I've only poined out many times, even starting a new thread, that the information to prove it either way doesn't exist. You know that."
If the proof doesn't exist, then how can you say that I lied?
Either prove that I lied or shut your damn mouth.
Sandbag: "How about that name-calling bet?"
I could care less if I did get that trophy. The names are fitting and they will continue. You need something to divert the issues with.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Why did you thank Agman for his honesty after Agman said that I was right about my original statement? Were you lying then or are you lying now? Answer the question! "
I thanked Agman for coming out for all to see and say that you lost the bet I knew that he would be the only one who's word you would accept. That was all that I thanked him for.
Now, if Agman knows your original statement is right, why don't you get the information from him and fill in the blanks?
I tell you what, SH, this has gone on too long. You ride others for making statements they can't back with facts and then you do exacty that. You call others liars, and then you do exactly that. You've been called on it dozens of times by me alone, and you still continue to do it - and will continue to do it. You have absolutely no shame and less common sense. I was hoping I could shame you enough to slow your hypocracy and turbo mouth, but I give up. You're just out of control, period. I give up.
I thanked Agman for coming out for all to see and say that you lost the bet I knew that he would be the only one who's word you would accept. That was all that I thanked him for.
Now, if Agman knows your original statement is right, why don't you get the information from him and fill in the blanks?
I tell you what, SH, this has gone on too long. You ride others for making statements they can't back with facts and then you do exacty that. You call others liars, and then you do exactly that. You've been called on it dozens of times by me alone, and you still continue to do it - and will continue to do it. You have absolutely no shame and less common sense. I was hoping I could shame you enough to slow your hypocracy and turbo mouth, but I give up. You're just out of control, period. I give up.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag: "I thanked Agman for coming out for all to see and say that you lost the bet I knew that he would be the only one who's word you would accept. That was all that I thanked him for."
You lying SOB, you thanked Agman for his honesty when it fit your agenda to win the bet. You never questioned him because it fit your agenda at the time. At the same time, Agman stated that my original statement was correct. Are you the only one stupid enough to believe that Agman's data and his honesty is good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but not on the entire period of time when the border was closed?
What did you bring to the table to back your position? NOT A DAMN THING! A parasite relies on others to do the work.
If you want the blanks filled in, you can do the math yourself because you have been down your lying and deceptive road for so long you won't accept anything I present anyway.
You said that when someone from Cody, NE calls someone a liar, they better be able to back it. Did you? Of course not because you are a parasite.
Get the slaughter capacity information for all three plants (I provided).
Get the wage information for all three plants (I provided).
Get the per head slaughtering cost information of which the wage information is part of (Agman provided).
Get the slaughter reduction information for Boise and Pasco and the slaughter expansion information from Lakeside (I provided and Alberta study) for the period of time when the border was closed.
Get the fat cattle price information (USDA and CANFAX).
Get the boxed beef price information (USDA and CANFAX).
Get the Lakeside SRM removal cost information (Alberta Study).
Get the Tyson financial reports that mention the fact that Boise and Pasco were sustaining "HUGE LOSSES" and Lakeside lost money for a quarter during that time period.
Heck, just call the Tyson headquarters.
You can put this together very easily without individual plant financial data if you really want to but you are such an arrogant SOB that you would never ever admit to being wrong even when you have nothing to back your position.
I'd take the time to put this together for you but why? You won't believe it anyway so you can KMA as far as I'm concerned.
$500 to anyone who can prove my original statement wrong. I'm right about this and that's all I need to know.
Sandbag: "I give up."
I would too if I didn't have anything more to bring to the table than the empty statements that you provided.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "I thanked Agman for coming out for all to see and say that you lost the bet I knew that he would be the only one who's word you would accept. That was all that I thanked him for."
You lying SOB, you thanked Agman for his honesty when it fit your agenda to win the bet. You never questioned him because it fit your agenda at the time. At the same time, Agman stated that my original statement was correct. Are you the only one stupid enough to believe that Agman's data and his honesty is good enough to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but not on the entire period of time when the border was closed?
What did you bring to the table to back your position? NOT A DAMN THING! A parasite relies on others to do the work.
If you want the blanks filled in, you can do the math yourself because you have been down your lying and deceptive road for so long you won't accept anything I present anyway.
You said that when someone from Cody, NE calls someone a liar, they better be able to back it. Did you? Of course not because you are a parasite.
Get the slaughter capacity information for all three plants (I provided).
Get the wage information for all three plants (I provided).
Get the per head slaughtering cost information of which the wage information is part of (Agman provided).
Get the slaughter reduction information for Boise and Pasco and the slaughter expansion information from Lakeside (I provided and Alberta study) for the period of time when the border was closed.
Get the fat cattle price information (USDA and CANFAX).
Get the boxed beef price information (USDA and CANFAX).
Get the Lakeside SRM removal cost information (Alberta Study).
Get the Tyson financial reports that mention the fact that Boise and Pasco were sustaining "HUGE LOSSES" and Lakeside lost money for a quarter during that time period.
Heck, just call the Tyson headquarters.
You can put this together very easily without individual plant financial data if you really want to but you are such an arrogant SOB that you would never ever admit to being wrong even when you have nothing to back your position.
I'd take the time to put this together for you but why? You won't believe it anyway so you can KMA as far as I'm concerned.
$500 to anyone who can prove my original statement wrong. I'm right about this and that's all I need to know.
Sandbag: "I give up."
I would too if I didn't have anything more to bring to the table than the empty statements that you provided.
~SH~
SH, you could not prove your position and so you lost the bet. Can you get over it? Maybe you will start to agree with me that this forum is not one where "proof" is possible and stop proving that point over and over again with posts like this one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "SH, you could not prove your position and so you lost the bet."
Simple question for you Conman to see if you know what you are talking about ON THIS TOPIC (heavy sigh).
What was the bet?
Tell us Conman! How could a question be more simple pertaining to your statement above. Here's another chance for you to prove that you are not a complete phony.
You don't have a dog in this fight Conman, you're just backing your packer blaming clone. I'll bet you don't even know what the bet was.
What will the diversion be this time? Another unrelated empty statement? A "you know what the bet was" response to avoid answering the question? How will you slime your way around this one?
~SH~
~SH~ said:Conman: "SH, you could not prove your position and so you lost the bet."
Simple question for you Conman to see if you know what you are talking about ON THIS TOPIC (heavy sigh).
What was the bet?
Tell us Conman! How could a question be more simple pertaining to your statement above. Here's another chance for you to prove that you are not a complete phony.
You don't have a dog in this fight Conman, you're just backing your packer blaming clone. I'll bet you don't even know what the bet was.
What will the diversion be this time? Another unrelated empty statement? A "you know what the bet was" response to avoid answering the question? How will you slime your way around this one?
~SH~
If you could not figure out the bet before you made it, how can you do it now? You are just so used to making unsupported statements on this board with no way to prove them and then trying to get other people to prove them for you that you got the big head and put your money where your mouth was. You just plain lost the bet. You paid. That was your admission. End of story.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conman: "If you could not figure out the bet before you made it, how can you do it now?"
ROTFLMAO!
Conman, can't you do any better than that?
WHAT WAS THE BET???
How can a question be any more simple?
Just answer the question!
Here's your chance to prove that you actually know what you are talking about.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Econ, don't bother. Like I said before, you just can't win. SH has convinced himself the sky is green and there is no way to tell him any different.
He aint much.
He aint much.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandbag,
Conman can divert my questions without any help from you.
~SH~
Conman can divert my questions without any help from you.
~SH~
mwj
Well-known member
Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Conman: "SH, you could not prove your position and so you lost the bet."
Simple question for you Conman to see if you know what you are talking about ON THIS TOPIC (heavy sigh).
What was the bet?
Tell us Conman! How could a question be more simple pertaining to your statement above. Here's another chance for you to prove that you are not a complete phony.
You don't have a dog in this fight Conman, you're just backing your packer blaming clone. I'll bet you don't even know what the bet was.
What will the diversion be this time? Another unrelated empty statement? A "you know what the bet was" response to avoid answering the question? How will you slime your way around this one?
~SH~
If you could not figure out the bet before you made it, how can you do it now? You are just so used to making unsupported statements on this board with no way to prove them and then trying to get other people to prove them for you that you got the big head and put your money where your mouth was. You just plain lost the bet. You paid. That was your admission. End of story.
:shock: is this the pot calling the kettle black?????????/ :???:
nightcalver
Member
Back to the original thought on this topic..... :!: Do we or do we not still live in the U.S. where we should be free to make decisions based on what we belive will be to our personal benefit? In other words if I want to sell my cattle on a grid and receive a premium for them because I know through past experience how my cattle preform, shouldn't I have the freedom to do that? If you want to sell your way shouldn't you have the right to do that? There is a bill before the House....HR4257 that would require there to be (a minimum of) 2 bidders and 2 sellers any time cattle are sold. This bill is supported by OCM, which to me is hypocritical, The Organization of Competitive Markets wants government to force us to sell cattle only one way (there way). OCM is also in favor of the government setting prices on cattle (where's the competition in that?).
nightcalver said:Back to the original thought on this topic..... :!: Do we or do we not still live in the U.S. where we should be free to make decisions based on what we belive will be to our personal benefit? In other words if I want to sell my cattle on a grid and receive a premium for them because I know through past experience how my cattle preform, shouldn't I have the freedom to do that? If you want to sell your way shouldn't you have the right to do that? There is a bill before the House....HR4257 that would require there to be (a minimum of) 2 bidders and 2 sellers any time cattle are sold. This bill is supported by OCM, which to me is hypocritical, The Organization of Competitive Markets wants government to force us to sell cattle only one way (there way). OCM is also in favor of the government setting prices on cattle (where's the competition in that?).
Nightcalver, there really is no problem with any of the marketing methods you mentioned as long as there is competition. When there is no competition and there is market power present. Companies with market power can alter their buying patterns in strategic ways that make them more money at the expense of the market, and yes, some cattlemen. How would you like it if a packer offered your neighbor more money on a grid pricing strategy than you? The argument is a fine argument, but one that has enormous consequences (2.46 billion for cattle this last go round) and it is intended to integrate the cattle industry so that later more control can be put on prices recieved by cattlemen and more captured by packers. One of the reasons there is such a move toward the things OCM is advocating is that within the court system, the remedies are not cost effective to those injured. I am told the court procedures were an 8 year plus time period in the Pickett case, only to be thrown out by a court that can not read the difference between "or" and "and".
The calls for more regulation are not because anyone wants to limit cattlemen's choices, but they are calls to limit the market power of packers and the resulting economic inefficiencies from this market power.
nightcalver
Member
Nightcalver, there really is no problem with any of the marketing methods you mentioned as long as there is competition. When there is no competition and there is market power present. Companies with market power can alter their buying patterns in strategic ways that make them more money at the expense of the market, and yes, some cattlemen. How would you like it if a packer offered your neighbor more money on a grid pricing strategy than you? The argument is a fine argument, but one that has enormous consequences (2.46 billion for cattle this last go round) and it is intended to integrate the cattle industry so that later more control can be put on prices recieved by cattlemen and more captured by packers. One of the reasons there is such a move toward the things OCM is advocating is that within the court system, the remedies are not cost effective to those injured. I am told the court procedures were an 8 year plus time period in the Pickett case, only to be thrown out by a court that can not read the difference between "or" and "and".
The calls for more regulation are not because anyone wants to limit cattlemen's choices, but they are calls to limit the market power of packers and the resulting economic inefficiencies from this market power.
OT: If someone came and offered my neighbor a premium for their cattle over mine I would try to find out how I could improve my cattle to get that premium also. As far as vertical integration goes my train of thought on that is that I haven't been convinced as of yet that the beef industry can become very vertically integrated because of enviromental differences. If we all had confinement systems like pork and poultry it would be different but we don't therefore we have differences in genetics, management, and bottom lines.
Ultimately, it's the consumer who sets the prices. The consumer wants an enjoyable eating experience every time and if that can be provided to them through the production of cattle that have been proven to be what the consumer is looking for and if I can provide the cattle and get a premium over commodity cattle I'll take it. I have a responsibility to myself and family to provide the best livelyhood that I can.
The best way to provide a consistant product is not with the current method of guessing what cattle will do by looking at them with the hide on but, on the rail where the real product is visible and measurable.