~SH~ said:I just like to watch you squirm you pathetic liar.
~SH~
You may be waiting for some time.
~SH~ said:I just like to watch you squirm you pathetic liar.
~SH~
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.
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.
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."
Conman: "SH, Pickett proved it to a jury where it counts 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."
Conman: "You will not bet either Sandhusker or myself on statements you make."
Conman: "You are just a packer hawker. Nothing more, nothing less."
Sandbag: "NOBODY would accept your "proof", SH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T PROOF RELEVENT TO YOUR STATEMENT."
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."
Sandbag: "How about that name-calling bet?"
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."
Sandbag: "I give up."
~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~
Conman: "SH, you could not prove your position and so you lost the bet."
~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~
Conman: "If you could not figure out the bet before you made it, how can you do it now?"
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.
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.