When meat packers own their own cattle

[Mike]

From one of my Law dictionaries..........


chain conspiracy
: a conspiracy in which the conspirators act separately and successively (as in stealing cattle from producers at cheap prices)

civil conspiracy
: a conspiracy that is not prosecuted as a crime but that forms the grounds for a lawsuit (could be covered by PSA)

criminal conspiracy
: a conspiracy prosecuted as a crime ( as in the case of US vs. John Gotti)

 

[rkaiser]

Is it an "evil act" to plan to MAKE MONEY off the backs of those who supply you with product MRJ?

Packer and corporate basher is not such a bad name. I think that I can deal with that one.

 

[Jason]

You better hope it isn't an evil act Randy, I am sure you plan to make money from the cattle you get from your suppliers.

Is Celtic beef incorporated?

Must be tough to bash corporations if you are one. :lol:

 

[Econ101]

What is not right is for companies to use their market power in the economy. That will only lead to the big getting bigger. Nothing to do with market efficieny, everything to do with "corporate efficiency". When that happens we all lose. Canada just went through a little lesson in that. I see some in Canada(and the U.S.) don't learn their lessons.

 

[mrj]

Is it an "evil act" to plan to MAKE MONEY off the backs of those who supply you with product MRJ?

Packer and corporate basher is not such a bad name. I think that I can deal with that one.

Of course it isn't an evil act to plan to make money by purchasing cattle from someone and adding value to them and selling them, whether it is any of the minor or major packers or Randy Kaiser, WHEN ONE ACTS LEGALLY IN DOING SO.

Do you ALWAYS give the "other guy" the benefit, or do you drive a hard bargain when buying or selling the inputs you need for your business? Do you force anyone to accept what you want to pay them, or do you mutually agree on a price? Or do you always buy at auction (some claim it is the ONLY honest place to buy/sell cattle)?

Re. your 'motto' of "Who do you what (you did intend to type "want" rather than "what", didn't you?) to help out of this jam we call the Beef Industry, Grassroots Producer or Multinational Packers?" Why do we "want to help" anyone? Out of the goodness of our hearts? That is charity, isn't it? Are you running a charity, or a business? If our business makes money in excess of our necessities, charity is a fine thing and a blessing to giver and receiver alike. IF you pay fair prices to all from whom you buy your business needs, rather than the going market rate, good for you! Hopefully, that indicates you are making plenty of money on your sales. If it doesn't, you won't be in business for long, will you? Unless you have another source of income, of course. That could change the picture. My point: "fair" isn't always attainable in prices for a product, nor even in wages. It has to be based upon value and what the market will return, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Is it an "evil act" to plan to MAKE MONEY off the backs of those who supply you with product MRJ?

Packer and corporate basher is not such a bad name. I think that I can deal with that one.

Of course it isn't an evil act to plan to make money by purchasing cattle from someone and adding value to them and selling them, whether it is any of the minor or major packers or Randy Kaiser, WHEN ONE ACTS LEGALLY IN DOING SO.

Do you ALWAYS give the "other guy" the benefit, or do you drive a hard bargain when buying or selling the inputs you need for your business? Do you force anyone to accept what you want to pay them, or do you mutually agree on a price? Or do you always buy at auction (some claim it is the ONLY honest place to buy/sell cattle)?

Re. your 'motto' of "Who do you what (you did intend to type "want" rather than "what", didn't you?) to help out of this jam we call the Beef Industry, Grassroots Producer or Multinational Packers?" Why do we "want to help" anyone? Out of the goodness of our hearts? That is charity, isn't it? Are you running a charity, or a business? If our business makes money in excess of our necessities, charity is a fine thing and a blessing to giver and receiver alike. IF you pay fair prices to all from whom you buy your business needs, rather than the going market rate, good for you! Hopefully, that indicates you are making plenty of money on your sales. If it doesn't, you won't be in business for long, will you? Unless you have another source of income, of course. That could change the picture. My point: "fair" isn't always attainable in prices for a product, nor even in wages. It has to be based upon value and what the market will return, IMO.

MRJ

That is why we have laws that limit market power and its abuse.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Pickett did not claim any type of conspiracy. Pickett claimed PSA was violated."

That "CLAIM" was based on a conspiracy theory that did not hold up in court. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not "market manipulation".

You packer blamers lost because you couldn't back your market manipulation conspiracy theory.


Sandbag: "There can be violations independent of conspiracies."

There can be no violations without proof of that violation.

You had no proof so you lost.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Pickett did not claim any type of conspiracy. Pickett claimed PSA was violated."

That "CLAIM" was based on a conspiracy theory that did not hold up in court. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not "market manipulation".

You packer blamers lost because you couldn't back your market manipulation conspiracy theory.


Sandbag: "There can be violations independent of conspiracies."

There can be no violations without proof of that violation.

You had no proof so you lost.


~SH~

The case was lost because of a misinterpretation and rewriting of PSA.

Packers were not dropping their price because their needs were met. They were dropping their price because the pricing mechanism that they can influence on contract cattle allowed them to do so. It's not a hard concept to understand, unless you don't want to understand it.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "Pickett did not claim any type of conspiracy. Pickett claimed PSA was violated."

That "CLAIM" was based on a conspiracy theory that did not hold up in court. Dropping your price as your needs are met is not "market manipulation".

You packer blamers lost because you couldn't back your market manipulation conspiracy theory.


Sandbag: "There can be violations independent of conspiracies."

There can be no violations without proof of that violation.

You had no proof so you lost.


~SH~

SH, you know they convinced the jury. There was no plausable refutation of the plaintiff's claim by the jugde. None. Matters of fact are determined by the jury, not some politically appointed judges.

There was a reinterpretation of the law based on the London case in which the integrator went after a grower because of testimony against the company in a racial discrimination case.

Other circuit courts have not the blindness to justice that this 11th circuit has. These judges do not need to sit on the bench. They are not worthy. Heck, they can not even tell the difference between "or" and "and".

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The case was lost because of a misinterpretation and rewriting of PSA."

Nobody rewrote the PSA, the plaintiffs simply did not have the evidence to prove market manipulation. Upheld by the 11th circuit. You lost!


Sandbag: "Packers were not dropping their price because their needs were met."

Packers were dropping their price in the cash market as their needs were met in the formula market. Why do you suppose OCM sunk their teeth into the Tyson rep who said, "as the number of formula cattle goes up, the cash price comes down".


Sandbag: "They were dropping their price because the pricing mechanism that they can influence on contract cattle allowed them to do so."

They dropped their price in the cash market because their needs were met in the formula market and boxed beef prices fell at the same time.

No market manipulation! NONE!

You got nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "The case was lost because of a misinterpretation and rewriting of PSA."

Nobody rewrote the PSA, the plaintiffs simply did not have the evidence to prove market manipulation. Upheld by the 11th circuit. You lost!


Sandbag: "Packers were not dropping their price because their needs were met."

Packers were dropping their price in the cash market as their needs were met in the formula market. Why do you suppose OCM sunk their teeth into the Tyson rep who said, "as the number of formula cattle goes up, the cash price comes down".


Sandbag: "They were dropping their price because the pricing mechanism that they can influence on contract cattle allowed them to do so."

They dropped their price in the cash market because their needs were met in the formula market and boxed beef prices fell at the same time.

No market manipulation! NONE!

You got nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory!


~SH~

Everybody who knows anything about this issue in the USDA ground level knows you are wrong. It is just a matter of time now, SH.

What will you do without your masters?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "The case was lost because of a misinterpretation and rewriting of PSA."

Nobody rewrote the PSA, the plaintiffs simply did not have the evidence to prove market manipulation. Upheld by the 11th circuit. You lost!


Sandbag: "Packers were not dropping their price because their needs were met."

Packers were dropping their price in the cash market as their needs were met in the formula market. Why do you suppose OCM sunk their teeth into the Tyson rep who said, "as the number of formula cattle goes up, the cash price comes down".


Sandbag: "They were dropping their price because the pricing mechanism that they can influence on contract cattle allowed them to do so."

They dropped their price in the cash market because their needs were met in the formula market and boxed beef prices fell at the same time.

No market manipulation! NONE!

You got nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory!


~SH~

Whatever, SH. Be a fool if you want. The choice is yours.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Everybody who knows anything about this issue in the USDA ground level knows you are wrong. It is just a matter of time now, SH."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz!

More cheap talk! No facts! More statements! Same - O factually defenseless Conman. CREATE THE ILLUSION!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Sandbag: "Whatever, SH. Be a fool if you want. The choice is yours."

The fools are those who continue to spout "market manipulation" without a stitch of evidence to prove it. Pathetic anti corporate packer blamers like you.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Everybody who knows anything about this issue in the USDA ground level knows you are wrong. It is just a matter of time now, SH."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz!

More cheap talk! No facts! More statements! Same - O factually defenseless Conman. CREATE THE ILLUSION!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Sandbag: "Whatever, SH. Be a fool if you want. The choice is yours."

The fools are those who continue to spout "market manipulation" without a stitch of evidence to prove it. Pathetic anti corporate packer blamers like you.



~SH~

Evidence was presented and accepted where it is supposed to be in our system. You just don't understand that. Do you want to argue a point or just keep expressing your opinion?

 

[mwj]

Is it an "evil act" to plan to MAKE MONEY off the backs of those who supply you with product MRJ?

Packer and corporate basher is not such a bad name. I think that I can deal with that one.

Of course it isn't an evil act to plan to make money by purchasing cattle from someone and adding value to them and selling them, whether it is any of the minor or major packers or Randy Kaiser, WHEN ONE ACTS LEGALLY IN DOING SO.

Do you ALWAYS give the "other guy" the benefit, or do you drive a hard bargain when buying or selling the inputs you need for your business? Do you force anyone to accept what you want to pay them, or do you mutually agree on a price? Or do you always buy at auction (some claim it is the ONLY honest place to buy/sell cattle)?

Re. your 'motto' of "Who do you what (you did intend to type "want" rather than "what", didn't you?) to help out of this jam we call the Beef Industry, Grassroots Producer or Multinational Packers?" Why do we "want to help" anyone? Out of the goodness of our hearts? That is charity, isn't it? Are you running a charity, or a business? If our business makes money in excess of our necessities, charity is a fine thing and a blessing to giver and receiver alike. IF you pay fair prices to all from whom you buy your business needs, rather than the going market rate, good for you! Hopefully, that indicates you are making plenty of money on your sales. If it doesn't, you won't be in business for long, will you? Unless you have another source of income, of course. That could change the picture. My point: "fair" isn't always attainable in prices for a product, nor even in wages. It has to be based upon value and what the market will return, IMO.

MRJ

Very good reply that I concur with totally :cowboy:

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Evidence was presented and accepted where it is supposed to be in our system."

What was that evidence Conman?

Watch this...........



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

mwj Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRJ wrote:
rkaiser wrote:
Is it an "evil act" to plan to MAKE MONEY off the backs of those who supply you with product MRJ?

Packer and corporate basher is not such a bad name. I think that I can deal with that one.



Of course it isn't an evil act to plan to make money by purchasing cattle from someone and adding value to them and selling them, whether it is any of the minor or major packers or Randy Kaiser, WHEN ONE ACTS LEGALLY IN DOING SO.

Do you ALWAYS give the "other guy" the benefit, or do you drive a hard bargain when buying or selling the inputs you need for your business? Do you force anyone to accept what you want to pay them, or do you mutually agree on a price? Or do you always buy at auction (some claim it is the ONLY honest place to buy/sell cattle)?

Re. your 'motto' of "Who do you what (you did intend to type "want" rather than "what", didn't you?) to help out of this jam we call the Beef Industry, Grassroots Producer or Multinational Packers?" Why do we "want to help" anyone? Out of the goodness of our hearts? That is charity, isn't it? Are you running a charity, or a business? If our business makes money in excess of our necessities, charity is a fine thing and a blessing to giver and receiver alike. IF you pay fair prices to all from whom you buy your business needs, rather than the going market rate, good for you! Hopefully, that indicates you are making plenty of money on your sales. If it doesn't, you won't be in business for long, will you? Unless you have another source of income, of course. That could change the picture. My point: "fair" isn't always attainable in prices for a product, nor even in wages. It has to be based upon value and what the market will return, IMO.

MRJ


Very good reply that I concur with totally

I don't disagree with MRJ's response either, except that I was discussing conspiracy with MRJ, and neither of you caught that.

MRJ's definition of conspiracy included and evil act. I simply asked that her if planning to make money off the backs of producers was "an evil act"? If it is, maybe Cargill and Tyson have the only conspiracy cooking, while SH and the gang can't get the words out of their little heads to blame us no agreeable types.

Welcome back SH. Hope you had a good gopher hunting holiday in Mexico, or where ever you were.

Randy

 

[Econ101]

Since you guys like the word "conspire" so much and don't know the meaning of the word or how it fits into the PSA, I copied the relevant section of the act for you to think about. Note that you could break 202 (a) and still not "conspire" because the prohibitions have "or"s and not "and"s. Here it is:

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

 

[Anonymous]

Whoopdi Do! You quoted from the PSA of 2000 B.C.

How about providing an example of a violation if you are so certain it's occuring?

You could have made a better case for "preferential treatment" than market manipulation. Your market manipulation conspiracy theory is nothing more than a theory.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Whoopdi Do! You quoted from the PSA of 2000 B.C.

How about providing an example of a violation if you are so certain it's occuring?

You could have made a better case for "preferential treatment" than market manipulation. Your market manipulation conspiracy theory is nothing more than a theory.


~SH~

It is far better than quoting you, SH.

I can make a case for a lot of things. I will be glad to speak to the wizard on your behalf when you get to Oz.

The concentration in the food industry is more than a theory, it is a fact. Just because you want to ignore the market moves does not mean that they do not exist.