Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous]

Cattleman: "But in your question to BB, did you consider that the losses in the US is more than just due to the border being closed!!"

The bet was not about the losses caused ONLY by Canadian imports, the bet was that the losses, MEANING TOTAL LOSSES, in the Boise and Pasco plants were greater than the profits, MEANING TOTAL PROFITS, in the Lakeside plant.

That was the bet.

Your point is irrelevant to the bet.



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

You are amazing SH. You lost the bet plain and simple, so just give it a break.

 

[rancher]

Cattleman: "But in your question to BB, did you consider that the losses in the US is more than just due to the border being closed!!"

The bet was not about the losses caused ONLY by Canadian imports, the bet was that the losses, MEANING TOTAL LOSSES, in the Boise and Pasco plants were greater than the profits, MEANING TOTAL PROFITS, in the Lakeside plant.

That was the bet.

Your point is irrelevant to the bet.



~SH~

Where did you say anything about total loss and total profits? If you could bring up that post as I might have missed in the 500,567,577.566 posts you have made.

My position is that the profits made in Canada due to having more cattle than slaughter capacity were offset by the losses in U.S. plants that relied on Canadian cattle.

 

[rkaiser]

Agman,

Why would BB (head of cattle procurement for Tyson) tell me that Tyson's losses in the Boise and Pasco plants were, "way more" than the profits in the Lakeside plant if that was not the case?

By your own admission, the two plants in the NW were running at 35% of normal capacity and based on the information I have presented, Tyson is still paying their employees for a 32 hour work week even when the plant is shut down.

In comparison, the profits in the Lakeside plant, based on the Canadian government's study, were not excessive due to the costs of total SRM removal in Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.

If you call BB and he agrees with you and changes his story from what he told me, I'll write the check. If not, I think he would know what the financial situation of these 3 plants was.

I'm telling you exactly what he told me.

I said, "based on the information I have read, I am under the impression that the losses in the Pasco and Boise plants were more than the profits in the Lakeside plant".

His response, "WAY MORE".

Call and ask him and lets settle this.


~SH~

My goodness, you want to talk about thumb sucking :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Randy,

I realize that you couldn't trust anyone who works for a large packing company to tell the truth on anything.

Your packer blaming bias absolutely screams.

Hell, you are the one who thinks Tyson and Cargill want the border to stay closed when they have taken every conceivable position to the contrary.

I'd say that qualifies you as "EXTREMELY BIASED".



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

My position is that the profits made in Canada due to having more cattle than slaughter capacity were offset by the losses in U.S. plants that relied on Canadian cattle.

Rancher,

You tell me where in that statement I said anything about LOSSES ATTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO THE LACK OF CANADIAN CATTLE?

I never said that, I said THE LOSSES IN U.S. PLANTS WHICH RELIED ON CANADIAN CATTLE, WHICH MEANS TOTAL LOSSES.

If I meant the losses attributed directly to the lack of Canadian cattle, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. I said losses!

Quit R-CALFing what I have stated.

I get so sick of you R-CULTers always changing the meaning of what has actually been stated.



~SH~

 

[rancher]

My position is that the profits made in Canada due to having more cattle than slaughter capacity were offset by the losses in U.S. plants that relied on Canadian cattle.

Rancher,

You tell me where in that statement I said anything about LOSSES ATTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO THE LACK OF CANADIAN CATTLE?

I never said that, I said THE LOSSES IN U.S. PLANTS WHICH RELIED ON CANADIAN CATTLE, WHICH MEANS TOTAL LOSSES.

If I meant the losses attributed directly to the lack of Canadian cattle, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. I said losses!

Quit R-CALFing what I have stated.

I get so sick of you R-CULTers always changing the meaning of what has actually been stated.



~SH~

Would like to stay and bs, but just felt dizzy all of a sudden after I read your reply. Night Night SH

 

[Anonymous]

COP OUT!

Make a statement and run.

Imagine that?


~SH~

 

[mrj]

Where is the line drawn & what line is it? Ethical? Legal? There has been hundreds of conversations on this forum about packer price manipulation. Like any other business, packer mgmt. has an obligation to do the best they can for their shareholders. There is no doubt in my mind that they use captive supply (is this the correct term for all?) to aid their marketing to some degree. At what point do they cross the line & which line?

We had a cattle buyer in the area for years who worked with verbal agreements. When the bottom dropped out of the cattle market, he still paid ranchers what he promised. (yes, he was smart enough to have hedged!) When the market came back and he went to buy more cattle, three ranchers broke their agreements with him. Said the market was to high for the deal they had made. Said they were going through tough times and needed to sell at a higher price to save their ranches. Do you feel their obligations to their family were more important that those to the cattle buyer? (No, he no longer will buy cattle from them)
Did they cross the line & if so, which line?

{Apparently it wasn't the legal line they crossed, but surely common decency says it was a moral lapse to renig (sp?) on the hand-shake deal. Strange isn't it, that many would condemn the cattle buyer (packer, retailer, or any other segment) yet say it was ok for the rancher to do this? MRJ}

This morning I received a newsletter with a story about a man accused by the CFTC of conspiring with NE feedlot managers to manipulate feeder cattle futures, allegedly reporting phony cash sales to inflate the index 2.85, profiting from futures positions.
Were they just doing the best they could for themselves, good management, or where did they cross the line? What if the packers filed charges against the feedlot and a jury convicted them. How would you feel if the judge insinuated the jury was stupid and the plaintiffs were nuts & threw the case out?

{Shouldn't they be convicted (proven guilty) of the charges before we even discuss this one? Theoretical cases are interesting to discuss, alright, but with so many instances where we just love to consider charges brought almost as "proof" of guilt......the "where there's smoke, there's fire" syndrome at work, is it really beneficial to discuss it at this juncture? MRJ}

There are a lot of different shoes to walk in before we condemn others. I am not a legal or moral expert. I do believe most of us know right from wrong, but when we stand to benefit, is it okay to just let you toes cross the line a little bit? LOL! Is it just good management if that is the type of business world we have to compete in? If everyone is doing it, is it okay?

{Not for me, it isn't ok. And I wouldn't really trust anyone who does it, or who says it is ok. There really are still some people who give the benefit of the doubt to the other guy, being extremely careful not to harm the other guy in a deal. Any parent who has worn out the phrase "no, everyone is NOT doing it" to their kids, would have to be extremely hypocritical to say it would be OK. MRJ}

I enjoy the discussions on these topics and believe I have learned something from all of you. But when you try to force your ideas or moral standards on someone else, where do you cross the line? Name calling? Belittling? Is it okay to disagree on a topic without being labeled for the duration of you posts here?

So many questions & so few answers! LOL! Sorry if I bored you.

 

[agman]

Agman,

Why would BB (head of cattle procurement for Tyson) tell me that Tyson's losses in the Boise and Pasco plants were, "way more" than the profits in the Lakeside plant if that was not the case?

By your own admission, the two plants in the NW were running at 35% of normal capacity and based on the information I have presented, Tyson is still paying their employees for a 32 hour work week even when the plant is shut down.

In comparison, the profits in the Lakeside plant, based on the Canadian government's study, were not excessive due to the costs of total SRM removal in Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.

If you call BB and he agrees with you and changes his story from what he told me, I'll write the check. If not, I think he would know what the financial situation of these 3 plants was.

I'm telling you exactly what he told me.

I said, "based on the information I have read, I am under the impression that the losses in the Pasco and Boise plants were more than the profits in the Lakeside plant".

His response, "WAY MORE".

Call and ask him and lets settle this.


~SH~

I will stand by my statement which was specific to the period for which the bet was made. I believe that to be 2004. Correct me if I am wrong. I believe my answer qualified various conditions.

 

[Econ101]

What proof was in Taylor's theory that he failed to test????? He is required by law to test his theories for validity when advanced to the court. He failed to do that buy his own admission under oath. In short, unsupported accusations are worthless. It is not the courts duty to test his theories for validity. Why do you ignore all the facts surrounding his testimony and claims? Do you think you know more than Judge Storm or the Appellate Court regarding his ENTIRE testimony-yes or no?

What EXACT theory are you saying he did not test? What was the test? Were other tests performed? You obviously have problems with evidence that is contrary to your views, Agman. A simple calculation of the circumference of a circle does not require your definition of "testing for validity". Stop all the BS and post exactly the testimony you seem to champion or are you as full of hot air as SH?

As far as the entire testimony, the jury was to answer that question, not the judge. I saw not one scintilla of evidence that Strom could dismiss Dr. Taylor's testimony and there are REAL issues with the appellate court's opinion as to their competence. Care to go into the Robinson-Patman example? Third or Fourth challenge.

What you saw is totally irrelevant. Are you suggesting that Taylor did not say under oath that he failed to test his six theories as to how captive supply lowered prices? Those are his words under oath; read his testimony. Judge Strom asked him to repeat that statement, that too is in the testimony. So you can stop your accusing me of BS when you are once again clearly short on fact as usual. This is not about circles which you seem to be trapped in. It is about meeting a legal requirement when you advance a theory in court. Mike knows as I do that this is a legal requirement which Taylor failed to fulfill. Why are you absent of or constantly choose to skirt that important legal fact?

Regarding Robinson-Patman, the court decided that issue knowing the entire law, not just one segment. As I previously stated, if the court is wrong then this case would be a slam dunk for appeal and review by the Supreme Court. Also as previously stated, since this decision was unanimous on all counts against the plaintiffs, no dissenting opinion on any legal aspect, the Supreme Court will not accept this case for Appeal. Any impartial legal scholar will tell you that, like it or not.

You state incorrectly that the jury is the final arbiter of the evidence presented. If that is so then Judge Strom is in violation of some law-correct? The fact is that legally a judge can, if it is determined that the derived verdict could NOT be achieved if the jurors UNDERSTOOD ALL the testimony, can void the jury verdict. Are you telling me and other readers that no such provision exists in law?

I will use as an example the fact of the jury award of $1.28 billion versus Taylor's calculation of $2.1 billion. Since there was no testimony to support their $1.28 billion was that derived from a Mickey Mouse movie-were they paying attention to the testimony? Did they just make that up? Was the jury wrong or was Taylor wrong? They cannot both be correct.

Since there was no testimony to the contrary, even from the plaintiff's witnesses, how did the jury conclude that Tyson had no valid business reason to enter marketing agreements with producers? There was zero testimony to support their conclusion. Did they conclude on their own that the plaintiff and defense witnesses must all have lied under oath regarding that matter? Are jurors not required to derive their opinion from testimony or can they just make things up and convict at will? With all due respect, this case is over.

Agman, it seems we continue to go over the same ground. You rest your defense on the assumption that Taylor had to do some unidentified test. Are you asking that Taylor be a game theorist and maximize the equations for the test? What test are you asking for? The jury was to decide the case, not the judge. If the judge had a problem with Taylor's testimony, he should have pointed out the errors of the testimony, not that he just didn't believe it. Strom did not do that. The appellate court did not do that either.

Have you read the whole Robinson-Patman Act? The fact is that the appellate court pulled out that one example and misused it. They blew it. And then they had the gall to call into question Taylor's credentials under the Daubert tests? Incredulous.

It takes more than a mere "nuts" call to throw out the evidence and Taylor's work on it. This judge did not even show he had a grasp of the analysis that Taylor did. There is a real problem with him throwing a case out for the reasons he gave or didn't give in his opinion.

As far as the amount, the jury was requested to write in what they thought was appropriate, not exactly what Taylor testified to. There is no rule that they have to give the same dollar amount. That is just made up. I have gone over that already. Just agree to disagree.

The valid business reason theory is another made up defense. It doesn't hold water. Sounds nice, but legitimate business reasons defense is really in question on the London case that was cited. There is no legitimate business reason for breaking the PSA. It is just legal garble and you know it.

How do you know how the jurors made up their mind? It was clear from the questions they answered that they thought about the testimony and answered accordingly. There is a real reason we do not allow an elite body of judges to be the jury. The founding fathers only trusted 12 regular men and women, not judges who answer to Senator John Cornyn who sits on the judiciary committee and who has taken tons of money from Tyson and Arlen Specter who represented Frank Perdue, the other chicken magnate, before he became governor of PA. That would be bought justice, not the kind of justice envisioned by the founding fathers.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA's demands.

"It is easy to understand how money works against consumers' interests in politics by considering that the COOL legislation made it through Congress with a strong show of support a few years ago, only to be corralled by a strong industry lobbying effort capped by a cornucopia of campaign cash," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

I am gonna cut this one short because I am a little busy right now. Thanks for keeping this last post more decent, Agman.