Who are the real "packer mouthpieces"??

[Anonymous]

The answer to that question is very simple. Anyone who supports the proposed GIPSA rules is a proponent for higher packer profits.

If the GIPSA rules are implemented, the packers will be forced to pay the same price for all cattle regardless of the quality or face legal action to justify doing otherwise. This means that cattle that would have received premiums for higher quality carcasses will be paid an average price. The packers will then turn around and sell that higher quality meat at a profit.

REAL MEN OF GENIUS !!!

For that reason, if the packers were as dirty as some packer blamers believe, they would lobby in support of the GIPSA rules so they could profit from the value of higher quality carcasses. What a perfect excuse for paying less money for fat cattle.

YOU GO SANDHUSKER AND TEX !!!!! The packers will love you for it.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

The answer to that question is very simple. Anyone who supports the proposed GIPSA rules is a proponent for higher packer profits.

If the GIPSA rules are implemented, the packers will be forced to pay the same price for all cattle regardless of the quality or face legal action to justify doing otherwise. This means that cattle that would have received premiums for higher quality carcasses will be paid an average price. The packers will then turn around and sell that higher quality meat at a profit.

REAL MEN OF GENIUS !!!

For that reason, if the packers were as dirty as some packer blamers believe, they would lobby in support of the GIPSA rules so they could profit from the value of higher quality carcasses. What a perfect excuse for paying less money for fat cattle.

YOU GO SANDHUSKER AND TEX !!!!! The packers will love you for it.


~SH~

More Packer BS, SH.

Tyson already got sued by their competition when they lied about antibiotic free chickens they advertised.

Yes, they reportedly got the go ahead by their flunkies in the USDA on it before they did it. Their competition still sued them.

I guess when their meat packer colleagues call them on it, the courts have to do something--- but only when they do it, no one else.

It kind of ties up the industry for them doesn't it?

Of course you know that this isn't a result of the beef industry so much as what they are doing in the poultry industry with price discrimination for the same quality product.

If a meat packer can not justify higher prices for higher quality meat, there is very good reason to believe it is just price discrimination masquerading as market forces.


Sh, you are such a parrot for the meat packers is almost isn't worth the time to reply in a logical manner to anything you post. Parrots are the same way.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "More Packer BS, SH."

Keep telling yourself that Tex because you certainly can't bring anything to the table to back your position. Your proposed GIPSA rules will hurt producers and help packers by socializing the cattle markets so all cattle receive the same price regardless of quality.

Tex: "Yes, they reportedly got the go ahead by their flunkies in the USDA on it before they did it. Their competition still sued them."

Oh, I see. Their competition sued them but there's no competition in the packing industry.

You can't even recognize your own contradictions.

Tex: "If a meat packer can not justify higher prices for higher quality meat, there is very good reason to believe it is just price discrimination masquerading as market forces".

If a meat packer is threatened with price discrimination for paying a higher price for quality meat, they are safer paying an aveage "socialized marketing" price for everything. In that case, the packer has a disincentive for rewarding higher quality cattle. That's what you GIPSA rule advocates are promoting, socialized cattle marketing.

Tex: "Sh, you are such a parrot for the meat packers is almost isn't worth the time to reply in a logical manner to anything you post. Parrots are the same way."

ok.

The facts you present to back your position are just so overwhelming.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "More Packer BS, SH."

Keep telling yourself that Tex because you certainly can't bring anything to the table to back your position. Your proposed GIPSA rules will hurt producers and help packers by socializing the cattle markets so all cattle receive the same price regardless of quality.

Tex: "Yes, they reportedly got the go ahead by their flunkies in the USDA on it before they did it. Their competition still sued them."

Oh, I see. Their competition sued them but there's no competition in the packing industry.

You can't even recognize your own contradictions.

Tex: "If a meat packer can not justify higher prices for higher quality meat, there is very good reason to believe it is just price discrimination masquerading as market forces".

If a meat packer is threatened with price discrimination for paying a higher price for quality meat, they are safer paying an aveage "socialized marketing" price for everything. In that case, the packer has a disincentive for rewarding higher quality cattle. That's what you GIPSA rule advocates are promoting, socialized cattle marketing.

Tex: "Sh, you are such a parrot for the meat packers is almost isn't worth the time to reply in a logical manner to anything you post. Parrots are the same way."

ok.

The facts you present to back your position are just so overwhelming.


~SH~

I don't know how to ask this nicely over the internet, but have you ever been told you are a little slow?

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "I don't know how to ask this nicely over the internet, but have you ever been told you are a little slow?"

I'll take that as an admission that you can't refute a single thing I have stated with facts to the contrary. Keep making your statements Tex because that's what your good at. The facts support the court decisions which trumps your need to blame.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "I don't know how to ask this nicely over the internet, but have you ever been told you are a little slow?"

I'll take that as an admission that you can't refute a single thing I have stated with facts to the contrary. Keep making your statements Tex because that's what your good at. The facts support the court decisions which trumps your need to blame.


~SH~

"Quote:
Tex: "Yes, they reportedly got the go ahead by their flunkies in the USDA on it before they did it. Their competition still sued them."


Oh, I see. Their competition sued them but there's no competition in the packing industry.

You can't even recognize your own contradictions. "


This is just one example, sh. You don't have a clue when meat packers are colluding or competing and you think they have to do one or the other all the time but can't do both.

The basis for your thinking this way makes me believe that you are basically too slow to learn or just don't want to.

Either way, you are just a big waste of time and I have decided that you are just not worth it.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

Reduce the power that the Government has and you will see less influence being purchased.

Regulatory Capture

Calling for more regulations is shooting yourselves in the foot.

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "This is just one example, sh. You don't have a clue when meat packers are colluding or competing and you think they have to do one or the other all the time but can't do both."

Tex Tex Tex, it doesn't matter how bad you want to believe packers are colluding or manipulating the market, you have to prove it. Our laws are not based on the presumption of guilt. Why can't you understand that? What you proved in court was that ONE PACKER dropped their price in the cash market to reflect THEIR purchases through grid marketing and forward contract cattle. You believe that's market manipulation. I don't. The courts backed me, not you. If that was market manipulation, it would have to apply to every aspect of the cattle industry, not just packers. The result would be that all cattle would have to receive the same price if all other factors were equal. That's socialism and that is what you are advocating.

As far as collusion, that's absolutely ridiculous. To suggest that the packers are in competition with eachother on some days and colluding on other days in the face of a market that moves in relation to cattle supplies and beef demand is absolutely absurd. Why would any packer collude with another packer when they are in competition for the same cattle? That takes a real stretch of the imagination.

Tex: "The basis for your thinking this way makes me believe that you are basically too slow to learn or just don't want to."

As always, those who can't back their beliefs with supporting facts feel no option but to discredit the opposition.

Tex: "Either way, you are just a big waste of time and I have decided that you are just not worth it."

I would bow out too if I was armed with nothing more than a need to blame.



~SH~

 

[Tex]

Reduce the power that the Government has and you will see less influence being purchased.

Regulatory Capture

Calling for more regulations is shooting yourselves in the foot.

I think the real thing is how the meat packer or anyone with huge amount of assets are able to influence the decision. These new rules, largely, are to reverse cases where meat packers have been caught red handed and federal courts have decided to throw the case anyway, usually before a jury trial.

We need to fix that problem because it is the essence of agency capture and judicial capture.

I agree we shouldn't need another regulation in response to federal judges who go off the deep end. They should simply be fired. They have a racket of unchecked power which is sold before it reaches a jury who would not go for the kind of things they go for. Juries are supposed to be the check on the judicial system but that is being denied.

I tend to agree that more rules are like a band aid on breast cancer where we need the equivalent of a radical mastectomy.

Tex

 

[Tex]

Tex: "This is just one example, sh. You don't have a clue when meat packers are colluding or competing and you think they have to do one or the other all the time but can't do both."

Tex Tex Tex, it doesn't matter how bad you want to believe packers are colluding or manipulating the market, you have to prove it. Our laws are not based on the presumption of guilt. Why can't you understand that? What you proved in court was that ONE PACKER dropped their price in the cash market to reflect THEIR purchases through grid marketing and forward contract cattle. You believe that's market manipulation. I don't. The courts backed me, not you. If that was market manipulation, it would have to apply to every aspect of the cattle industry, not just packers. The result would be that all cattle would have to receive the same price if all other factors were equal. That's socialism and that is what you are advocating.

As far as collusion, that's absolutely ridiculous. To suggest that the packers are in competition with eachother on some days and colluding on other days in the face of a market that moves in relation to cattle supplies and beef demand is absolutely absurd. Why would any packer collude with another packer when they are in competition for the same cattle? That takes a real stretch of the imagination.

Tex: "The basis for your thinking this way makes me believe that you are basically too slow to learn or just don't want to."

As always, those who can't back their beliefs with supporting facts feel no option but to discredit the opposition.

Tex: "Either way, you are just a big waste of time and I have decided that you are just not worth it."

I would bow out too if I was armed with nothing more than a need to blame.



~SH~

Sh, regardless of the rules you think should be enforced and whether or not feeders have to follow the same rules, as you always add, there is a federal law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president.

If you want to keep on making up stuff, then go through the above process.

The meat packers are prohibited from doing certain things and there are not any excuses listed in the law.

It is up to juries to determine if the facts in the case break the law, not federal judges.

In essence, these federal judges have turned the Packers and Stockyards Act from being a law that prohibits known market manipulating acts from occurring and these federal judges have turned it into a law protecting meat packers who collude to the benefit of meat packers over their suppliers.

This is a depression era law that is being ignored just as the depression era law that protected the banking industry was ignored and lead to the greatest recession I have witnessed in my life.

Your arguments are fine for 3rd grade, but they don't come close to being refined enough address the issues of market control and how market power can use that power to gain barriers of entry for itself and its other already established packers.

In the meantime, the family farmers end up paying the price.

If you want to engage in a real discussion, I would be willing to engage, but if you are going to be stuck in the 3rd grade mentality, go see if you can re enroll in your local elementary school under some kind of "slow" program the liberals seem to keep coming up with.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "Sh, regardless of the rules you think should be enforced and whether or not feeders have to follow the same rules, as you always add, there is a federal law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president".

That law was tested in court and what you consider "market manipulation", which was ONE PACKER dropping their price to reflect previous purchases, was proven not to be market manipulation. Judge Strom's ruling trumped the jury's decision. The appeals court supported Judge Strom's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court's decision.

For you to believe that all those judges were wrong, or bought off, or whatever other baseless conspiracy theory you can come up with only proves your desperation to blame.

Had this case been tried in Nebraska, Iowa, or Kansas, where people understand cattle marketing arrangements, the jury would have understood just as previous juries did that didn't buy the conspiracy theory either.

YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!!

Tex: "The meat packers are prohibited from doing certain things and there are not any excuses listed in the law."

Why would you consider facts that I have presented, that you cannot refute, as "excuses"?

The fact is, there was not just one market for fat cattle.
The fact is, feeders asked for grid pricing.
The fact is, you cannot blame one factor for a drop in the price of fat cattle without isolating all the factors that play on the market.

EXCUSES?? Hardly! Just you inability to back your position and refute anything I have stated.

Tex: "It is up to juries to determine if the facts in the case break the law, not federal judges."

It is up to judges to make sure the jury understands the law. Jurors did not study law, judges do. Judges that get it wrong are held accountable by the appeals court judges to make sure that the jury wasn't right. The appeals court judges are then held accountable by supreme court judges.

YOU LOST 3 TIMES, GET OVER IT!!!!

Tex: "In essence, these federal judges have turned the Packers and Stockyards Act from being a law that prohibits known market manipulating acts from occurring and these federal judges have turned it into a law protecting meat packers who collude to the benefit of meat packers over their suppliers."

ONE PACKER dropping their price in the cash market to reflect purchases made through grid pricing and other arrangements is not "known market manipulation", period.

Tex: "Your arguments are fine for 3rd grade, but they don't come close to being refined enough address the issues of market control and how market power can use that power to gain barriers of entry for itself and its other already established packers."

They are simply common sense supply and demand market fundamentals that you cannot refute supported by Judge Strom, supported by the appeals court judges, and supported by the supreme court. I suppose all of them have third grade mentality too huh?

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Tex: "If you want to engage in a real discussion, I would be willing to engage, but if you are going to be stuck in the 3rd grade mentality, go see if you can re enroll in your local elementary school under some kind of "slow" program the liberals seem to keep coming up with."

You don't have anything to engage with.



~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "Sh, regardless of the rules you think should be enforced and whether or not feeders have to follow the same rules, as you always add, there is a federal law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president".

That law was tested in court and what you consider "market manipulation", which was ONE PACKER dropping their price to reflect previous purchases, was proven not to be market manipulation. Judge Strom's ruling trumped the jury's decision. The appeals court supported Judge Strom's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court's decision.

For you to believe that all those judges were wrong, or bought off, or whatever other baseless conspiracy theory you can come up with only proves your desperation to blame.

Had this case been tried in Nebraska, Iowa, or Kansas, where people understand cattle marketing arrangements, the jury would have understood just as previous juries did that didn't buy the conspiracy theory either.

YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!!

Tex: "The meat packers are prohibited from doing certain things and there are not any excuses listed in the law."

Why would you consider facts that I have presented, that you cannot refute, as "excuses"?

The fact is, there was not just one market for fat cattle.
The fact is, feeders asked for grid pricing.
The fact is, you cannot blame one factor for a drop in the price of fat cattle without isolating all the factors that play on the market.

EXCUSES?? Hardly! Just you inability to back your position and refute anything I have stated.

Tex: "It is up to juries to determine if the facts in the case break the law, not federal judges."

It is up to judges to make sure the jury understands the law. Jurors did not study law, judges do. Judges that get it wrong are held accountable by the appeals court judges to make sure that the jury wasn't right. The appeals court judges are then held accountable by supreme court judges.

YOU LOST 3 TIMES, GET OVER IT!!!!

Tex: "In essence, these federal judges have turned the Packers and Stockyards Act from being a law that prohibits known market manipulating acts from occurring and these federal judges have turned it into a law protecting meat packers who collude to the benefit of meat packers over their suppliers."

ONE PACKER dropping their price in the cash market to reflect purchases made through grid pricing and other arrangements is not "known market manipulation", period.

Tex: "Your arguments are fine for 3rd grade, but they don't come close to being refined enough address the issues of market control and how market power can use that power to gain barriers of entry for itself and its other already established packers."

They are simply common sense supply and demand market fundamentals that you cannot refute supported by Judge Strom, supported by the appeals court judges, and supported by the supreme court. I suppose all of them have third grade mentality too huh?

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Tex: "If you want to engage in a real discussion, I would be willing to engage, but if you are going to be stuck in the 3rd grade mentality, go see if you can re enroll in your local elementary school under some kind of "slow" program the liberals seem to keep coming up with."

You don't have anything to engage with.



~SH~

It really doesn't matter whether these judges thought the law should be applied as written. They didn't pass it and they obviously don't have a clue about market scams.

It is one of the reasons we have had so many lately. They aren't doing their job when these cases come before them. I was equally appalled when the Glass Steagal Act was replaced for the crooks on handling the money could bet with other people's money. that one didn't work out very well for our country either, did it?

They are just making up excuse after excuse. They should have gone to the legislature and have them write in their own law instead of reinterpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

Of course IBP had Phil Gramm's wife on the board--she could engineer such a market scam---or should have been responsible for making sure the company she was on the board of wasn't engaging in market scams.

She was also on the board of Enron who pulled the same type of trading scams.

It is just too bad our system has shielded these politically connected people instead of imprisoning them for what they have done to this industry and the energy industry and the economy as a whole.

Sounds a whole lot like 3 strikes and you are out---unless you get the umpire to call them balls. What a scam.

Tex