Gas Holiday this Summer
-
Shog9 wrote:
An angry, ill-considered response is worse than none at all.
Shog9 wrote:
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"?
And now, my friend, in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation. I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
-
I was not even thinking about the efficiency of such a scheme. I was thinking about the authority that Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have this summer to implement this scheme. Here is what I think about it. Investment bankers speculating on commodities is not supply and demand. If commodities are not traded as securities on exchanges and are traded only on physical delivery, then prices will come down dramatically. US has one of the lowest gas prices; most other countries tax gas far more than the US does. I think that $3 a gallon is not that bad at all. 18% tax to build road infrastructure is great, no need to change it. Maybe, the taxes for fuels for personal transport can be made higher to encourage use of public transport; but a differential tax rate will bring in administrative overhead and corruption. Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
(started off as a reply to one post, but ended up being my thoughts in general) The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason, which is to allow for the smooth operating of business. I think if you eliminated the exchanges we would have big big problems in the form of price instability (much worse than it is now), and I'm sure you're aware that at settlement commodities do settle for physical delivery. As far as supply and demand not being the driver, I think we can be fairly certain it is, especially for commodities other than oil. Witness the food riots in other countries. When it comes to oil I think OPEC has A LOT to do with it. However, individuals would rather blame politicians and politicians would rather blame capitalists (corporations, speculators)....all because there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC. Our politicians are constantly proposing this and that solution on various problems, most of which would be ineffective (for one thing, people don't understand that markets are bigger than governments). They have to propose these solutions though, because it makes people think they are doing something. To be fair, that is the function of an elected official in our country. I think you're right when it comes to the solution, but that pill is evidently too hard for most people to swallow. It seems that even some very bright people here would rather look to someone else to solve their problems (which will never work) rather than take personal responsibility. As an aside, I've come to realize over the last few years that this isn't a trait unique to the US...unfortunately it's just a human trait :( One last note. Whenever I hear/read conversations about pollution/global warming/climate change, I always think about the problem of population growth. I've read some arguments that this problem is far worse than the other problem and that it will kill us all much faster than global warming. When you consider that the concerns about population growth are based mostly on solid, scary, mathematics and not speculation...and also that increases in population growth are certainly contributing to the pollution problem ...Well, it always strikes me as interesting about how people never talk about it. just my .0001592 of a barrel of oil ;P
-
(started off as a reply to one post, but ended up being my thoughts in general) The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason, which is to allow for the smooth operating of business. I think if you eliminated the exchanges we would have big big problems in the form of price instability (much worse than it is now), and I'm sure you're aware that at settlement commodities do settle for physical delivery. As far as supply and demand not being the driver, I think we can be fairly certain it is, especially for commodities other than oil. Witness the food riots in other countries. When it comes to oil I think OPEC has A LOT to do with it. However, individuals would rather blame politicians and politicians would rather blame capitalists (corporations, speculators)....all because there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC. Our politicians are constantly proposing this and that solution on various problems, most of which would be ineffective (for one thing, people don't understand that markets are bigger than governments). They have to propose these solutions though, because it makes people think they are doing something. To be fair, that is the function of an elected official in our country. I think you're right when it comes to the solution, but that pill is evidently too hard for most people to swallow. It seems that even some very bright people here would rather look to someone else to solve their problems (which will never work) rather than take personal responsibility. As an aside, I've come to realize over the last few years that this isn't a trait unique to the US...unfortunately it's just a human trait :( One last note. Whenever I hear/read conversations about pollution/global warming/climate change, I always think about the problem of population growth. I've read some arguments that this problem is far worse than the other problem and that it will kill us all much faster than global warming. When you consider that the concerns about population growth are based mostly on solid, scary, mathematics and not speculation...and also that increases in population growth are certainly contributing to the pollution problem ...Well, it always strikes me as interesting about how people never talk about it. just my .0001592 of a barrel of oil ;P
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
-
Ilíon wrote:
in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation
How dare he question *you!*
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
I agree with you concerning short term movements being driven by speculation. However, I don't think regulation would help. If anything I think it would make things worse. I think there's actually a lot of credence though, to the idea that electronic trading has had a lot to do with the volatility we're seeing...but I don't think it's the culprit in any way that can really be "fixed." The system will have to adapt somehow. As for oil prices...they have been in an uptrend for a long time now, ever since it broke $70 at the least, hardly short-term. I can't speak for other commodities, but I would bet we'd see the same there, except for lumber. I know gold has been going up for at least 6 years now. I agree with you on your other two points. I'll just say that I'm religious myself (Christian), but I can see the problem clear as day and believe it's something that needs to be addressed. As for how all of this integrates with my theism, well, I've got a unique theological perspective on that which I'll hold off.
-
bwilhite wrote:
The trading of commodities on exchanges happens for a reason
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained. Short term movements are usually based on speculative pressures rather than rise in real demand. Given the current situation, commodities are the best investment. :)
bwilhite wrote:
there's nothing that anyone can do about OPEC.
Nuclear energy comes to mind. Governments around the world have been complacent in looking for alternatives to oil.
bwilhite wrote:
I always think about the problem of population growth.
It is the real reason behind global warming, price rise. More people emitting carbon dioxide, more people wanting food, oil. But, there is no way to deal with it than to tell people to have lesser number of children. That would attract a fatwa from the religious. :)
-
Oakman wrote:
How dare he question *you!*
Actually, the point is: How dare he behave as you! ps. It's good to see that you're acknowledging your hypocritical whinging about my use of asterisks to indicate tone or emphasis.
Ilíon wrote:
Actually, the point is: How dare he behave as you!
You mean he's smart, witty, well-read, and capable of carrying on a debate without retreating to the same old tire half-dozen childish insults?
Ilíon wrote:
It's good to see that you're acknowledging your hypocritical whinging about my use of asterisks to indicate tone or emphasis
You actually don't get it, do you? Sad.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thomas George wrote:
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained.
What you're calling for is governmentally imposed scarcity.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What you're calling for is governmentally imposed scarcity.
OMG, the sky is falling!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I take your remark as sarcastic. Therefore I have to ask...if he's right, what do you think the consequences would be? If the government started telling people "you can't buy this and that...or only so much," I don't think it would be pretty.
bwilhite wrote:
I don't think it would be pretty
Which of these was pretty, in your estimation? 1819 panic • 1869 black Friday • 1873 panic • Paris 1882 • 1884 panic • 1893 panic • 1896 panic • 1901 panic • 1907 panic • 1929 Wall Street crash • 1973–1974 stock market crash • 1982 Souk Al-Manakh stock market crash • 1987 black Monday • 1989 Friday the 13th mini-crash • 1997 Asian financial crisis • 1997 mini-crash • 1998 Russian financial crisis • 2000 Dot-com bubble crash • 2002 stock market downturn • 2007 Chinese correction • 2008 credit market collapse
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thomas George wrote:
What I am suggesting is better regulation so that speculative practices are contained.
What you're calling for is governmentally imposed scarcity.
The existing commodities trading does not benefit the producer or the consumer. Any system that is not in favor of real contributors to the economy needs changes. Let me give another example of regulation favoring speculators: Short selling. Traditionally, anyone could sell stock in a company without owning it due to the inability of the system to identify whether the user owned stock. When the systems evolved to a situation where it could be identified whether the user owned shares, what did regulators do? They legalize borrowed selling. Who does it benefit? Speculators. People who have no interest in the market at the time of a negative story benefits. People who legally owned the shares -- well, they are screwed more than they should be. The argument is that short selling increases liquidity. No one shorts in a bull market. In a bear market, existing stock owners lose out due to speculative short selling pressures. It is quite easy to ensure that only stock holders can sell.
-
bwilhite wrote:
I don't think it would be pretty
Which of these was pretty, in your estimation? 1819 panic • 1869 black Friday • 1873 panic • Paris 1882 • 1884 panic • 1893 panic • 1896 panic • 1901 panic • 1907 panic • 1929 Wall Street crash • 1973–1974 stock market crash • 1982 Souk Al-Manakh stock market crash • 1987 black Monday • 1989 Friday the 13th mini-crash • 1997 Asian financial crisis • 1997 mini-crash • 1998 Russian financial crisis • 2000 Dot-com bubble crash • 2002 stock market downturn • 2007 Chinese correction • 2008 credit market collapse
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
bwilhite wrote:
I don't think it would be pretty
Which of these was pretty, in your estimation? 1819 panic • 1869 black Friday • 1873 panic • Paris 1882 • 1884 panic • 1893 panic • 1896 panic • 1901 panic • 1907 panic • 1929 Wall Street crash • 1973–1974 stock market crash • 1982 Souk Al-Manakh stock market crash • 1987 black Monday • 1989 Friday the 13th mini-crash • 1997 Asian financial crisis • 1997 mini-crash • 1998 Russian financial crisis • 2000 Dot-com bubble crash • 2002 stock market downturn • 2007 Chinese correction • 2008 credit market collapse
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oh, and you didn't answer the question either... of what you think will happen if the government did create scarcity. I'll be fair and answer yours, though...obviously none of those are pretty. But I do still ask what makes you think they can be prevented?
-
Oh, and you didn't answer the question either... of what you think will happen if the government did create scarcity. I'll be fair and answer yours, though...obviously none of those are pretty. But I do still ask what makes you think they can be prevented?
bwilhite wrote:
Oh, and you didn't answer the question either
bwilhite wrote:
Therefore I have to ask...
I must have missed the Terms of Service for the SoapBox where it says I have to answer every question put to me. AFAIK because you feel you "have to ask" does not mean I have to answer. If I don't you are free to assume that I have no answer, that I don't like the answer, that I don't want to crush your soul by delivering the answer, that I have decided that the answer is so perfect that I am writing a book which will make me oodle of money, or that I have something more important to do, like sort socks. But I will answer you, if you'll answer one question for me: Find me a government of a country of more than ten - no five million people that does not manipulate the availability of goods and/or services within its own borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
bwilhite wrote:
Oh, and you didn't answer the question either
bwilhite wrote:
Therefore I have to ask...
I must have missed the Terms of Service for the SoapBox where it says I have to answer every question put to me. AFAIK because you feel you "have to ask" does not mean I have to answer. If I don't you are free to assume that I have no answer, that I don't like the answer, that I don't want to crush your soul by delivering the answer, that I have decided that the answer is so perfect that I am writing a book which will make me oodle of money, or that I have something more important to do, like sort socks. But I will answer you, if you'll answer one question for me: Find me a government of a country of more than ten - no five million people that does not manipulate the availability of goods and/or services within its own borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Lol. Must've hit a nerve there. Sorry that I happen to believe in reasoned discussion. My bad. I'll answer your question and call it done then. Of course, every country *attempts* to manipulate prices (usually through subsidies and tariffs). But this doesn't mean it's a good thing. And if the original comment we're talking about is correct (and I'm not saying it is)...basically that regulation would cause scarcity...at the very least we'd have a lot more complaining than we do now, at worst riots, there are lot of other possible unpleasant scenarios I'm sure.
-
Shog9 wrote:
An angry, ill-considered response is worse than none at all.
Shog9 wrote:
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"?
And now, my friend, in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation. I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
Ilíon wrote:
I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
You only think they're unlike. Both derive their power from the mandate of the people, and the people who ultimately wield such power will often do or say almost anything to hold onto it, even - or especially - if their actions subvert the process which first elevated them. Claims of a divine right of kings are not so different from the arguments for subverting the market to keep a failing business model alive, and surely you can see, especially now in this election year, how the pitchmen work both for those who would subvert the hand of the market and those who would subvert the needs of the electorate.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Lol. Must've hit a nerve there. Sorry that I happen to believe in reasoned discussion. My bad. I'll answer your question and call it done then. Of course, every country *attempts* to manipulate prices (usually through subsidies and tariffs). But this doesn't mean it's a good thing. And if the original comment we're talking about is correct (and I'm not saying it is)...basically that regulation would cause scarcity...at the very least we'd have a lot more complaining than we do now, at worst riots, there are lot of other possible unpleasant scenarios I'm sure.
bwilhite wrote:
every country *attempts* to manipulate prices (usually through subsidies and tariffs).
Just to clarify, I was not advocating subsidies or tariffs. I was merely saying that there needs to be an increased efficiency in bring produce to the consumer -- without prices increasing many times in between due to trading done by intermediaries. And no, I don't have a solution for that either.
-
The existing commodities trading does not benefit the producer or the consumer. Any system that is not in favor of real contributors to the economy needs changes. Let me give another example of regulation favoring speculators: Short selling. Traditionally, anyone could sell stock in a company without owning it due to the inability of the system to identify whether the user owned stock. When the systems evolved to a situation where it could be identified whether the user owned shares, what did regulators do? They legalize borrowed selling. Who does it benefit? Speculators. People who have no interest in the market at the time of a negative story benefits. People who legally owned the shares -- well, they are screwed more than they should be. The argument is that short selling increases liquidity. No one shorts in a bull market. In a bear market, existing stock owners lose out due to speculative short selling pressures. It is quite easy to ensure that only stock holders can sell.
To be fair, I must first say that I actually trade for a living and I've been trading for years, so obviously I'm coming from a certain perspective (not feeling good today, so I'm taking it easy). I believe the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer. How? By providing for orderly price discovery. Without this a loaf of bread might cost $0.99 today and the same loaf $3 tomorrow. The speculators that you seem to think are the problem (of which I might be one I guess), provide the liquidity for those contracts. So if ADM wants to sell their wheat in a month at today's prices but yet Sara Lee isn't buying...that's where the speculator *risks* his money and buys. Of course it can go the other way. The people who owned the shares should get out. They should trade their shares for cash. Especially in the stock market (because of upward bias), people aren't going to short without a good reason. Personally, I mostly trade currencies, so for me you are always in a position. If your long stock, you are short cash, and vice versa. I would be interested to hear what regulations you think might be safe and effective (and I didn't really think you meant tariffs or subsidies) (you already said you don't know, fair enough :-D )...but first an example of a really bad regulatory idea: Some of our politicians have been talking about changing the capital gains taxes. The thinking is that private equity firms would then be paying their fair share to the government (not a bad goal). The problem with this "solution", that I see, is that doing so would hurt everyone who has been investing...including retired people. So when they go to pull money out of their 401k, IRA, pension, whatever...they now have less money than they would've had when the rates were lower. This doesn't strike me as a great idea in the current climate.
modified on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:10 PM
-
Lol. Must've hit a nerve there. Sorry that I happen to believe in reasoned discussion. My bad. I'll answer your question and call it done then. Of course, every country *attempts* to manipulate prices (usually through subsidies and tariffs). But this doesn't mean it's a good thing. And if the original comment we're talking about is correct (and I'm not saying it is)...basically that regulation would cause scarcity...at the very least we'd have a lot more complaining than we do now, at worst riots, there are lot of other possible unpleasant scenarios I'm sure.
bwilhite wrote:
Must've hit a nerve there. Sorry that I happen to believe in reasoned discussion
This forum is just like all the others. If you post a question in the ASP.NET forum, I am not obligated to answer it - even if I was discussing something with someone else when you butted-in. Same is true for C#, VB.NET and SB. Try saying "excuse me," next time, instead of "I demand you answer my question."
bwilhite wrote:
But this doesn't mean it's a good thing.
So what? You are trying to prove it's a bad thing, aren't you? And apparently it works well enough to be universal - along with licenses which make the right to practice medicine or drive a car 'artifically scarce.'
bwilhite wrote:
at the very least we'd have a lot more complaining than we do now
From whom? The speculators who are making millions from driving up the price of oil?
bwilhite wrote:
there are lot of other possible unpleasant scenarios I'm sure.
Try this one: we do no regulation. And the result is the same kind of crash the unregulated economy experienced in 1929. Will that happen? Who knows? Did it happen? You bet your fucking bippee.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
bwilhite wrote:
Must've hit a nerve there. Sorry that I happen to believe in reasoned discussion
This forum is just like all the others. If you post a question in the ASP.NET forum, I am not obligated to answer it - even if I was discussing something with someone else when you butted-in. Same is true for C#, VB.NET and SB. Try saying "excuse me," next time, instead of "I demand you answer my question."
bwilhite wrote:
But this doesn't mean it's a good thing.
So what? You are trying to prove it's a bad thing, aren't you? And apparently it works well enough to be universal - along with licenses which make the right to practice medicine or drive a car 'artifically scarce.'
bwilhite wrote:
at the very least we'd have a lot more complaining than we do now
From whom? The speculators who are making millions from driving up the price of oil?
bwilhite wrote:
there are lot of other possible unpleasant scenarios I'm sure.
Try this one: we do no regulation. And the result is the same kind of crash the unregulated economy experienced in 1929. Will that happen? Who knows? Did it happen? You bet your fucking bippee.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface