Gas Holiday this Summer
-
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
-
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
bwilhite wrote:
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).
Great. I am curious about your involvement with software development though. I have been creating trading systems (including automated trading systems) for US equities markets for the past few years.
bwilhite wrote:
the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer.
Yes. In the context of the United States, yes. If the players involved are big corporates, then the system is fair. But in the perspective of a farmer in a developing country, this is hardly happening. There have been complaints of price dropping near harvest season to aid procurement at lower prices. As I said, markets are not efficient now because players are not on the same level; a farmer in a developing country has no access to take advantage of the system. Farming has been damaged by the intention of the governments to keep prices under check for the middle class (so that they can win votes). The price rise on food may be an order of 10 less than others. For example: Check home prices increase in the last 20 years and compare it to prices of wheat on the same time horizon. Farming can be encouraged only by letting farm produce prices appreciate the same way as everything else does. Subsidies and import/export duties have kept the prices from appreciating similarly.
bwilhite wrote:
capital gains taxes
Something or the other have to be taxed. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, goods and services taxes, sales taxes -- all are here to stay. In my opinion, the welfare agenda needs to be toned down. Converting everything to traded securities can be a problem too. In the sub-prime crisis, the initial lenders did not do enough checks before loaning money. Why? because they probably realized that they would sell it off to a greedier market participant.
-
bwilhite wrote:
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).
Great. I am curious about your involvement with software development though. I have been creating trading systems (including automated trading systems) for US equities markets for the past few years.
bwilhite wrote:
the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer.
Yes. In the context of the United States, yes. If the players involved are big corporates, then the system is fair. But in the perspective of a farmer in a developing country, this is hardly happening. There have been complaints of price dropping near harvest season to aid procurement at lower prices. As I said, markets are not efficient now because players are not on the same level; a farmer in a developing country has no access to take advantage of the system. Farming has been damaged by the intention of the governments to keep prices under check for the middle class (so that they can win votes). The price rise on food may be an order of 10 less than others. For example: Check home prices increase in the last 20 years and compare it to prices of wheat on the same time horizon. Farming can be encouraged only by letting farm produce prices appreciate the same way as everything else does. Subsidies and import/export duties have kept the prices from appreciating similarly.
bwilhite wrote:
capital gains taxes
Something or the other have to be taxed. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, goods and services taxes, sales taxes -- all are here to stay. In my opinion, the welfare agenda needs to be toned down. Converting everything to traded securities can be a problem too. In the sub-prime crisis, the initial lenders did not do enough checks before loaning money. Why? because they probably realized that they would sell it off to a greedier market participant.
I understand and agree completely with what you're saying as far as the farming goes. And I agree there is hardly a level playing field (I could give numerous examples that apply to US markets and the individual investor as well). The thing that always bugs me is that more regulations usually actually end up hurting the individual. The restriction of hedge funds to 'sophisticated investors' is a good example. This year has been tough for me in some ways, but I've still managed to make money while "Main Street" has been taking a bath. Why are they taking a bath? Because most people's investment vehicles are only allowed to go long stocks. To make it worse, most mutual funds have limits on the amount of cash they can hold...so the only option is to get into the least losing stock they can. The best option would be to get into cash. The irony in all of this is that the restrictions on investment vehicles are supposed to be there for the protection of "Main Street." I think you're probably right about the sub-prime problem. This may sound cold, but I believe that the debtors are also responsible. That's a tough pill to swallow, but true. The lenders and the debtors deserve each other. My wife and I just put an offer on a house. We didn't even negotiate on the asking price at all, instead we're asking the owners to finance (and at a higher than average rate, I'll add). But I think they're going to sit on it instead...I wouldn't be surprised to get a phone call in 6 months. If they do call, would it really be unethical of me to lower the price? No. They're the ones that decided to take the risk of holding, and they should man-up to the consequences. I was a CS major for awhile in college...then studied numerous other topics (it's been a winding road)...I started programming again about 2 years ago in order to automate my trading (talk about jumping into the deep end). Now, in addition to working on my own trading projects, I also have started doing some freelance programming for others. I try to stick to trading related projects, but occasionally take on other projects. If you're interested maybe we should talk...I've been thinking about looking for a partner to help work on our proprietary trading software.
-
bwilhite wrote:
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).
Great. I am curious about your involvement with software development though. I have been creating trading systems (including automated trading systems) for US equities markets for the past few years.
bwilhite wrote:
the existing trading does benefit both producer and consumer.
Yes. In the context of the United States, yes. If the players involved are big corporates, then the system is fair. But in the perspective of a farmer in a developing country, this is hardly happening. There have been complaints of price dropping near harvest season to aid procurement at lower prices. As I said, markets are not efficient now because players are not on the same level; a farmer in a developing country has no access to take advantage of the system. Farming has been damaged by the intention of the governments to keep prices under check for the middle class (so that they can win votes). The price rise on food may be an order of 10 less than others. For example: Check home prices increase in the last 20 years and compare it to prices of wheat on the same time horizon. Farming can be encouraged only by letting farm produce prices appreciate the same way as everything else does. Subsidies and import/export duties have kept the prices from appreciating similarly.
bwilhite wrote:
capital gains taxes
Something or the other have to be taxed. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, goods and services taxes, sales taxes -- all are here to stay. In my opinion, the welfare agenda needs to be toned down. Converting everything to traded securities can be a problem too. In the sub-prime crisis, the initial lenders did not do enough checks before loaning money. Why? because they probably realized that they would sell it off to a greedier market participant.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Ilíon wrote:
and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We do want it, but again, if you look historically at why cities like LA and NYC don't have efficient mass transit, you will find corporate America sabotaging the interests of the citizens for their own profits.
It's not quite that simple, although that's part of it (for example, here in the DC area, the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll while at the same time lobbying HARD against expansion of the Washington Metro - and of course they only care because all expansion efforts are into the exact same area where the Greenway services). The other part of it is that America has alot more sprawl than your token European nation. European nations were built before cars could carry you long distances, so landmarks, roads, etc. are all built with short distance travel in mind - the perfect environment for mass transit. Much of America's growth, on the other hand, has been fueled by the automobile, making sprawling suburbs possible to feed growing cities. It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles. That's probably the biggest problem America faces - we're too spread out, and we have the car to thank for it.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
the conglomerate that owns the Dulles Greenway is continually raising the toll
Just out of curiosity, how much is it now? It used to be $0.25, or $0.50 when I was there, and the smart tag was under $100/month.
Patrick S wrote:
It's simply not reasonable (in the short or near-term) to build mass transit over a distance of 50+ miles
You're right about the differences on how the cities have evolved over time. But I think mass transit can be built over large areas. In fact, this makes perfect sense to use mass transit over long distances. For a single person this is inexpensive, more secure, and allows for free time. On the other hand it just plain sucks to be stacked up on each other, and to cope with the lack of seats when you have to travel standing for a long distance. And when several persons are travelling together, nothing beats the confort of a car.
-
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
You know what? I have had the great chance to live within walking distance of my office, for over a year. And this is so great! No need for a car, no need for mass transit! In one word, this is freedom! <edit> And also one might wonder why we do not do more telecommuting? </edit>