Follow up to Pete's thread below
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
Speculation does not affect oil prices. A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical. It does not induce demand for the underlying. Furthermore, what you describe is normal market behaviour. But that behaviour does not affect the price level. Also, "contango" is not normal (except for gold). The oil market is backwardated about 95% of the time and thus contango (for the oil contract) is most definitely NOT normal. If I enter into a futures contract and three days before it expires I roll over my position into another contract, where is the demand for physical oil? I can do this indefinitely. Let's say I do it for a year. At the end of 1 year I have bought, say, 12 futures contracts of 1 month maturity yet not once did I take possession of any oil. Why do you believe that represents demand (demand is demand for the underlying; the physical commodity)? How do you think that drives up the price of oil? Why, as a speculator, would I be willing to bid up the price of a futures contract when I know I could possibly lose if the future spot price is less than the futures price at
73Zeppelin wrote:
The only thing I will agree to is that speculators can affect price volatility but NOT price LEVEL.
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up? They do want to take physical delivery of the oil they buy and they are, for all intentes and purposes, bidding against each other and thus bidding the price up. I'm told that America West has hedged oil scheduled for delivery through 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
Speculation does not affect oil prices. A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical. It does not induce demand for the underlying. Furthermore, what you describe is normal market behaviour. But that behaviour does not affect the price level. Also, "contango" is not normal (except for gold). The oil market is backwardated about 95% of the time and thus contango (for the oil contract) is most definitely NOT normal. If I enter into a futures contract and three days before it expires I roll over my position into another contract, where is the demand for physical oil? I can do this indefinitely. Let's say I do it for a year. At the end of 1 year I have bought, say, 12 futures contracts of 1 month maturity yet not once did I take possession of any oil. Why do you believe that represents demand (demand is demand for the underlying; the physical commodity)? How do you think that drives up the price of oil? Why, as a speculator, would I be willing to bid up the price of a futures contract when I know I could possibly lose if the future spot price is less than the futures price at
73Zeppelin wrote:
A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical.
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you. In case of the backwardation benefit being higher than the rolling over costs, no one would buy new, longer contracts. And the physical oil will make its way from the tanker to the refinery to the customer unhindered. For sure no one will try to unload his crude-oil-truck into your garden.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation is not parasitation. Speculation is necessary in order for the futures market to exist.
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market. It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter. It then institutionalized. But it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Ilíon wrote:
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*?
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you? Think about it, why didn't other petrol stations raise their prices? Why did the petrol station in question reduce their prices after a bit of criticism? If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
It depends a lot on # of stations in an area, and transpertation costs, taxes and fees. If you don't like the price you are free to choose other stations, at least here in USA you can.
MrPlankton
-
True, but in this case they were the first and only petrol station to do so :)
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
first and only petrol station to do so
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
MrPlankton
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical.
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you. In case of the backwardation benefit being higher than the rolling over costs, no one would buy new, longer contracts. And the physical oil will make its way from the tanker to the refinery to the customer unhindered. For sure no one will try to unload his crude-oil-truck into your garden.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation is not parasitation. Speculation is necessary in order for the futures market to exist.
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market. It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter. It then institutionalized. But it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you.
That's not what "rolling-over" means. Rolling-over a position means that I sell the expiring futures contract and buy a new futures contract. If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market.
:wtf: WHAT? What are you talking about? The futures market mitigates risk! It's vital!
jhwurmbach wrote:
It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter.
No it didn't! It was originally developed to protect farmers against bad harvests! I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's wrong. Wrong, unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing... :~
jhwurmbach wrote:
it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The futures market reduces risk - reduces risk of price fluctuation and benefits all: you, me, Africans, everyone. Without it the world would be subject to huge and uncontrolled price spikes.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
[Message Deleted]
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you.
That's not what "rolling-over" means. Rolling-over a position means that I sell the expiring futures contract and buy a new futures contract. If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market.
:wtf: WHAT? What are you talking about? The futures market mitigates risk! It's vital!
jhwurmbach wrote:
It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter.
No it didn't! It was originally developed to protect farmers against bad harvests! I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's wrong. Wrong, unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing... :~
jhwurmbach wrote:
it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The futures market reduces risk - reduces risk of price fluctuation and benefits all: you, me, Africans, everyone. Without it the world would be subject to huge and uncontrolled price spikes.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
No. But you have a binding agreement of someone, to sell you a fixed amount of oil for a fixed price at a fixed date. The oil may come from whereever.
73Zeppelin wrote:
unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The only thing I will agree to is that speculators can affect price volatility but NOT price LEVEL.
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up? They do want to take physical delivery of the oil they buy and they are, for all intentes and purposes, bidding against each other and thus bidding the price up. I'm told that America West has hedged oil scheduled for delivery through 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up?
Hedgers, speculators...I've heard it all. I've analyzed the Commitment of Traders (CoT) data and I really don't see any effects. There was a report to Congress regarding speculation in the oil market, but that report (I read it and it's publicly available) was flawed in methodology. The problem is that the CoT data is highly aggregated (it's not daily data - it's bi-monthly - i.e. every two weeks) and the classifications are not concrete. As I explained in this thread it is not in the interest of speculators to self-classify as "speculative". As a result the data is also fairly noisy. That being said, I don't think it's either the hedgers or the speculators. I truly believe it's fundamentals: production, supply, demand, inventories and uncertainty regarding in-the-ground oil reserves. The problem is that the data on in-the-ground reserves is dirty and completely unreliable. In some cases these Gulf countries lie about how much oil is left. This works its way into the market along with everything else including the weakness of the dollar, and the fundamentals I mentioned above. I don't see much evidence of a bidding war - the bid-ask spread is relatively stable. I think high oil prices are due to the factors I mentioned. I think politicians like to look for scapegoats in times when commodity prices are soaring because it gets them votes. Nothing hits the average tax-payers pocket like expensive commodities and so a good way to curry favour is to start pointing fingers and you don't point fingers at the constituents... I also don't think the schedule is that well-hedged until 2012. The long-term contracts (more than 1 year) are not very liquid (meaning not highly traded) and if there was that much hedging demand (until 2012) it would be easy to see that kind of activity. I do think producers have a well-defined production schedule though.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
No. But you have a binding agreement of someone, to sell you a fixed amount of oil for a fixed price at a fixed date. The oil may come from whereever.
73Zeppelin wrote:
unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
I like the underlined one. :-D I'll have to remember that one. As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea. That's why there are few communist countries left (although part of China's success is it's open-mindedness towards capital markets) in the world and the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets. I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Phannon wrote:
first and only petrol station to do so
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
*Rational* people go elsewhere ... assuming, of course, that the stock of "non-greedy" stations hasn't been depleted by other people "just getting their share" (i.e. panic-buying and therefore buying considerably more that they normally would). *Irrational* people react by throwing a hissy-fit and tossing around silly accusations of greed and of other moral deficiencies.
-
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
I like the underlined one. :-D I'll have to remember that one. As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea. That's why there are few communist countries left (although part of China's success is it's open-mindedness towards capital markets) in the world and the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets. I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea.
Ancient Egypt and the ancient Mesopotamian states (and probably China as well) came out of a system for planned and systematical distribution of food and general wealth. That is the first and foremost reason for humans forming a state. A state that does not guarantee that is failing.
73Zeppelin wrote:
the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets.
There is a very strong pressure to comply with the US definition of correct economics and politics. Venezuela feels that. The World-bank is the institutionalization of it.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
Communism as defined by Marx and the military dictatorship implemented by Lenin and later Stalin has failed completely. Marx has a lot of correct points in his analysis of capitalism, but his utopic communist society is incompatible with actual humans. Therefore "orthodox" communism tends to associate with violence and oppression. Not that both are specific for communist states and unknown to capitalistic states.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Your post would suggest the following: Only those who can afford to buy the petrol at those prices, should do so, everyone else who needs the petrol yet can't afford it, must suffer. And yes, there are people who need it, not everyone has a viable alternative method of travel to work. Do you think it morally acceptable to price people off the road? With that kind of thinking, you should be a Labour MP!
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
there are people who need it
there are people who need healthcare, there are people who need food, there are people who need a home. what you're suggesting phannon is that price shouldn't climb with demand because people need things. if you are reliant on gas to "get to work" well you should see the writing on the wall by now.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
Ilíon wrote:
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*?
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you? Think about it, why didn't other petrol stations raise their prices? Why did the petrol station in question reduce their prices after a bit of criticism? If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you?
yea because it's good business to stay comparative. in this case, it was better business to raise prises.
Phannon wrote:
If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
they are right to do just about whatever they want with product they purchase and choose to resell or not resell.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea.
Ancient Egypt and the ancient Mesopotamian states (and probably China as well) came out of a system for planned and systematical distribution of food and general wealth. That is the first and foremost reason for humans forming a state. A state that does not guarantee that is failing.
73Zeppelin wrote:
the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets.
There is a very strong pressure to comply with the US definition of correct economics and politics. Venezuela feels that. The World-bank is the institutionalization of it.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
Communism as defined by Marx and the military dictatorship implemented by Lenin and later Stalin has failed completely. Marx has a lot of correct points in his analysis of capitalism, but his utopic communist society is incompatible with actual humans. Therefore "orthodox" communism tends to associate with violence and oppression. Not that both are specific for communist states and unknown to capitalistic states.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
Ancient Egypt and the ancient Mesopotamian states (and probably China as well) came out of a system for planned and systematical distribution of food and general wealth. That is the first and foremost reason for humans forming a state. A state that does not guarantee that is failing.
But these are examples of despotism/totalitarianism where a ruling elite dictates what people can and cannot do. Furthermore, the ruling elite reserves the best for themselves. The monarchies and despotisms of the past are long gone...
jhwurmbach wrote:
There is a very strong pressure to comply with the US definition of correct economics and politics.
Yes and I also disagree with that. But inasmuch as I disagree with a U.S.-centric policy I believe capitalism is the best ideology. I also disagree with the World Bank and the international system of payments based on "key" currencies like the U.S. dollar. In fact, international payments, in my opinion, should be settled in an absolute exchange-rate regime and I have been working towards that goal. I the last 6 months a group of economists have already petitioned the World Bank regarding a system of absolute exchange rates.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Communism as defined by Marx and the military dictatorship implemented by Lenin and later Stalin has failed completely. Marx has a lot of correct points in his analysis of capitalism, but his utopic communist society is incompatible with actual humans. Therefore "orthodox" communism tends to associate with violence and oppression.
I agree that Marx had some interesting things to say regarding capitalism, but he was also incorrect in parts of his analysis - namely his incorrect prediction that capitalism would be replaced by communism. In fact, the opposite occurred and the capital markets did more to advance the cause of the poor than communism ever did - communism created poverty in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve "class conflict".
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Then the ultimate blame is with us the voters, lets stop electing these colluding clowns.
:laugh: Which foot do you want to be shot in (and you can't choose "neither")?
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
I've got a pretty bad bruise on my right foot from my match earlier this month so why not that one. They way we keep the limp the same.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Thanks, the 1 vote it got within a minute of being posted tells me Ilion didn't like it though. :((
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
I've got a pretty bad bruise on my right foot from my match earlier this month so why not that one. They way we keep the limp the same.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
It happens everywhere - Canada elected a Conservative government after many years under the liberals and everyone was happy: "oh joy! New government, progress! New policies! Happiness, glee! Tax cuts, yay!". Now it turns out Harper (the new PM) isn't as wonderful as everyone thought - he's not so keen on environmental issues (there's a plan to fill unused lakes with nickel and gold mine tailings - oi!), I've heard rumblings of "family values" which is political code for religion and the tax cuts aren't doing much amidst the high Canadian dollar. We're losing U.S. tourists and our exports are suffering due to our high currency. Liberals are no better - their party was riddled with scandals and "funny money". In short they had basically turned into a criminal party. The two other majors are a socialist party and the Quebecois party that wants to separate the country. So when I ask which foot do you want to be shot in do you see what I mean?
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
Ancient Egypt and the ancient Mesopotamian states (and probably China as well) came out of a system for planned and systematical distribution of food and general wealth. That is the first and foremost reason for humans forming a state. A state that does not guarantee that is failing.
But these are examples of despotism/totalitarianism where a ruling elite dictates what people can and cannot do. Furthermore, the ruling elite reserves the best for themselves. The monarchies and despotisms of the past are long gone...
jhwurmbach wrote:
There is a very strong pressure to comply with the US definition of correct economics and politics.
Yes and I also disagree with that. But inasmuch as I disagree with a U.S.-centric policy I believe capitalism is the best ideology. I also disagree with the World Bank and the international system of payments based on "key" currencies like the U.S. dollar. In fact, international payments, in my opinion, should be settled in an absolute exchange-rate regime and I have been working towards that goal. I the last 6 months a group of economists have already petitioned the World Bank regarding a system of absolute exchange rates.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Communism as defined by Marx and the military dictatorship implemented by Lenin and later Stalin has failed completely. Marx has a lot of correct points in his analysis of capitalism, but his utopic communist society is incompatible with actual humans. Therefore "orthodox" communism tends to associate with violence and oppression.
I agree that Marx had some interesting things to say regarding capitalism, but he was also incorrect in parts of his analysis - namely his incorrect prediction that capitalism would be replaced by communism. In fact, the opposite occurred and the capital markets did more to advance the cause of the poor than communism ever did - communism created poverty in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve "class conflict".
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
he monarchies and despotisms of the past are long gone...
Au contraire! A whole lot of them were and are still financed by the US themselves. Saudi Arabias wahabites, Kabila in Congo, Pinochet in China all spring to mind (I have just ordered them going back in time). Don't bring me to think up more!
73Zeppelin wrote:
I agree that Marx had some interesting things to say regarding capitalism, but he was also incorrect in parts of his analysis
Yes. But one should never forget that MARX predicted communism first in the more industrialized states (namely England, Germany), and it was Lenin who molded the theory to fit his reality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
the capital markets did more to advance the cause of the poor than communism ever did
I disagree. The current Sub-Prime-crisis shows how capital markets work only for the rich and powerful. And in the years before, hedge-fonds did not do a single good for anyone except for their owners from the upper class.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"