Follow up to Pete's thread below
-
**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" -
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"jhwurmbach wrote:
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!
Yes, you are right - I meant they are a thing of the past in the Western world.
jhwurmbach wrote:
The current Sub-Prime-crisis
But the sub-prime is also the borrower's fault. If a home-owner doesn't understand the details of a financial product they should stay away from it. Getting a cheap mortgage but being unable to make the payments is not the fault of the bank - it is the fault of the home-owner. Let us not forget that it takes two to make a crisis. Sure the banks like to make profit (and profitable banks are secure banks), but home-owners are also obligated to make payments. In the U.S. consumers buy too much on credit and thus get themselves in terrible amounts of debt. They are living beyond their means. The sub-prime crisis has also crippled the rich - several banks have failed and others have been bailed out. I agree with you regarding hedge-funds - they need to be more highly regulated. This is indeed a problem.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
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!
Yes, you are right - I meant they are a thing of the past in the Western world.
jhwurmbach wrote:
The current Sub-Prime-crisis
But the sub-prime is also the borrower's fault. If a home-owner doesn't understand the details of a financial product they should stay away from it. Getting a cheap mortgage but being unable to make the payments is not the fault of the bank - it is the fault of the home-owner. Let us not forget that it takes two to make a crisis. Sure the banks like to make profit (and profitable banks are secure banks), but home-owners are also obligated to make payments. In the U.S. consumers buy too much on credit and thus get themselves in terrible amounts of debt. They are living beyond their means. The sub-prime crisis has also crippled the rich - several banks have failed and others have been bailed out. I agree with you regarding hedge-funds - they need to be more highly regulated. This is indeed a problem.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But the sub-prime is also the borrower's fault. If a home-owner doesn't understand the details of a financial product they should stay away from it.
Sure. But (if they are like here in Germany) the banks sold the mortgages with a "Stop worrying, Together we manage that!"-Attitude. I would disallow the sale of a mortgage-contract without the written consent of the loaner. That would make the whole thing unattractive for the banditos, and still leave some flexibility for the banks.
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" -
73Zeppelin wrote:
But the sub-prime is also the borrower's fault. If a home-owner doesn't understand the details of a financial product they should stay away from it.
Sure. But (if they are like here in Germany) the banks sold the mortgages with a "Stop worrying, Together we manage that!"-Attitude. I would disallow the sale of a mortgage-contract without the written consent of the loaner. That would make the whole thing unattractive for the banditos, and still leave some flexibility for the banks.
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:
Sure. But (if they are like here in Germany) the banks sold the mortgages with a "Stop worrying, Together we manage that!"-Attitude.
I'm not an American but I suspect that there are some American banks like that too. It depends on the reputation of the bank.
jhwurmbach wrote:
I would disallow the sale of a mortgage-contract without the written consent of the loaner. That would make the whole thing unattractive for the banditos, and still leave some flexibility for the banks.
Yes, I think better regulation is needed especially in the credit markets. Having the written consent of the loaner would be a good idea.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.