• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

The price of gas under President McCain would have been


  • Total voters
    44
But it's that interplay which is driving up the prices. It's basically the same **** we saw with mortgage bundles but with oil. The oil bubble burst the last time, too, but it went unnoticed because it coincided with teh general market downturn. It'll happen again.
Speculators IMO just don't effect the price that much, unless of course they do something illegal like try to influence the market in a predatory way. Things like insider trading, creating false shortages, things like that. Mainly they react to data which is why I still say they are an index more than an actual cause.
 
Reading these threads, one gets the impression the President controls a lot.:roll:
 
Reading these threads, one gets the impression the President controls a lot.:roll:
Eh, they can. In this particular case some agenda items probably added a few cents to the cost, but overall a regulatory overhaul is needed in general to free up more resources to the market both raw and refined.
 
Reading these threads, one gets the impression the President controls a lot.:roll:
Sorry for that. Didn't happen because of me and several others. So how much has your view changed say for example on the Canadian oil sands pipeline to Gulf Coast refineries?
 
Now, substitute Reagan for McCain, and gas would probably be about a dollar per gallon. :D
In that case, credit would go to the Democrats, because Reagan couldn't pass the current GOP 'purity' test and would have had to run as a Dem :mrgreen:
 
A few points...

1. Congratulations to our right-wing hacks for following RNC marching orders. When the talking points say jump, they ask how high. So way to go guys, you know who you are.

2. We import the majority (~60%) of our consumed oil. How will regressive regulatory actions in the US lower international oil prices? We can expect a few hundred thousand barrels of oil a day if we open domestic reserves. We consume 20.7 million barrels a day. Let's say if we gain a generous 750,000 barrels/day in supply from opening reserves. That's a 3% increase in supply in domestic production, which has to be sold on the international market. Considering there's about 72 million barrels of crude produced a day worldwide, at best that's hardly a drop in the global supply. Not enough to even start to affect the prices.

3. Does everybody think that opening oil reserves today will result in lower prices next week? It's takes years of planning to even start building new oil wells. Any very minor impact that increasing domestic oil production might have would be several years away yet.
 
A few points...

3. Does everybody think that opening oil reserves today will result in lower prices next week? It's takes years of planning to even start building new oil wells. Any very minor impact that increasing domestic oil production might have would be several years away yet.
You are correct but let me add that there are huge leased oil reserves by US oil companies and other oil companies that they are not drilling. Leasing them more will not increase the drilling they are doing.
 
Speculators IMO just don't effect the price that much, unless of course they do something illegal like try to influence the market in a predatory way. Things like insider trading, creating false shortages, things like that. Mainly they react to data which is why I still say they are an index more than an actual cause.

It's not illegal to do what they do, but it is predatory.
 
422884_398152733543577_108038612554992_1532791_2112649815_n.jpg
 
Did someone really take time out of their day to make this poll? The president has NOTHING to do with gas prices, will people please grow a brain? The world economy sets gas prices, not Obama. Obama does not wake up in the morning and press a button at the breakfast table....as much as the GOP wishes this were true. Everyone knows the president has little to do with oil prices, this is nothing more then desperation by the GOP to create a distraction from the current recovering economy and job market. good luck with that.
 
It's not illegal to do what they do, but it is predatory.
Not at all Tuck. All they are doing is holding stocks of product for the percieved monetary value and what they think will be the optimum price point. They are essentially playing the same economic side of petroleum that retailers play with stock, except the stakes are higher and the risks are far greater.
 
Not at all Tuck. All they are doing is holding stocks of product for the percieved monetary value and what they think will be the optimum price point. They are essentially playing the same economic side of petroleum that retailers play with stock, except the stakes are higher and the risks are far greater.

That doesn't contradict my point since the same methods are used to drive up prices are used in both markets all the time. The reason oOil speculation is predatory while stock speculation isn't is because the people who fund the profits of those speculators aren't other investors (which is the case with the stock market) but everyone else.

If you profit from stocks, you do so because other investors made bad moves. every time. If you lose money in the stock market, some other investor profits from it and vice versa.

If you profit in commodities trading, you do so because people who require that commodity in order to use it have no other choice but to pay you for it. If you lose money in commodities trading, though, some other investor profits from your mistake. The people who end up paying for the profits on one side of the equation gain nothing on the other. They simply do not lose.

Comer to think of it, perhaps parasitic investing is a better name for it.
 
That doesn't contradict my point since the same methods are used to drive up prices are used in both markets all the time. The reason oOil speculation is predatory while stock speculation isn't is because the people who fund the profits of those speculators aren't other investors (which is the case with the stock market) but everyone else.

If you profit from stocks, you do so because other investors made bad moves. every time. If you lose money in the stock market, some other investor profits from it and vice versa.

If you profit in commodities trading, you do so because people who require that commodity in order to use it have no other choice but to pay you for it. If you lose money in commodities trading, though, some other investor profits from your mistake. The people who end up paying for the profits on one side of the equation gain nothing on the other. They simply do not lose.

Comer to think of it, perhaps parasitic investing is a better name for it.
I just can't agree here Tuck. Commodities brokering is in fact a different animal than stocks, that's the truth and I do agree there. I can make the same exact long/short argument for other consumables such as corn, wheat, other food stuffs, textiles, etc. the consumer "must" buy in these markets as well and likewise there are people betting on shortages and surpluses, yet no one considers these predatory. Oil is a commodity and like anything else it's supply has ebbs and flows.
 
I just can't agree here Tuck. Commodities brokering is in fact a different animal than stocks, that's the truth and I do agree there. I can make the same exact long/short argument for other consumables such as corn, wheat, other food stuffs, textiles, etc. the consumer "must" buy in these markets as well and likewise there are people betting on shortages and surpluses, yet no one considers these predatory. Oil is a commodity and like anything else it's supply has ebbs and flows.

The part in bold is where you are wrong. I consider that kind of thing just as parasitic.
 
The part in bold is where you are wrong. I consider that kind of thing just as parasitic.
Well okay, you've got me there Tuck. I guess I should have said I've never heard of it referred to as predatory before. LOL.

Here's my point, if you want materials, goods, and services to move someone has to do it, money is required across the supply chain and it comes from either reserves, loans, or investment. All speculators are doing is investing in the goods, materials side of the supply chain and without them I would actually argue prices would be worse because to either pay back loans or make up reserves the margins on products would have to increase. With investors literally risking money the only responsibility becomes returning their principle. To get crude to market someone has to move it, speculators are simply betting on what it's value and quantity will forecast out, in reality it's kind of like betting over/under on a sporting even.
 
Here's my point, if you want materials, goods, and services to move someone has to do it, money is required across the supply chain and it comes from either reserves, loans, or investment.

Speculation really has little effect on those aspects, though, since many, if not most investment sales are from one investor to the other rather than being from the producer to the investor. Nor do investors actually pay for shipping. It's almost a separate issue entirely.

The system is designed so that ultimately, rich investors win, everyone else loses.


I would actually argue prices would be worse because to either pay back loans or make up reserves the margins on products would have to increase.


Why would you argue that? The vast majority of businesses use the model you describe above without having any major increases in price because of it (except when investors perform tehir predatory actions with regard to fuel, that is).

Why would it be dramatically different for commodities?
 
Speculation really has little effect on those aspects, though, since many, if not most investment sales are from one investor to the other rather than being from the producer to the investor. Nor do investors actually pay for shipping. It's almost a separate issue entirely.

The system is designed so that ultimately, rich investors win, everyone else loses.
Think about this though. While the money is investor to investor the money is still moving around and this is encouraging a continued influx of money into the market, these guys are moving product which is being traded with the intent of getting it to the market. Sure we could say "just sell it to the refinery" but it's not even close to that simple. The exploration company must move it, and like every other commodity they have the best tools to get the product but not necessarily distribute it, therefore a middleman with the means to get the raw materials out becomes necessary. When these middle men don't have enough product the value increases, too much and their bottom line suffers due to a surplus changing the value per unit down. Speculators are just a money injection into the situation, they make their money by guessing correctly. This is why I say they are more indicator than factor.





Why would you argue that? The vast majority of businesses use the model you describe above without having any major increases in price because of it (except when investors perform tehir predatory actions with regard to fuel, that is).

Why would it be dramatically different for commodities?
This is why I stated that commodities are a different animal. They are dependent heavily on supply and distribution, moreso than a retailer, manufacturer. If you take a loan on projections of having say...... 1,000 units production per 980 units demanded you are doing well, making a return on the initial production, paying back the loan with interest, and you have reserves available for resale all leading to profit. But if anything causes a hiccup in production and say you can't fullfill that projection then you would be running at a loss meaning you must pay the debtor and production employees and hope you can make a minimal return at cost which is fine. Under investments the individual understands that they are taking the risk and may never realize a return, the responsibility is to make that return happen but it allows a little more flexibility in pricing. You wouldn't have to shock the market with a price increase and risk the demand side based on supply while still taking in cash. Food commodities especially exemplify this when you consider that a hard freeze can wipe out a crop, oil would be next as a well could not pan out or go dry before the projected return is satisfied. Hard metals not so much, we pretty much know what is out there and what can be projected, they are more dependent on the demand side.

On the distribution and retail side the quantity to be shipped and available is pretty well known, it can be accounted for and planned for. Which is why the business models are completely incompatible.
 
This is why I stated that commodities are a different animal. They are dependent heavily on supply and distribution, moreso than a retailer, manufacturer. If you take a loan on projections of having say...... 1,000 units production per 980 units demanded you are doing well, making a return on the initial production, paying back the loan with interest, and you have reserves available for resale all leading to profit. But if anything causes a hiccup in production and say you can't fullfill that projection then you would be running at a loss meaning you must pay the debtor and production employees and hope you can make a minimal return at cost which is fine. Under investments the individual understands that they are taking the risk and may never realize a return, the responsibility is to make that return happen but it allows a little more flexibility in pricing. You wouldn't have to shock the market with a price increase and risk the demand side based on supply while still taking in cash. Food commodities especially exemplify this when you consider that a hard freeze can wipe out a crop, oil would be next as a well could not pan out or go dry before the projected return is satisfied. Hard metals not so much, we pretty much know what is out there and what can be projected, they are more dependent on the demand side.

On the distribution and retail side the quantity to be shipped and available is pretty well known, it can be accounted for and planned for. Which is why the business models are completely incompatible.


But that's just it, though. Supply and distribution and demand for using the commodity do not account for the high prices right now. It's because of the artificial demand created by the investors.

It works the same way that the mortgage mess worked. Values get grossly inflated entirely due to the demand caused investors applying a short-term, profit-right-now investment mentality on an investment that requires a long term mentality. This creates a bubble. It's happened before with Oil (2008 was caused by an oil bubble and it popped, which is what caused prices to crash back down). It'll pop again because the reality of the situation doesn't dictate these prices. The futures look high because of the speculation, not because of supply and demand issue.

Since it's a commodity, though, it's possible to invest in such a way that even if you are one of the last buyers before the pop, it only affects the insane profits you've enjoyed throughout the buildup process and doesn't actually cause you to lose. The only people who lose in the mix are people who pay these investors for the honor of getting ****ed by their investments (i.e. the people who buy gas at $4 + per gallon).

The system as it exists only benefits the parasitic investors in the end because over the long haul, the suppliers break even on the bargain (they still have to supply and distribute after the bubble bursts so when it all averages out, they would end up in the exact same place if the parasitic investment practices weren't employed, while most of the money changing hands on the investment market doesn't even involve them).
 
But that's just it, though. Supply and distribution and demand for using the commodity do not account for the high prices right now. It's because of the artificial demand created by the investors.
Not so fast Tuck. Every part of the chain is kinked up right now, drilling is indeed up in some areas but down in others, refining is the biggest problem because we are in a facility shrinkage currently which means that it's harder to keep up with peak demand at the pump, as well the tax per gallon is ridiculous, for every dollar spent per gallon the governmnet makes around forty cents to the oil producers eight, and of course the station also makes around eight cents as well. Speculators do one thing, look at reports meaning they see what's being produced at current value, changes, and how much can get to market at current refining capacity they then act long or short accordingly.

It works the same way that the mortgage mess worked. Values get grossly inflated entirely due to the demand caused investors applying a short-term, profit-right-now investment mentality on an investment that requires a long term mentality. This creates a bubble. It's happened before with Oil (2008 was caused by an oil bubble and it popped, which is what caused prices to crash back down). It'll pop again because the reality of the situation doesn't dictate these prices. The futures look high because of the speculation, not because of supply and demand issue.
The mortgage crisis was a multi-faceted problem as well. Speculators got sold a horrendous investment that they kept passing along the line until people couldn't take bad debts off other's hands anymore. The federal got involved years ago forcing more high risk mortgages that the financial managers figured out how to make a buck off of. It wasn't the selling that made the mortgages a toxic asset rather complete dishonesty about the return. Oil speculators aren't buying debt, they are buying shares of available production. Buying a bad loan with paper returns is not the same thing as buying something that will have value(or won't if you guess wrong).

Since it's a commodity, though, it's possible to invest in such a way that even if you are one of the last buyers before the pop, it only affects the insane profits you've enjoyed throughout the buildup process and doesn't actually cause you to lose. The only people who lose in the mix are people who pay these investors for the honor of getting ****ed by their investments (i.e. the people who buy gas at $4 + per gallon).
Not all speculators are wealthy people. In fact many people have commodities in their retirement portfolios. And I still assert that there is more damage from outside(government regulation) interference than any internal damage(I'm not letting the industry off the hook).

The system as it exists only benefits the parasitic investors in the end because over the long haul, the suppliers break even on the bargain (they still have to supply and distribute after the bubble bursts so when it all averages out, they would end up in the exact same place if the parasitic investment practices weren't employed, while most of the money changing hands on the investment market doesn't even involve them).
People react to the conditions present. Predatory would be intentionally creating a sellers market by cutting the supply short or forcing less supply on the demand end through dishonest means.
 
OK, there's been a lot of noise about gas prices. Here's a chance for the haters to tell us how much of a utopia we'd be living in if Obama hadn't won.

If the President of Iran can spike oil prices by threatening to close the strait of Hormuz, how much do you think Obama is affecting gas prices by canceling the Keystone pipeline, banning drilling in the gulf and Ohio, and actively pursuing an anti-American energy policy?
 
Other

Poll is over-speculative.
 
But that's just it, though. Supply and distribution and demand for using the commodity do not account for the high prices right now. It's because of the artificial demand created by the investors.

It works the same way that the mortgage mess worked. Values get grossly inflated entirely due to the demand caused investors applying a short-term, profit-right-now investment mentality on an investment that requires a long term mentality. This creates a bubble. It's happened before with Oil (2008 was caused by an oil bubble and it popped, which is what caused prices to crash back down). It'll pop again because the reality of the situation doesn't dictate these prices. The futures look high because of the speculation, not because of supply and demand issue.

Since it's a commodity, though, it's possible to invest in such a way that even if you are one of the last buyers before the pop, it only affects the insane profits you've enjoyed throughout the buildup process and doesn't actually cause you to lose. The only people who lose in the mix are people who pay these investors for the honor of getting ****ed by their investments (i.e. the people who buy gas at $4 + per gallon).

The system as it exists only benefits the parasitic investors in the end because over the long haul, the suppliers break even on the bargain (they still have to supply and distribute after the bubble bursts so when it all averages out, they would end up in the exact same place if the parasitic investment practices weren't employed, while most of the money changing hands on the investment market doesn't even involve them).

Not so fast Tuck. Every part of the chain is kinked up right now, drilling is indeed up in some areas but down in others, refining is the biggest problem because we are in a facility shrinkage currently which means that it's harder to keep up with peak demand at the pump, as well the tax per gallon is ridiculous, for every dollar spent per gallon the governmnet makes around forty cents to the oil producers eight, and of course the station also makes around eight cents as well. Speculators do one thing, look at reports meaning they see what's being produced at current value, changes, and how much can get to market at current refining capacity they then act long or short accordingly.

The mortgage crisis was a multi-faceted problem as well. Speculators got sold a horrendous investment that they kept passing along the line until people couldn't take bad debts off other's hands anymore. The federal got involved years ago forcing more high risk mortgages that the financial managers figured out how to make a buck off of. It wasn't the selling that made the mortgages a toxic asset rather complete dishonesty about the return. Oil speculators aren't buying debt, they are buying shares of available production. Buying a bad loan with paper returns is not the same thing as buying something that will have value(or won't if you guess wrong).

Not all speculators are wealthy people. In fact many people have commodities in their retirement portfolios. And I still assert that there is more damage from outside(government regulation) interference than any internal damage(I'm not letting the industry off the hook).

People react to the conditions present. Predatory would be intentionally creating a sellers market by cutting the supply short or forcing less supply on the demand end through dishonest means.
I've been thinking on this Tuck and I'll amend a little. Mainly speculators are an indicator but I would be irresponsible in not completely analyzing their effect and there is something that I missed. Speculators are watched closely by those who purchase, supply, and consider investing as well so if they are making moves heavily in the short or long direction there is a price pressure that comes from the market's emotional reaction, too much activity can literally change the psyche of the market creating a false dynamic which can change the price, the overall effect can range from minimal to grand dependent on the factors at the time. I would have to say we both can be correct under very specific market conditions at the time.

This said McCain is not as "big government" minded as Obama but not enough that he would have made regulation more efficient and I think we would still be somewhere in the price range we see now. I think the real market price is much lower than the actual market price but until all factors are addressed this will not change.
 
...the oil producers eight...

There's the important bit. If it really was a supply issue, the oil producers would be seeing the increased profits. Nobody else. But it's investors seeing all of the profits on the increased prices, not producers.

That's supports my claim.

The mortgage crisis was a multi-faceted problem as well. Speculators got sold a horrendous investment that they kept passing along the line until people couldn't take bad debts off other's hands anymore. The federal got involved years ago forcing more high risk mortgages that the financial managers figured out how to make a buck off of. It wasn't the selling that made the mortgages a toxic asset rather complete dishonesty about the return. Oil speculators aren't buying debt, they are buying shares of available production. Buying a bad loan with paper returns is not the same thing as buying something that will have value(or won't if you guess wrong).


The speculators knew these were bad investments when they purchased them. They also knew that they could be passed along at a profit or that people would simply refi to avoid foreclosure. You put too much blame on the Feds, BTW. The federal government had nothing to do with the vast majority of the subprime and alt-A loans. They were involved in the very minimal FHA side of things (a drop in the bucket in the whole mortgage mess).

Subprime and alt-A were the ****ty loans that allowed people to refi in order to avoid foreclosure and get away with NINA (no income, no asset), respectively. These loans were entirely driven by investors. 100%. Nothing at all to do with the Federal government. Option ARMs (which are the stereotypical 'toxic loan')? Investor driven.

115% LTV seconds? Investor driven.

Whenever someone says that the government "forced" lenders to make stupid loans to ****ty borrowers, the first thing I think is that they aren't really all that aware of what went on during the mortgage mess. The worst of the worst products were things that investors dreamed up. These investors applied short term thinking to long term investments. This is what happened. The government is not the primary source of blame, except in the sense that they took away the barriers that were in place that prevent these simple-minded short-sighted morons from doing what they did.

The first rule of life is that people who make a lot of money are just as dumb, and are often far dumber, than those who don't. The only real difference is, when poor people are stupid, the effects are localized and other poor people tend to be the only ones affected. When rich people are stupid, it's global and the effects of the stupidity are inversely proportional to income.

Every major man-made disaster in history has been a result of rich people being stupid. And in every instance, rich people were the least affected by their stupidity. Sure, they were affected a little bit, but people who weren't rich ended up in far worse shape.

I only mention the above because that fact of life must be one's primary premise when approaching issues like this. When one realizes that almost everything that can be discussed involves stupid, short-sighted, selfish morons making stupid, selfish, short-sighted decisions based in their stupid, selfish, short-sighted approach to life, one can realize that nothing exists which cannot


Not all speculators are wealthy people. In fact many people have commodities in their retirement portfolios. And I still assert that there is more damage from outside(government regulation) interference than any internal damage(I'm not letting the industry off the hook).

It you added up all of the non-wealthy speculators, they probably have less money in the pool that the wealthiest one does. If you averaged everything out, they are probably closer to breaking even on their investment than they are to profiting (i.e. If you include the cost of commodities speculation which is passed on directly to the consumer).

People react to the conditions present. Predatory would be intentionally creating a sellers market by cutting the supply short or forcing less supply on the demand end through dishonest means.

But that's just it, though, they are the primary condition present that they are reacting to.

It's just as predatory to create false demand for a commodity, and when the investment structure is already a parasitic one by it's very nature (which is my stance about all commodities trading), creating false demand makes it even worse, IMO. (False demand being defined as demand that is completely unrelated to consumption).

Just because something is parasitic and predatory, though, doesn't mean it's illegal. Lawmakers are just as short-sighted, selfish and stupid as the rest of the population.
 
I said 1.86. This would be due to the fact that he would have allowed our economy to tank and there would, as a result, be far less demand.
 
There's the important bit. If it really was a supply issue, the oil producers would be seeing the increased profits. Nobody else. But it's investors seeing all of the profits on the increased prices, not producers.

That's supports my claim.
Actually, the speculators make their money before the first drop goes into your car, company investors make a portion of the eight cents. The station owner makes eight cents, the government makes all forty cents. The government literally did nothing to gain the largest margin, fire the idiots who still support a per gallon tax and reduce it to the industry standard margin and that's 32 cents a gallon off right there.




The speculators knew these were bad investments when they purchased them. They also knew that they could be passed along at a profit or that people would simply refi to avoid foreclosure. You put too much blame on the Feds, BTW. The federal government had nothing to do with the vast majority of the subprime and alt-A loans. They were involved in the very minimal FHA side of things (a drop in the bucket in the whole mortgage mess).

Subprime and alt-A were the ****ty loans that allowed people to refi in order to avoid foreclosure and get away with NINA (no income, no asset), respectively. These loans were entirely driven by investors. 100%. Nothing at all to do with the Federal government. Option ARMs (which are the stereotypical 'toxic loan')? Investor driven.
None of this existed until after the CRA was passed by Carter and then altered in the nineties by the Janet Reno justice department, before then banks were requiring a hefty down payment and strict lending criteria. We are finally getting back to that after thirty years.....kind of.
115% LTV seconds? Investor driven.
Yes, after they figured out how to make the numbers work to bring in investors.

Whenever someone says that the government "forced" lenders to make stupid loans to ****ty borrowers, the first thing I think is that they aren't really all that aware of what went on during the mortgage mess. The worst of the worst products were things that investors dreamed up. These investors applied short term thinking to long term investments. This is what happened. The government is not the primary source of blame, except in the sense that they took away the barriers that were in place that prevent these simple-minded short-sighted morons from doing what they did.
Again, they had to find a solution to a government induced problem. Follow the logic, the shakedowns started in the early nineties and sub-primes didn't start to take off until probably about two to three years later.

The first rule of life is that people who make a lot of money are just as dumb, and are often far dumber, than those who don't. The only real difference is, when poor people are stupid, the effects are localized and other poor people tend to be the only ones affected. When rich people are stupid, it's global and the effects of the stupidity are inversely proportional to income.
Look at it this way, no matter what you do there are so many stupid financial and other government regulations that there is no way to follow one without violating another. When you have a system like that then yes the wealthy making bad decisions will have a larger effect.
Every major man-made disaster in history has been a result of rich people being stupid. And in every instance, rich people were the least affected by their stupidity. Sure, they were affected a little bit, but people who weren't rich ended up in far worse shape.
Not true Tuck. The "Great Depression" has been proven to be prolongued due to government interference after the market collapse, other depressions happened in U.S. history but were not as severe, those did not recieve a single government nod. Half of the "man made" disasters I've seen had goverenment overregulation all over it.....such as Amtrack for one example.
I only mention the above because that fact of life must be one's primary premise when approaching issues like this. When one realizes that almost everything that can be discussed involves stupid, short-sighted, selfish morons making stupid, selfish, short-sighted decisions based in their stupid, selfish, short-sighted approach to life, one can realize that nothing exists which cannot
I'm not going to blame the rich, rather I'll blame the government rich. Seriously all one has to do is look at a government ruling and you'll see the inevitable skewed numbers.

It you added up all of the non-wealthy speculators, they probably have less money in the pool that the wealthiest one does. If you averaged everything out, they are probably closer to breaking even on their investment than they are to profiting (i.e. If you include the cost of commodities speculation which is passed on directly to the consumer).
Of course, people with less to lose don't play as much, meaning they won't make as much and are happy to break even. This does not change the fact that they are looking to the weatlhier investors as an indicator.


But that's just it, though, they are the primary condition present that they are reacting to.
And those large speculators are reacting to data. You are making a false coorelation to results of the indicator tied to the indicator. This is usually not the case but "can" happen.

It's just as predatory to create false demand for a commodity, and when the investment structure is already a parasitic one by it's very nature (which is my stance about all commodities trading), creating false demand makes it even worse, IMO. (False demand being defined as demand that is completely unrelated to consumption).

Just because something is parasitic and predatory, though, doesn't mean it's illegal. Lawmakers are just as short-sighted, selfish and stupid as the rest of the population.
First off, there is nothing predatory about commodities trading it's just done differently for the reasons of different needs.
 
Back
Top Bottom