View Poll Results: Should this be ILLEGAL?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    7 50.00%
  • NO

    6 42.86%
  • OTHER, please explain.

    1 7.14%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Should this be illegal?

  1. #11
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    When a Bank Owns 100 Oil Tankers, It Can Mess With the Price of Gas - Truthdig

    "A two-year Senate investigation of the financial sector has found that banks can meddle with the economy in new and frightening ways.
    The investigation was led by Carl Levin, D-Mich., and looked specifically at the impact of investments on the prices of certain commodities—things like oil and uranium.
    Deregulation made it possible for firms such as Goldman Sachs to outright buy commodities and commodity suppliers. For instance, Goldman owns a coal mine in Colombia. And that fleet of 100 oil tankers? It belonged at one time to Morgan Stanley, which also held 55 million barrels of oil storage. JPMorgan Chase, according to The New York Times, once owned 31 power plants."

    When a Bank Owns 100 Oil Tankers, It Can Mess With the Price of Gas - Truthdig

    Could some large energy Corporations actually be major stockholders of these same banks?

    If you have billions of dollars, what do you do with it?

    Are all billionaires actually bankers because of the nature of money?

    Bankers buy huge oil positions to control OIL prices, do they market wars to control weapons contracts?

    Why do Corporations, specifically "Fictitious entities" have more power than taxpaying citizens?

    These are the "Too Big To Fail" banks that we bailed out.

    We bail them out and they use our money to put the screws to us.

    Is banking at all levels totally crooked? Or just the Big Banks?

    Is this the kind of thing we should write our Congressman about?

    SHOULD THIS BE LEGAL?

    Absolutely. Even the founding fathers recognized the horrible consequences of giant monopolies forming and the use of anti-competitive practices. Even Jefferson was staunchly against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    It would be extremely foolish to suggest banks owning these things makes them more prone to "manipulation" or some other suspect intentions vs. when they are owned by other business entities or individuals. The last thing we need is yet more regulations and business limits, when will you people learn those things come with more consequence than good?
    So do you think there are zero negative consequences to corporations swallowing up everything and manipulating the market for profit? Or do you just not care about it? Something needs to be done and even the founding fathers agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The Big Bank is going to buy all the commodities/services/transportation/equipment you use to build
    your products and squeeze out your profits. What are you going to do about it?
    Sounds like fear to me. Provide a good product, service and price and don't worry about it.

  3. #13
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    When a Bank Owns 100 Oil Tankers, It Can Mess With the Price of Gas - Truthdig

    "A two-year Senate investigation of the financial sector has found that banks can meddle with the economy in new and frightening ways.
    The investigation was led by Carl Levin, D-Mich., and looked specifically at the impact of investments on the prices of certain commodities—things like oil and uranium.
    Deregulation made it possible for firms such as Goldman Sachs to outright buy commodities and commodity suppliers. For instance, Goldman owns a coal mine in Colombia. And that fleet of 100 oil tankers? It belonged at one time to Morgan Stanley, which also held 55 million barrels of oil storage. JPMorgan Chase, according to The New York Times, once owned 31 power plants."

    When a Bank Owns 100 Oil Tankers, It Can Mess With the Price of Gas - Truthdig

    Could some large energy Corporations actually be major stockholders of these same banks?

    If you have billions of dollars, what do you do with it?

    Are all billionaires actually bankers because of the nature of money?

    Bankers buy huge oil positions to control OIL prices, do they market wars to control weapons contracts?

    Why do Corporations, specifically "Fictitious entities" have more power than taxpaying citizens?

    These are the "Too Big To Fail" banks that we bailed out.

    We bail them out and they use our money to put the screws to us.

    Is banking at all levels totally crooked? Or just the Big Banks?

    Is this the kind of thing we should write our Congressman about?

    SHOULD THIS BE LEGAL?

    When you put your money into the bank, what are you getting back from the bank? As a free market society, we should be a bit less lazy about shopping around for things like bank rates and other benefits to our deposit investment. A bank account is not a shoebox under the bed. Your deposit should yield benefit to you- otherwise, you should change banks.

    Banks invest their customers' deposits hopefully with the goal of making the most money on it- and then they should return it back to the deposit customers in the form of lower loan rates and higher interest. This would result in the best money managing banks becoming the best "buy" for consumers.

    We regulate as a free market society by being responsible with which companies we do business with. "Fictitious entities" only have the power we give them by doing business with them.
    "We need to ask some very tough questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince." -Eddie Huff

  4. #14
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    The banks own these things to conspire to do business, by withholding the OIL for example
    until they get a nice price spike to pick your pocket. The banks are supposed to function to encourage business, not steal the business.
    No, you are suggesting the banks are doing these things based in an article making the same assumptions. What you nor the article has is direct evidence that it really happened in a manner you are all hinting at.

    You many have some moral argument otherwise, but banks are in fact businesses. They do not have a social responsibility to encourage buisness, but they do have a business reason to do so as business growth means something to the banking model.

    What you and the article fails to understand is no matter if these things are owned by a bank, some other entity, or an individual they are *still* subject to those with less than honorable intentions. Example, if I had a high stake in a hedge bet against lowering oil prices it would make sense to ensure higher price outcome by owning a stake in its transportation and doing what your article suggests. But, there is nothing special about a bank as an entity that makes this more likely to happen.

    BTW, this sort of thing happens all the time and not just for Oil. Other commodities, currency bets, ownership in companies, both private and public debt they are all subject to those who want to ensure an investment outcome. Some manipulation is not legal, other is. But you singling out a bank, as an entity that should not own something, is the same sort of lazy political thinking that brought us large soda bans thinking it was a good thing.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  5. #15
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    When you put your money into the bank, what are you getting back from the bank? As a free market society, we should be a bit less lazy about shopping around for things like bank rates and other benefits to our deposit investment. A bank account is not a shoebox under the bed. Your deposit should yield benefit to you- otherwise, you should change banks.

    Banks invest their customers' deposits hopefully with the goal of making the most money on it- and then they should return it back to the deposit customers in the form of lower loan rates and higher interest. This would result in the best money managing banks becoming the best "buy" for consumers.

    We regulate as a free market society by being responsible with which companies we do business with. "Fictitious entities" only have the power we give them by doing business with them.

    Highlight in red. Tell that to the Supreme Court and the Citizens United ruling. Corporatons have a
    lot more power than people.

  6. #16
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    No, you are suggesting the banks are doing these things based in an article making the same assumptions. What you nor the article has is direct evidence that it really happened in a manner you are all hinting at.

    You many have some moral argument otherwise, but banks are in fact businesses. They do not have a social responsibility to encourage buisness, but they do have a business reason to do so as business growth means something to the banking model.

    What you and the article fails to understand is no matter if these things are owned by a bank, some other entity, or an individual they are *still* subject to those with less than honorable intentions. Example, if I had a high stake in a hedge bet against lowering oil prices it would make sense to ensure higher price outcome by owning a stake in its transportation and doing what your article suggests. But, there is nothing special about a bank as an entity that makes this more likely to happen.

    BTW, this sort of thing happens all the time and not just for Oil. Other commodities, currency bets, ownership in companies, both private and public debt they are all subject to those who want to ensure an investment outcome. Some manipulation is not legal, other is. But you singling out a bank, as an entity that should not own something, is the same sort of lazy political thinking that brought us large soda bans thinking it was a good thing.
    Sorta like those "naked short sales" of millions of ounces of ETF gold, eh? Drive the price down without owning any physical gold. Completely legal and exactly the same scenario. The Too Big To Fail banks are using our, the citizen taxpayers money to increasse our living costs. Good business, bad government regulating. Just because it is legal does not make it right. Neither is it shortsighted, as the attempt is to prevent monopolistic practices.

  7. #17
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Sorta like those "naked short sales" of millions of ounces of ETF gold, eh? Drive the price down without owning any physical gold. Completely legal and exactly the same scenario. The Too Big To Fail banks are using our, the citizen taxpayers money to increasse our living costs. Good business, bad government regulating. Just because it is legal does not make it right. Neither is it shortsighted, as the attempt is to prevent monopolistic practices.
    At least now you are thinking about this even though there is still a major issue. You telling banks they cannot own these things does not prevent what you are talking about from happening. It only removes banks as a entity that can participate in the manipulation that so far no one has proved really happened.

    BTW, those "too big to fail" banks accelerated their growth *after* the legislation was passed that was designed to deal with them once they got that large as well as limit what they can do as a business model. That should tell you that we have an issue turning to legislation.

    Perhaps outside the box thinking is needed here to prevent the actual manipulation instead of your thinking on just limiting who can participate.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  8. #18
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    At least now you are thinking about this even though there is still a major issue. You telling banks they cannot own these things does not prevent what you are talking about from happening. It only removes banks as a entity that can participate in the manipulation that so far no one has proved really happened.

    BTW, those "too big to fail" banks accelerated their growth *after* the legislation was passed that was designed to deal with them once they got that large as well as limit what they can do as a business model. That should tell you that we have an issue turning to legislation.

    Perhaps outside the box thinking is needed here to prevent the actual manipulation instead of your thinking on just limiting who can participate.

    I can't really understand why the poll is not 20 to 1 against the banks. I guess people just don't do their homework or really understand the function of banks in our economy and society.

  9. #19
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I can't really understand why the poll is not 20 to 1 against the banks. I guess people just don't do their homework or really understand the function of banks in our economy and society.
    Because you have those of us thinking rationally about the matter. Your quest and zeal to hold banks to a different standard than other entities is starting to fall apart on you mainly because of a lack of understanding of how so many players in the Oil commodity can do what you claim the banks could do.

    The simple truth is regulation for this would be laughably absurd and completely ineffective.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should this be illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    No, you are suggesting the banks are doing these things based in an article making the same assumptions. What you nor the article has is direct evidence that it really happened in a manner you are all hinting at.

    You many have some moral argument otherwise, but banks are in fact businesses. They do not have a social responsibility to encourage buisness, but they do have a business reason to do so as business growth means something to the banking model.

    What you and the article fails to understand is no matter if these things are owned by a bank, some other entity, or an individual they are *still* subject to those with less than honorable intentions. Example, if I had a high stake in a hedge bet against lowering oil prices it would make sense to ensure higher price outcome by owning a stake in its transportation and doing what your article suggests. But, there is nothing special about a bank as an entity that makes this more likely to happen.

    BTW, this sort of thing happens all the time and not just for Oil. Other commodities, currency bets, ownership in companies, both private and public debt they are all subject to those who want to ensure an investment outcome. Some manipulation is not legal, other is. But you singling out a bank, as an entity that should not own something, is the same sort of lazy political thinking that brought us large soda bans thinking it was a good thing.
    The overall point of the OP is correct:

    How Wall Street Is Raising the Price of Gas - ABC News

    I witnessed speculation abuse firsthand in real estate in the high desert around Joshua Tree.

    When I first moved there around 2000 one could buy a house on five acres for about $60k. These prices remained stable until shortly before the crash when the speculators came in. They believed that Joshua Tree was going to be the next artsy boomtown like Telluride or Santa Fe.

    They bought so much of the available real estate that prices tripled. Those sixty thousand dollar houses went up to $180k. No boomtown emerged. The crash happened. Lots of people lost money.

    But the upshot is the properties in question levelled off at about $120k. So anybody who needs to buy a home now has to pay twice what they would have just a few years before. Not based on real supply and demand but the artificial shortages created by speculators.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •