• 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!

Should this be illegal?

Should this be ILLEGAL?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am sure those with Big Business's dicks in their mouths will say "praise be the free market" as excuse for thinking it us alright for there to be such serious conflict of interests.
 
jamesrage said:
I am sure those with Big Business's dicks in their mouths will say "praise be the free market" as excuse for thinking it us alright for there to be such serious conflict of interests.
Click to expand...

Might you be specific concerning the conflict of interest?

Thom Paine
 
CRUE CAB said:
Its called business.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the same as BANKING. That is my objection.
The money power of politics for sale and that is the nature of our
system can't survive something like this. I believe a book by
James Risen about Greed, Power, etc. addresses this issue.
Bankers have an obligation to encourage businesses that are
a positive impact on their locality by lending to the start ups, not
manipulating markets to prevent start ups or tie up tanker that
would otherwise encourage competition in the marketplace. The
Bankers are controlling competition to control prices.
 
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?
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't think that is the same as BANKING. That is my objection.
The money power of politics for sale and that is the nature of our
system can't survive something like this. I believe a book by
James Risen about Greed, Power, etc. addresses this issue.
Bankers have an obligation to encourage businesses that are
a positive impact on their locality by lending to the start ups, not
manipulating markets to prevent start ups or tie up tanker that
would otherwise encourage competition in the marketplace. The
Bankers are controlling competition to control prices.
Click to expand...
So where I work should not own equipment to further our business?
 
CRUE CAB said:
So where I work should not own equipment to further our business?
Click to expand...

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?
 
OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sounds like fear to me. Provide a good product, service and price and don't worry about it.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kamikaze483 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, it has only been legal for banks to do this since Billy Clintoooon's de-regulation. The banks are leading the war charge against labor in our Nation. Now, Unions definitely misused their power to the detriment of the Nation and their members, nevertheless they began with a useful function and moral high ground. Corporate charters used to be narrowly defined to prevent overlap into sections that allowed monopolistic practices, but since Corporate Crime just gets fines and no criminal punishment, then it is automatically legal to do anything they want because there is no punishment, and that is where we are and what is happening. JPMorgan Chase (JPMorgan was bought out by David Rockefeller's Chase Manhatten Bank that was built with StandardOil/Exxon monies) pays a $13 billion fine but no criminal prosecutions and it is just the tip of the iceberg. It has always been a Corporate/Labor War in the USA and that is why Charlie Chaplin was blackballed in the USA, and Corporate has won since they managed to purchase the SCOTUS ( Citizens United) as it appears.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree.

JPMorgan is certainly no worse than OPEC.

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?
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I think that scrutinizing the banks' (that are involved in commodities holding) capital reserves against systemic risk potential in the event of catastrophic loss is a legitimate social concern.

If the SIFIs involved can take the hit without shaking the system then I have no opposition to their being involved with investment in any sector they feel will net a profit.

But if they aren't in a financial position (insurance plus reserves) to take such risks they don't have any business putting the American taxpayer on the hook (again) for their negligence.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:
On the contrary, it has only been legal for banks to do this since Billy Clintoooon's de-regulation. The banks are leading the war charge against labor in our Nation. Now, Unions definitely misused their power to the detriment of the Nation and their members, nevertheless they began with a useful function and moral high ground. Corporate charters used to be narrowly defined to prevent overlap into sections that allowed monopolistic practices, but since Corporate Crime just gets fines and no criminal punishment, then it is automatically legal to do anything they want because there is no punishment, and that is where we are and what is happening. JPMorgan Chase (JPMorgan was bought out by David Rockefeller's Chase Manhatten Bank that was built with StandardOil/Exxon monies) pays a $13 billion fine but no criminal prosecutions and it is just the tip of the iceberg. It has always been a Corporate/Labor War in the USA and that is why Charlie Chaplin was blackballed in the USA, and Corporate has won since they managed to purchase the SCOTUS ( Citizens United) as it appears.
Click to expand...

Now you are adding in new subjects here to cloud the issue.

Read what I said again, you are still wanting to hold banks to a standard all the while ignoring that other players in Oil trading can do. And you add in verbiage on banks being against labor in our nation. No matter if that is or is not true, you still have not addressed that there is plenty of commodity price manipulation going on but you want the focus to be on one potential player. That is a huge problem, all because as a "conservative" you suggest what the business model should be for social benefit.

On top of all that you seem to be wanting to talk about corporate crime, bringing up fines associated with the financial collapse of 2008. One, that does not involve oil manipulation. Two, JPMorgan is not unique in paying these fines. And lastly, the government went to many of these institutions in a panic to save other dying institutions only to turn around a few years later and extort fines from these same institutions run by people who were not in charge during the questionable practices bringing about these fines. JPMorgan being built on many things, including oil, does not mean that any manipulation that might have occurred means something to the fines they are paying.

Then to cap it off the Citizens United ruling, which has nothing to do with bank oil price manipulation, suggests nothing but continued attempts ignore the issue you opened the thread on.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, you conservatives like the deregulated free market don't you? That's what you get with one.
 
soot said:
I disagree.

I think that scrutinizing the banks' (that are involved in commodities holding) capital reserves against systemic risk potential in the event of catastrophic loss is a legitimate social concern.

If the SIFIs involved can take the hit without shaking the system then I have no opposition to their being involved with investment in any sector they feel will net a profit.

But if they aren't in a financial position (insurance plus reserves) to take such risks they don't have any business putting the American taxpayer on the hook (again) for their negligence.
Click to expand...

I understand that as a position to have, and it has nothing to do with bank owned assets for the purpose of oil price manipulation. Capital reserve requirements have nothing to do with the regulation the OP is suggesting, the OP is suggesting asset ownership limitations to prevent something that so far no one has proved actually happened in a manner consistent with the OP article.

And "too big to fail" for banks is purely our fault. It was not a lack of regulation, it was the wrong regulation. Banks (really investment houses) were in a position where their actions caused enough problem that government bailed them out. Now I do not agree with the bailout anyway, there is an economic remedy to financial organization poor decision making. But that said, still has nothing to do with oil assets ownership (or other commodity assets and energy assets) for the purpose of price manipulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom