Poll Question: WHAT YEAR DOES THE US GO BANKRUPT
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

@DrMaddVibe

It stuns me as well how many want a pure, unregulated "Free Market". As you mention, large businesses are more "efficient". Would you also agree that they have more assets to leverage as weapons against smaller competition?

- The cash buyout/hostile takeover
- Legal assets to take them to court and cause them to spend to defend and hurt them financially
- Government contacts to hurt competitors with regulation
- Cash reserves to lower prices temporarily

In a free market, eventually there would be one company, or at most, one company per industry.

If you are in favor of a truely free market, you are also in favor of monopolies.

tweoijfoi wrote:




I NEVER said large companies are more efficient! Look at the behemoth that is General Motors! The can't react to the world in a quick pace. That's what kills them. Monopolies? That's not a free market! A free market is supply and demand and not the crony capitalism we now have here in the US either! That's not a monopoly! If you desire government intervention then you have price manipulation. This nonsense of one business is pure folly. The closest thing you could claim would be Wal-Mart, yet Sears, KMart, Family Dollar, Family General and a host of other retailers doing the smae thing survive and expand. If people can get a deal on Product A and another store has it marked up higher barring convenience what store would get the business?

I don't believe ANYTHING is too big to fail. That's pure arrogance and ignorance bundled in the same cloak!

Let's look at your assertions and see how that played out.

Microsoft?
Apple?
Google?
Oracle?
Cisco?

Yet for everyone there's competition.

I don't trust the government to manufacture a damn thing just like I don't for regulating either! Once again I post up a link to a Frontline story.



If the regulators had done their job we wouldn't be in the mess we're in! WAWWWW...the laws were there! WAAA the agencies were there...WAAAAA...why didn't it work????


Government doesn't work does it?
raymallen
14 years ago
@ Tweo On point and well educated response.

@ Drmadd Monopolies are the result of pure free market... So to say they are not free market is hypocritical. Without government intervention in these matters, say good bye to the so called "small business owner" who cannot efficiently run at the same value as a major corporation. You love historical examples, look at US prior to the Anti-trust Act compared to now. Is it efficient? no, but does it look out for the smaller guy? absolutely. I'm a capitalist, look at my post in the General conversation board, I just got an interview with Wells Fargo in commercial banking. But if you truly believed in 100% free market, you would be spending your time in a factory right now as apposed to spending your time posting on these boards.

By the way, our founding fathers were those greedy rich you speak of, just look at Jefferson's wealth in today's terms. There were just as many skeptics like you then as there are now, not much has changed. It will be like that 100 years down the road as well.

Also, all of those companies you speak of would be consolidated into one per industry if allowed to. More market share = more efficiency = cheaper price. It isn't to difficult to figure out. How do you feel about not regulating health hazardous industries such as oil refineries and meet packaging? these were all unregulated and unsafe until government regulation. I don't suppose you agree with deregulating these industries do you?
raymallen
14 years ago
Also to address the term "to big to fail". This is not a literal term, but we saw in the depression what no intervention did. banks collapsed! 25% unemployment! Government intervention brought our economy back! If you think free markets got us out of that mess than I have nothing more to say here. Essentially, the bailouts saved us from a depression on a much larger scale. By the way those "handouts" weren't free, they were interest bearing loans.
ZRX1200
14 years ago
Tweoijfoi



Sorry if you cant manage a damn thing by yourself.

Sad.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

@ Tweo On point and well educated response.

@ Drmadd Monopolies are the result of pure free market... So to say they are not free market is hypocritical. Without government intervention in these matters, say good bye to the so called "small business owner" who cannot efficiently run at the same value as a major corporation. You love historical examples, look at US prior to the Anti-trust Act compared to now. Is it efficient? no, but does it look out for the smaller guy? absolutely. I'm a capitalist, look at my post in the General conversation board, I just got an interview with Wells Fargo in commercial banking. But if you truly believed in 100% free market, you would be spending your time in a factory right now as apposed to spending your time posting on these boards.

By the way, our founding fathers were those greedy rich you speak of, just look at Jefferson's wealth in today's terms. There were just as many skeptics like you then as there are now, not much has changed. It will be like that 100 years down the road as well.

Also, all of those companies you speak of would be consolidated into one per industry if allowed to. More market share = more efficiency = cheaper price. It isn't to difficult to figure out. How do you feel about not regulating health hazardous industries such as oil refineries and meet packaging? these were all unregulated and unsafe until government regulation. I don't suppose you agree with deregulating these industries do you?

raymallen wrote:





Please. Simplistic at best is what you're describing.

You suppose I should be in a factory why? Wells Fargo for you...factory for me? You know not what I do nor what I have done in my professional careers. Good luck with the job, hope you get it. Really. Then you can go to work telling them and showing them how to do it better! LOL!

The companies I posted up have all of the criteria that tweoijfoi posted. Yet, they exist. You say they won't. I throw the B$ flag. They're in business and will be in business in some way, shape or fashion. Is there someone that has a better mousetrap? Most likely yes. Maybe it's being developed right now in a garage somewhere by some college dropouts or backwoods shop owner.

Don't bring in that mamby pamby coal mines, clean air and good food. Was there a time we had lil' Oliver Twist slaving away in a coal mine? Yes there was. In Indonesia , Oliver is alive and well making the Nike's you're probably wearing right now!!!! The HQ is where again? This brings us to the same question...What role do you believe government plays that you still haven't answered!
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Also to address the term "to big to fail". This is not a literal term, but we saw in the depression what no intervention did. banks collapsed! 25% unemployment! Government intervention brought our economy back! If you think free markets got us out of that mess than I have nothing more to say here. Essentially, the bailouts saved us from a depression on a much larger scale. By the way those "handouts" weren't free, they were interest bearing loans.

raymallen wrote:





We have very close to 25% unemployment right now! THAT'S manipulated too...by?

No, the governement did nothing but give a payday to major bundlers and donators. Those are the facts. The "bailouts" were the biggest blank check jokes ever. The biggest disgrace to every American taxpayer. We're NEVER going to get the money back. EVER! Those handouts weren't free. That part you have correct. THEY WERE STOLEN! American's didn't have a voice which way their money was going to be spent nor which companies would be the winners and losers!

So, who's going to pay the money back? When?
raymallen
14 years ago
@ DrMadd I completely agree with you that it is a disgrace that these institutions received tax payer money. I'm not trying to justify that they deserved it in any way shape or form. But, I am arguing that the results of not doing it would have been much more severe.

The unemployment rate calculates those in search for work. I admit that the calculations for those are quite skewed, but they have been around for a while. historically we know woman were not a large part of the work force, they were not calculated in at the time either. so a 25% to our recent 8.2% using same criteria is a good judgment as far as the relationship goes.

And I want you to look at pictures of Los Angeles in late 80's compared to pictures now after environmental regulations took place. If you don't see a drastic health difference, than that's pure ignorance on your behalf. Call me "mamby pamby" if that means I agree with protecting the health of our citizens. Economically speaking, healthier citizens provide lower health costs in the future. If you think I'm a total socialist by saying that industries will not regulate environmental health on their own, than call me one all day long. It makes no sense in monetary terms to raise their own costs to protect the general public from what they are doing. THAT is a role of government.
engletl
14 years ago

You can choose not to eat food, or drink clean water?

tweoijfoi wrote:



Yes you can...they are generally called hunger strikes
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

It makes no sense in monetary terms to raise their own costs to protect the general public from what they are doing. THAT is a role of government.

raymallen wrote:





Obama oil margin plan could increase price swings

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to dampen the influence of oil speculators by having regulators set trading margins could backfire, potentially making prices even more volatile and leaving crude dominated only by those with the deepest pockets.

Under Obama's request to Congress, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would determine how much speculators need to pay to trade U.S. crude oil futures, in theory increasing the amount when prices move too far, too fast.

But economists and traders cautioned that pushing smaller investors out of markets would only hand greater influence to the largest hedge funds and Wall Street banks. Ultimately, there may not be enough traders left to do business with oil producers and consumers looking to hedge their needs.

"Reduced liquidity often means greater volatility," said broker Jay Levine at Enerjay LLC in Maine.

"That's the exact opposite of (Obama's plan's) purpose".

Exchange-operator CME Group, which currently sets margin requirements for the benchmark U.S. crude oil contract, on Tuesday called the president's plan "misplaced", and said speculation should not be confused market manipulation.

CME charges separate margin rates for speculators and end-users of oil such as airlines, who are hedging their physical needs.

One contract of benchmark U.S. crude, commonly known as West Texas Intermediate or WTI, had a notional value of just under $103,000 on Thursday, based on a standard 1,000 barrel contract and prices around $102.50 a barrel.

Traders defined as speculators can buy that contract for an upfront cost of just $6,855, with a maintenance margin of $5,500. Those defined as hedgers would pay $5,100 upfront with a maintenance margin also of $5,100.

EXISTING POWERS

While Obama's bill currently has little hope of making it through a divided Congress, a price spike before November could boost cross-party support from politicians wary of siding with oil traders in an election year.

Two large waves of speculators have surged into oil markets in the last 14 months due to the supply disruption in Libya and plans for increased sanctions on Iran's oil exports this year.

Prices rose on both moves, but some industry experts believe prices could have risen even more without their influence.

"The attack on speculation is an attack on better functioning markets," said Edward Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup.

"If there were not liquidity in the futures market... the chances are overwhelming that price volatility would be greater."

The CFTC already has emergency powers to raise margins, though they have rarely exercised them. Last year, when the supply shock in Libya was big enough to spark a coordinated stockpile release by the International Energy Agency, the CFTC declined to pull the margin trigger, despite speculator positions hitting an all-time high.

That raises the question of whether they would increase them in the event of a future supply disruption, if they were also tasked with setting margins day to day.

"When markets are very volatile and they are afraid about banks buying too much oil on leverage, it gives them a tool," said Amy Jaffe, energy policy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston.

"(But) would a politician actually have the guts to use it? If you use it when we are already in a horrible crisis, it is too late."

Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale in New York and a former analyst at the IEA, said he didn't expect regulators to become more active, even if they are handed more powers.

"The CFTC already works very closely with the exchanges," Wittner said. "They're going to continue to rely on their expertise."

SPECULATOR SURGES

Many traders and market analysts noted that speculators tend to buy crude when there is a strong underlying reason to do so such as the loss of Libyan crude last year or sanctions and possible military action against Iran.

Between February and March 2011, when Libya's crude oil supplies were first cut by fighting in the country, speculator bets that crude oil prices would rise on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) shot-up from 185,236 contracts to an all-time high of 311,632, CFTC data showed.

With each contract equal to 1,000 barrels of oil, that's the equivalent of over 125 million extra barrels of oil (roughly 1.4 days of global demand) bought in less than a month.

Prices spiked by $15-$20 a barrel over the period, though many argued it was natural for prices to rise given almost 2 million barrels per day of light sweet crude had been lost from a finely balanced market.

"The CFTC understands that markets can be volatile," said Jason Schenker, president of Prestige Economics in Austin, Texas.

"Leaving people at the risk of sudden margin increases could deter investment in oil markets that is critical in the long-run."

This year, with pending sanctions on Iran's oil exports and concerns about a possible military confrontation, speculator bets on higher prices increased about 43 percent, from just over 190,000 to 272,032 between January and March. Prices rose over that period from $99 to a peak of $110.55.

But over the last five weeks, speculators unwound net-long positions back to the level they were at the beginning of January, as expectations waned for a confrontation between Israel and Iran.

Hedge fund manager John Kilduff said that while politicians had been quick to criticize speculators in oil, they've been quiet about speculators in the natural gas market, who have been betting on lower prices since at least June 2009, according to data from the CFTC.

Natural gas prices hit a 10-year low below $2 per million British thermal units on Thursday due largely to booming domestic shale gas production.

"We look forward to seeing the natural gas market speculators feted at the White House soon for their work in reducing prices upward of 90 percent in several short years," Kilduff said.





Government's meddling has to stop. When you couple it with kooky ideas from over educated shills that have NO real world experience you get the failed policies of the Kenyan King. When you stack the deck with criminals, tax cheats and commies...WTF did you expect? Rainbows, Unicorns and Lollipops? See the fail for what it IS. Take your political slant out of it, step back and re-read the article.

Hope and Change?

KNEEGROW PUHLEEZE!
Stinkdyr
14 years ago
English muthahumpah.........can YOU spell it?????


the word is ......... TRULY.


🍺
raymallen
14 years ago

Obama oil margin plan could increase price swings

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to dampen the influence of oil speculators by having regulators set trading margins could backfire, potentially making prices even more volatile and leaving crude dominated only by those with the deepest pockets.

Under Obama's request to Congress, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would determine how much speculators need to pay to trade U.S. crude oil futures, in theory increasing the amount when prices move too far, too fast.

But economists and traders cautioned that pushing smaller investors out of markets would only hand greater influence to the largest hedge funds and Wall Street banks. Ultimately, there may not be enough traders left to do business with oil producers and consumers looking to hedge their needs.

"Reduced liquidity often means greater volatility," said broker Jay Levine at Enerjay LLC in Maine.

"That's the exact opposite of (Obama's plan's) purpose".

Exchange-operator CME Group, which currently sets margin requirements for the benchmark U.S. crude oil contract, on Tuesday called the president's plan "misplaced", and said speculation should not be confused market manipulation.

CME charges separate margin rates for speculators and end-users of oil such as airlines, who are hedging their physical needs.

One contract of benchmark U.S. crude, commonly known as West Texas Intermediate or WTI, had a notional value of just under $103,000 on Thursday, based on a standard 1,000 barrel contract and prices around $102.50 a barrel.

Traders defined as speculators can buy that contract for an upfront cost of just $6,855, with a maintenance margin of $5,500. Those defined as hedgers would pay $5,100 upfront with a maintenance margin also of $5,100.

EXISTING POWERS

While Obama's bill currently has little hope of making it through a divided Congress, a price spike before November could boost cross-party support from politicians wary of siding with oil traders in an election year.

Two large waves of speculators have surged into oil markets in the last 14 months due to the supply disruption in Libya and plans for increased sanctions on Iran's oil exports this year.

Prices rose on both moves, but some industry experts believe prices could have risen even more without their influence.

"The attack on speculation is an attack on better functioning markets," said Edward Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup.

"If there were not liquidity in the futures market... the chances are overwhelming that price volatility would be greater."

The CFTC already has emergency powers to raise margins, though they have rarely exercised them. Last year, when the supply shock in Libya was big enough to spark a coordinated stockpile release by the International Energy Agency, the CFTC declined to pull the margin trigger, despite speculator positions hitting an all-time high.

That raises the question of whether they would increase them in the event of a future supply disruption, if they were also tasked with setting margins day to day.

"When markets are very volatile and they are afraid about banks buying too much oil on leverage, it gives them a tool," said Amy Jaffe, energy policy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston.

"(But) would a politician actually have the guts to use it? If you use it when we are already in a horrible crisis, it is too late."

Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale in New York and a former analyst at the IEA, said he didn't expect regulators to become more active, even if they are handed more powers.

"The CFTC already works very closely with the exchanges," Wittner said. "They're going to continue to rely on their expertise."

SPECULATOR SURGES

Many traders and market analysts noted that speculators tend to buy crude when there is a strong underlying reason to do so such as the loss of Libyan crude last year or sanctions and possible military action against Iran.

Between February and March 2011, when Libya's crude oil supplies were first cut by fighting in the country, speculator bets that crude oil prices would rise on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) shot-up from 185,236 contracts to an all-time high of 311,632, CFTC data showed.

With each contract equal to 1,000 barrels of oil, that's the equivalent of over 125 million extra barrels of oil (roughly 1.4 days of global demand) bought in less than a month.

Prices spiked by $15-$20 a barrel over the period, though many argued it was natural for prices to rise given almost 2 million barrels per day of light sweet crude had been lost from a finely balanced market.

"The CFTC understands that markets can be volatile," said Jason Schenker, president of Prestige Economics in Austin, Texas.

"Leaving people at the risk of sudden margin increases could deter investment in oil markets that is critical in the long-run."

This year, with pending sanctions on Iran's oil exports and concerns about a possible military confrontation, speculator bets on higher prices increased about 43 percent, from just over 190,000 to 272,032 between January and March. Prices rose over that period from $99 to a peak of $110.55.

But over the last five weeks, speculators unwound net-long positions back to the level they were at the beginning of January, as expectations waned for a confrontation between Israel and Iran.

Hedge fund manager John Kilduff said that while politicians had been quick to criticize speculators in oil, they've been quiet about speculators in the natural gas market, who have been betting on lower prices since at least June 2009, according to data from the CFTC.

Natural gas prices hit a 10-year low below $2 per million British thermal units on Thursday due largely to booming domestic shale gas production.

"We look forward to seeing the natural gas market speculators feted at the White House soon for their work in reducing prices upward of 90 percent in several short years," Kilduff said.





Government's meddling has to stop. When you couple it with kooky ideas from over educated shills that have NO real world experience you get the failed policies of the Kenyan King. When you stack the deck with criminals, tax cheats and commies...WTF did you expect? Rainbows, Unicorns and Lollipops? See the fail for what it IS. Take your political slant out of it, step back and re-read the article.

Hope and Change?

KNEEGROW PUHLEEZE!

DrMaddVibe wrote:




It is my dream to be a trader for a bulb bracket bank. But like you said, "we need to read between to the lines". You think it is ok that 70% of trading volume and commodity speculation is done by machines with no person pressing buy or sell? Or the people programming these formulas have never taken an economics course in their life? This is attack against a market ran by computers, not traders.

By the way, prejudice comments don't help make you look credible.
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

It is my dream to be a trader for a bulb bracket bank. But like you said, "we need to read between to the lines". You think it is ok that 70% of trading volume and commodity speculation is done by machines with no person pressing buy or sell? Or the people programming these formulas have never taken an economics course in their life? This is attack against a market ran by computers, not traders.

By the way, prejudice comments don't help make you look credible.

raymallen wrote:




You take me for some fool.

Of course I don't think it's okay for "auto traders" BUT this is the system that regulators...the very same govt. regulators you want allow.

No, what we need are irrational no world experience traders like yourself in there mucking about learning as they go with no safety nets. Maybe wear a meat suit and jump in the arena with some tigers for laughs. Of course we'll be sure to use some USDA grade meat just for you and the tigers will all have their shots because we know how you love some government daily allowance. Ask nice and we'll throw in a safety helmet, that is if PETA allows it because it might disturb the digestive system of the tigers and we wouldn't want it to pass a big piece of plastic and foam.

Oh, and by the way...having no working knowledge but a bunch of books, classroom experiments and a piece of lambskin to hang on a wall doesn't impress me in the least! YOU think I'm predjuiced wait till you meet you future boss!!!!


[frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan]
Users browsing this topic