SHHHhhhhhh - we're NOT supposed to find this out

[Gary - K7GLD]

I purchase commodities to make money. There is no way the small amount I purchase drives up the price of stock or commodities.

Sorta like being "only a little bit pregnant"?

Robbery with a knife not as serious as robbery with a gun?

Sure sounds like rationalization - situation ethics - to me, "I'm only doing it a LITTLE bit - so I'm not as wrong as those doing it a LOT"...

.

[Meandering Retiree]

Speculators should have to take physical delivery of the product before they are allowed to sell it....wonder what would happen then?

[hondo122]

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD

SO, does the fact that *I*, personally BENEFIT from an activity automatically make it right - regardless of the effect that activity has on the rest of society?

Many things in life, this country - and the world - while in varying degrees are LEGAL, are inherently morally wrong. In some cases like crude oil, speculation in it's current form, might be legal - but the devastating effect of inflated and manipulated energy prices and the artificially generated increased cost of living it causes, are in my personal view, an immoral activity that tends to enrich a few, at the expense of the many.

AND, merely advising critics to themselves "buy oil stock" is an unrealistic solution for the vast majority who are having difficulty paying rent and buying food, let alone dabble in the stock market!

That "solution" smacks heavily of the old "let them eat cake"...

.

Well said

[RovinOn]

Speculators should have to take physical delivery of the product before they are allowed to sell it....wonder what would happen then

Totally agree on that one, If you can't take delivery on the product then you shouldn't be allowed to buy or sell it!

Gary - K7GLD, Very well said !

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by RovinOn

Totally agree on that one, If you can't take delivery on the product then you shouldn't be allowed to buy or sell it!

Gary - K7GLD, Very well said !

Times 2

[RustyJC]

Just as a matter of curiosity, are those who advocate taking physical possession as a prerequisite to buying futures contracts willing to extend that philosophy to ALL commodities? Wheat, corn, milk, coffee, orange juice, gold, silver, pork bellies, etc.? I'm not sure one can single out just one commodity for this requirement.

Rusty

[GPW]

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
By Naomi Klein
Metropolitan Books, 2007

[blackf3504dr]

Speculation is a two edged sword, you can make money, but also can lose money. Speculating has it place, (ie) supplying working capital for exploration but in todays world speculators are the bad guys accused of driving up prices for their own gain, but with out the speculators where would the working capital come from? Don't get me wrong, I hate paying these high prices too, but just wait until the government clamps down on the speculators and see what happens to oil prices.

[Gary - K7GLD]

History has abounded with those who in various ways, attempt - or are successful - in gaining control of something in an effort to enrich themselves at the expense of others who MUST have what they control in order to survive.

In the old west - and sometimes the new west, it was water - MANY an old western movie revolved around the individual or small group who plotted to gain control of that river that supplied the area farmers and ranchers with the water they absolutely HAD to have if they were to survive in their individual ranches.

Inevitably, those gaining control have been described and accepted as the "bad guys", blood suckers whose ONLY interest was enriching themselves well above and beyond reason, at the expense and possible ruin of those totally dependent upon the now limited and controlled resource they must have to survive.

The issue was not usually about the LEGALITY involved, but rather, the MORALITY of an individual or group in gaining control of a VITAL and NECESSARY resource - purely out of greed and profit - that was a vital and critical resource for all involved.

There's a vast difference between common stock market activity, and the commodities markets - If I invent, manufacture and market "Widgets" - and they then become a roaring success to the point demand exceeds my ability to meet that demand with my current manufacturing methods, I might next place my product on stock the market as a method to gain capital to further develop, manufacture, and market Widgets.

In return, investors are in a position to gain a percentage of profit on their investment as my Widgets remain a popular retail item. And that's all reasonable and proper - on the other side, investors might also LOSE, if my invention goes the way of the Hula-Hoop and similar items.

Commodities DO have a place in our society - when properly applied and with at least SOME oversight and control. Buying wheat, rice, or other *SEASONAL* and limited, VARIABLE crops is a method that assures growers a relatively stable and guaranteed market for their crops - after all, weather, pests and other forms of predators affecting large areas can easily cause wild swings and variations in size and quality of crops - commodities speculators in that scenario DO help and stabilize an otherwise potentially erratic market.

OIL, on the other hand, is in another class entirely - it is NOT a seasonal or erratic resource as most would consider it - but rather, a generally steady 24/7 "product" that is steadily consumed as fast as it's produced, refined, and marketed - with LITTLE need for a stabilizing middleman to steady and benefit both producer and consumer.

If grain prices become higher than individual consumers want or are willing to pay, they are able to select alternate grain related products instead - their very survival is not greatly affected.

Oil is NOT in that category - entire societies are closely connected to and HIGHLY dependent upon reasonably priced energy - all the way from powering their transportation, to heating their homes and running their factories. Control oil, and you control the world - for the VAST majority, in any reasonable fashion - there are NO alternatives in PRICE, or availability, for our society when controlled energy costs become higher than we are able to afford.

While there may be little question as to the legality of LAND ownership, what about the natural resources above and beneath that land - critical and necessary resources generally accepted as that "owned" and shared EQUALLY by all in the world's society - like water, air, and yeah, at least to SOME degree - OIL!

Are those involved in controlling - and then profiting from their manipulation of pricing and marketing of a natural resource like oil all that different than those we booed and hissed in old westerns as THEY attempted to do the same with water?

YOU choose!

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by RustyJC

Just as a matter of curiosity, are those who advocate taking physical possession as a prerequisite to buying futures contracts willing to extend that philosophy to ALL commodities? Wheat, corn, milk, coffee, orange juice, gold, silver, pork bellies, etc.? I'm not sure one can single out just one commodity for this requirement.

Rusty

I, for one, advocate taking physical possession of all commodities as a preresequite. The exception of the rule would be when one contracts ahead of time with a company to sell a product for them but has the product drop shipped from the point of origin. That actually saves money for the end user because it reduces handling, shipping, warehousing, paperwork, advetising, etc. expenses.

[zzzs]

I buy oil company stocks and options to hedge the cost of diesel. When the price of diesel rises so will the price of exxon, shell , etc, I use profits to offset the cost of diesel, when the price of oil drops, so goes the stocks so goes the price diesel, which I purchase at the pumps. So match your diesel consumption to the amount of stock you should own.

[Gary - K7GLD]

Originally Posted by LadyFitz...

I, for one, advocate taking physical possession of all commodities as a preresequite. The exception of the rule would be when one contracts ahead of time with a company to sell a product for them but has the product drop shipped from the point of origin. That actually saves money for the end user because it reduces handling, shipping, warehousing, paperwork, advetising, etc. expenses.

YUP - I'd be for that as well, at least in the case of SPECIFIC natural resource items clearly determined as being in the Public Domain, where their regulation is also clearly in the best interests of a dependant society. This doesn't prevent private or corporate development and distribution of any given resource, but rather, places at least some restraint as to the return the basic providers are allowed to retain.

We already do this in the Public Utilities, related to power distribution and cost, and the Railroad Commission, who regulate transport and charges for transported goods - and the railroad and trucking businesses and various power companies - as well as the public they serve - seem to have survived well enough, other than the now out of control fuel cost expenses thay are faced with.

What would the citizens of Los Angeles think, if the city's need for $$$ caused them to place their entire water supply on the commodities market - and *I*, as a rich billionaire, bought out an entire year's supply? WHAT would be the very FIRST legitimate concern of that city's occupants? YUP - excessive price increases - as *I* sat back, increased customer prices, and counted my profits!

Likewise, oil speculators:

Produce NOTHING.
Transport NOTHING.
Refine NOTHING.
Receive, store, market and deliver NOTHING.

All they do, is sit back, and (usually!) count their profits.

Risk involved? Sure - but obviously NOT enough to prevent or discourage MANY financial institutions and investment fund managers to maintain extremely high levels of involvement - yeah, good for their scattered investors or their own bottom line - but what about the health of individual members of society, and the MANY energy dependant industries they rely upon for a reasonably stable standard of living?

[Gary - K7GLD]

Originally Posted by zzzs

I buy oil company stocks and options to hedge the cost of diesel. When the price of diesel rises so will the price of exxon, shell , etc, I use profits to offset the cost of diesel, when the price of oil drops, so goes the stocks so goes the price diesel, which I purchase at the pumps. So match your diesel consumption to the amount of stock you should own.

YUP - all that ALSO sounds grand - IF:

You have a job
You can still pay rent or make house payments
You can afford to heat/cool your house
Feed and clothe your family

And the very REAL list, as faced by many - goes on and on!

How much stock in oil do you figure THEY can afford?

TOO often some of us seem content, since WE have OURS, to glibly sit back oblivious to the very serious conditions MOST of our current society are forced to live under...

BUT, of course - it's also pretty easy to merely sit back opining that most of those "brought their problems upon themselves"...

We might currently be unconcerned as to THEIR serious condition - but our OWN may well deteriorate sooner than we think, because as the health, standard of living, and living conditions of those lower on the ladder declines, we ALL will eventually sink along WITH them!

[mythplaced]

Originally Posted by Gary - K7GLD

SO, does the fact that *I*, personally BENEFIT from an activity automatically make it right - regardless of the effect that activity has on the rest of society?

Many things in life, this country - and the world - while in varying degrees are LEGAL, are inherently morally wrong. ........


That "solution" smacks heavily of the old "let them eat cake"...

.

HEAR HEAR!