IMO no valid parallels can be drawn between stock markets and commodity markets.
They're too far different in underlying "securities", and for various other reasons.
Of course in a stretch anything can be made to compare, if one wants to, I guess. And those bubble examples are nice, and they're all well known. But....... Afterwards........ when short selling was introduced, did those types of bubbles disappear? Were there never any more bubbles afterwards? If you use bubbles as a reason to justify short selling, then unless there are no more bubbles, you can say that with or without short selling bubbles occur. So what's the point of using bubbles as a "back up" to the shorting argument? What's the point of using any argument or examples to justify short selling?
That's not my argument or focus, though it may be yours.
I'm only advocating to make the rules stricter.
The causes for the markets to rise after the 70's were based on fundamental changes that happened in our economy, and gov't. Lower tax rates, decreased interest costs, less gov't intervention.
Speculation from home based traders came afterwards, and without the advent of the internet, would probably never have happened at all to the extent it did.
Of course the attitude of the 30's were against short selling restrictions by certain people,
they still are.
As a general statement...People who short probably want NO rules.
That's nothing new.
As far as Barnard baruch and his 1935 essay, that was 1935. It's now 2001. It's 66 years later, and the markets have changed, and so the rules need to change to keep up with the market changes. |
