Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChanceIs who wrote (102737)	6/12/2008 11:24:09 PM
From: ChanceIs	Respond to of 206118

U.S. Asks the U.K. to Set Limits on Oil Speculation By IAN TALLEY June 13, 2008 WASHINGTON -- The U.S. energy-futures watchdog is requesting that its United Kingdom peer set limits on speculative trading of front-month West Texas crude contracts on ICE Futures Europe, a unit of the Intercontinental Exchange, two people close to the matter said Thursday. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been under increasing pressure by Congress to rein in speculation in the markets, which many believe has contributed to record-high oil and gasoline prices. Many analysts and energy economists -- including U.S Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- continue to argue that a tight market, fears of geopolitical events that could disrupt supplies and a weak dollar are the primary factors. The CFTC two weeks ago agreed with the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority that the U.S. agency would be notified when speculation levels similar to those set by the New York Mercantile Exchange were reached on ICE Europe. While Nymex operates as a U.S.-regulated market, ICE Europe operates as a foreign exchange with trading terminals in the U.S. and is exempt from U.S. rules on reporting and speculation limits. One person close to the matter was unsure if an actual agreement on setting levels had been set. Another said that even if the FSA and ICE Europe had agreed to the setting of limits on the front-month contracts, the FSA still isn't sure who is doing the trading.

To: ChanceIs who wrote (102737)	6/13/2008 12:33:21 AM
From: whitepine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206118

Speculators? Bull. Same problem in the 19th Century. NEngland/NY bankers and British and Southern cotton factors were blamed for 'exploiting' cotton planters. Gross value of the cotton crop was discounted 30-40% because of market inefficiency. Still, the factors and bankers were needed to conduct the international trade of cotton. With fewer 'middlemen,' the market inefficiency would have been even greater. Second, the cry of 'speculators' only arises when prices are rising and someone thinks they have been 'ripped-off,' even though such a term has no academic content. There are no complaints when crop production is huge, market prices fall, but farmers receive MORE than the market price because they 'locked-in' gains from contracts with 'speculators.' Purely one-sided economic illiteracy to blame 'speculators.' Critics never consider a market where prices are falling. With respect to oil today, prices are unlikely to fall because of the inability to shift the SUPPLY curve to the right. NO NEW massive supply response can take place in response to higher prices. That is the implication of Peak Oil. Additionally, all the idiots NEVER MENTION the shape of the demand curve. It is much closer to vertical that most assume. Thus, the WHOLE SET of prices and quantities demanded (demand curve definition) is INELASTIC. This means a huge change in price, up or down, will not affect the quantity demanded. This is simple econ. BLITHERING idiots in Congress, Dave Obey, Claire McCaskell, etc. have NO clue. They are simply ignorant ...but some college said they graduated with xyz degree. When the captain is drilling holes in the hull to let the water out of the bilge, ya know we got a problem in more than Houston.