Steak dinners and beef injections a brilliant combination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Printable View
Steak dinners and beef injections a brilliant combination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Now consider that futures started out in agriculture, I'd listen to the farmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
The very definition of a futures market is to agree to a future price. It is to smooth out supply and demand peaks and plummets causing massive price spikes and valleys. The idea is to make it more predicatable and hence less risky to all. Of course reducing risk does generally reduce profit margins.
But then again the futures market is really more a long term idea.
"A futures exchange or futures market is a central financial exchange where people can trade standardized futures contracts; that is, a contract to buy specific quantities of a commodity or financial instrument at a specified price with delivery set at a specified time in the future" - Wikipedia
LOL @ the 'system' conspiracists. Tell the former executives of Bear Stearns or the Madoff victims that the system is rigged in their favor. Wealthy people can be just as poorly positioned and over exposed as your average idiot facing foreclosure who paid too much for a house based on an income stream with little real security. The reality is that there is no system, no grand conspiracy to extract wealth from the working man. As has already been said, more consumers and more disposable income in the economy benefit wealthy people disproportionately.
No one is entitled to a ‘middle class lifestyle’. Hard work does not equal valuable work. The truth is that you are only as valuable as the value you create. (Value = the amount of money other people will exchange for your labor.)
Everyone is exposed to cyclical economic shifts. That’s just the nature of capitalism. However, if you are still unemployed this many years after the crash or have yet to be able to find a job after graduating, some introspection may be in order. Yes, it could be that old white men in monocles and top hats are conspiring to screw you out of your right to clock in 9 – 5 and earn a ‘decent wage’, or it may be that that philosophy degree was a poor choice.
The problem gripping our economies is not speculation on Wall Street. That was just a symptom. The real problem is that machines are continuing their eclipse of human labor apace. It started in the factories many decades ago, but now it has crept into every realm of the economy. What used to take a department of people collecting and organizing numbers to create can now be done in Excel with a couple of macros. Today, real value is derived from creative, analytical brainpower, and the sad truth is that the average working man has never had an original idea in his life. :shrug:
Oh my bad, I thought humans have an intrinsic value. I was under the impression that, you know, we have rights and such because we value human life in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I guess you are right though, if you can't provide anything to the state of "worth" than why should we tolerate you living in our society? Or at all for that matter?
Such a brave statement.Quote:
and the sad truth is that the average working man has never had an original idea in his life. :shrug:
When it becomes easier for the state to eliminate you than to permit you to live in this case, it is something to keep in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by ACIN
As I recall, several posters specifically lamented that "it's not even a conspiracy."Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Mechanization and computerization are the primary causes of an out-sized global financial market? How do you mean that? Is it that computerization allowed financiers to exponentially increase the number of transactions while presenting the data flood to feed them? Or something more subtle? If the former, well, it seems to imply that the only appropriate solution to problems arising from the financial market is the unacceptable one of primitivism and Neo-Luddism. That would be one mendacious red herring.Quote:
The problem gripping our economies is not speculation on Wall Street. That was just a symptom. The real problem is that machines are continuing their eclipse of human labor apace.
Ergo if the demand for that future price goes up the price goes up. If I have agreed to pay $X per ton of wheat at Y date and the price goes up... the producer gets more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
What?
If I sell a 1000kg of corn as a future at $100 in 3 months. When 3 months comes along I the producer will get $100. Even if the new market price is $50, $200 or a million dollars a ton. I've locked in how much by selling on the future.
What is effected is the next cycle of investment.
I actually share a lot of the sentiments of PJ in relation to people expecting something by virtue of merely existing, the lazy feeling entitled, etc etc, although I think he takes it a little too far and is somewhat one sided, almost as if he does not believe there is any one ever who would intentionally sacrifice the financial well being of others for their own personal gain, particularly in the face of knowing our psuedo capitalist government will simply prop them up
And this is my dilemma. How do you fix something with out opening the flood gates of another form of abuse and fraud?. Where is the threshold for such things? In the name of expediencey and disaster relief and racial harmony, was it worth the 1 billion on fraudulant FEMA cards passed out to people who had no ID and gave fake social security numbers? On the other side of the coin, when GM is pressed by the UAW to commit to a pension/retirement policy for its employees that is virtually unsustainable (to the point that retirees were costing more than actual employees) and then the company goes tits up, was it worth it? Exclude the bailout, pretend it never happened and GM went broke and closed down. Was it worth it? Did everyone know all along they would get a bailout so who gives a flying fudge, and if so, why do we think that every company everywhere can offer similar benefits without being propped up? In short, how do you close the floodgate without opening another, how do you punish the bad people without punishing everyone??
Incidentally, I find it highly amusing that the "entitlement mentality" displayed by America's poor and downtrodden, as well as the entitlement mentality displayed by America's corporations, is really just an offshoot of "american exceptionalism", which happens to be another mindset that annoys me.
Here is an example of bad copy editing: Almost half of Americans Die Broke.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hal...ney-2012-08-29
That is the headline. Then it goes on to discredit itself in its own article.
Half of Americans retirees die with less than 10k in savings. It doesn't say 10k in assets, it says SAVINGS. 10k in savings is actually not too bad if you happen to have your assets paid off, which by retirement age you should. 10k in savings isn't bad considering you probably get social security, you are probably eligible for medicare, you my get disability, you may have a pension, you may have investments and you most likely have assets of some sort or another.
If by retirement you are still a renter, you have no credit lines, you have no assets, then yeah, you are probably in trouble and your problems probably go way, way back due to your obvious lack of preperation.
I would dare say that old people are not the ones in trouble right now.
Unions forward! Or did you just think that it's the employers who should influence this?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
And your solution is having a large unemployed unhappy underclass? Add some unhappy intellectuals. Pinning for the second communist revolution are you? Or haven't you considered exactly how explosive such a situation is?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Actually, it started with improved agriculture. It's just that there's no other market beyond the service sector.
In general, I would expect more speculations (attempts to create money out of nothing) on top of a relativly shrinking amound of physical products (or clear services). That would create a more unstable market with more crashes. The next one will come before 2020, possibly a few years later due to the severety of the latest one (I doubt that though. The stock markets have mostly recovered).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Of course, there's a lot of other factors involved, but the crashes are fairly predicatable sadly enough.
You guys are forgetting one basic truth -
When an individual goes bust, a bank comes and takes his house, with full backing from the state's legal apparatus.
When a bank (or some other big business) goes bust, the state comes and takes money from individuals and gives it to them to keep them afloat, with the full backing from the state's legal apparatus.
Is it possible that I'm the only one noticing something's wrong here?
More corn! Why? Because it pays more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
There is nothing wrong, because banks are the true creative class and without them we would be nothing. They should be afforded more broad allowances than the average Joe, and we cannot allow them to fail under any circumstances EVER because then who would I steal pens from, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
DELETE
The futures price doesn't drive the market price it's the actually the market price that drives the futures price.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
If grain goes mad dear this year then people will react accordingly with a futures prices that protects them against it going any higher.
What you say is partly true - prices are rising as there is/has been a drought in the US but the reverse is also true, the futures prices (just like normal shares or Government bonds) rise and fall on the amount of the demand from investors.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Yes, you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ce_CorporationQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Also, if the collapse is big enough to threaten the well being of the state, the state will take measures to protect itself.
Indeed but this demand has an upper and lower level bound by the market price of the resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
basically there is a point beyond which it makes no sense to hedge anymore, this can be driven because the potential price of the resource will eat your future profit.
That will generally mean you will try to price below tomorrows price(assuming market price growth) and will probably have to offer something above todays price.
However not everyone prices for profit sometime it's for access, for example a brewery needs barley so they offer a high price to encourage planting for a stable supply of quality barley. (although usually it's a straight contract for delivery at a set price)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
PJ is speaking economically - his point is that if your Labour does not have economic value you cannot participate in the economy. For example, what is a ditch digger to do in a world full of mechanical diggers? He's out of work and on the dole.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
No, he gets the same and you get a bigger profit margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
I don't think he really gets it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
SFSG - the Futures Market is a Market for contracts. The price going up and down on the market is not the price the farmer gets, it is the price the traders pay eachother to hold that contract until delivery. The trick of the Futures market is to buy a Future which was set at a middling price when everyone thinks that price has overshot, traders sell the Future at a loss and as a result you make a bigger profit than the person who originally held the Future when the price rises again.
Long article. Me lazy. Explain in few sentences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Did you just turn communist on me here?Quote:
Also, if the collapse is big enough to threaten the well being of the state, the state will take measures to protect itself.
Americans realising that once capitalism has chewed and swallowed everyone else, it will come for them.
And the Fragony, righter than the righter, feels comfortable because of the employment protection and social programmes of left-leaning Netherlands :laugh4:
I love it guys.
Small bank fail, people get money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Large bank fall down go boom, make economy sad, state pick bank back up.
State covers savings up to a certain point, me get that, me knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Does it cover home sweet home or only personal savings?
That's an excellent question and fortunately I don't have any experience with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What I know for sure is that "too big to fail" should not exist as it is a national security risk. But, if it does, it must not fail.
Edit: Why are we back to the bail out? So confused.
Most states guarantee for personal savings up to a certain point, depending usually on the strength of the economy. Even in Serbia the state guarantees for personal savings up to measly 5000 euros.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Real estates and investments are not covered usually - which means that if you as individual make a bad investment, you lose everything, usually to the big business. If big business makes a bad investment it gets bailed out with your money.
I mentioned that as a response to PJ's "lower and middle class have only themselves to blame for why they aren't the upper class". It's not that simple and quite frankly, it shows that the system is biased.
Well, he's not entirely wrong. It is quite easy to become rich in this country; however, the pursuit of wealth may become an end in itself at the expense of everything else. It's all about choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What a surprise. A society based on accumulating wealth ends up being a society that favours a self serving wealthy clique and disregarding those whose motives do not stem from avarice.
Avarice? She is a great musician and the voice of our generation, but I am not sure what she has to do with the conversation
She's going to bring about a new America through a series of cutting edge MTV stings.
Yes, and a society based on buggery and poor dental hygiene can rule the seas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Pakistan does not really have so great a navy, braQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I am certainly not in favour of 'cliques'/'large businesses interests' or semi- monopolies, whichever you chose to call the global business companies and hedge funds and all the rest. Any feeding an monopoly is NOT good for the market: The banks should have been allowed to go the wall after Lehmans and there should be no such thing as 'too big to go broke'. Real people and real growth is NOT 'corporate' but small businesses that put food on the average table. But all small businesses today are potential giants tomorrow who may be public companies and listed.
Ok stock holders at the initial launch pay the premium that carries the company forward for more investment etc (fb investors at the start) but if you and lots of others buy the shares the company value goes up. In the end this results in them have a greater total value and they can invest more.
It's no different essentially with futures on grain and rice. Long term the producers profit from a high price.
You say that but I'll laugh when Strike has to wear a hijab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
It'll be immensely funny, until you realise they're after you next. Your avatar will need to change: the outfit will have to go, you will down your last dikke pint, kiss your last ferme griet goodbye and finally have to settle for dried flowers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Strike to take the green? I've heard rumours...
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMGQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
NO BACKSIES