DescentBB

Yep. An actual blood stake in the game, not fake tokens.

callmeslick, again, that's due to credit expansion (inflation), or like you say yourself "free capital", and has nothing to do with speculation itself. Credit expansion tend to flow into the speculative market and raise all prices (tide raises all boats), and attract even more people to speculate. Without credit expansion one must pick and choose, and some prices will fall another prices raise, which mean one must do a real prediction in order to speculate. When all, let's say stocks, raise in price, then everybody is drawn into the market because it looks like an easy task, fueled by easy money, i.e. credit expansion.

Yes, one can regulate this market, but then we're back to price control and rationing, which have other consequences again. I say, let's get rid of the price control. (price control in this case is the interest)

Furthermore, the fact that supply goes down or up have other causes than speculation, causes that are hard to predict, thus are left to supply and demand to even out the price, which works slower.

Adjusted for inflation, oil has actually gone down in price the last 100 years.

Edit: callmeslick, what you fail realize is that you need to adjust for statistical differentiations. The crucial question is; compared to what? In my example with onions, one can make such a comparison. You have explained why oil prices goes up, I have made mine. I have provided an example where one can actually compare. Now, you must explain why onion prices fluctuated more after speculation was prohibited.

Edit 2:

callmeslick wrote:Once again, theory meets practice, and the meeting isn't exactly as 'conceptual' as theory would like it to be.

Are we back to this again?

Edit 3: Let me further elaborate. Prices can raise in two ways, either supply goes down, or money supply goes up. You claim it's the first, I claim the latter (notice, the latter will cause the same effect). Then we must explore which one is right - restriction of commodity supply, or an increase in the money supply? The fact that a price raise is just an observation, why it's a complete different question. One of my reason to believe it's the latter is that; If it's not inflation, then money must be diverted from some place else, prices in this area will then fall. Since all prices increases I have reason to believe it's inflation that is the cause. Furthermore, if money is divertet from one place else, interest rate will then raise - as money reduces - to a level (not nominal, but relatively to inflation, i.e. real interest) in which demand for more money will go down, thus prevent a bubble.

Edit 4: Sorry, I'm at work, and overlook things. Here; "The only reason prices dropped(...) was the sudden tightening of the supply of not oil, but liquidity to fuel the speculation". Yes, I agree with this. I'm a bit confused as this explain way more than your assumption of withholding supply.

LEON wrote: Adjusted for inflation, oil has actually gone down in price the last 100 years.

but I showed you the trend for the past 10. Explain that. And, as you note, the credit expansiveness played a key role, but the net result is what I noted, that those of us with capital to gamble were esssentially guaranteed profits, and the victims were the end users, buying heating oil or gasoline.

Let me further elaborate. Prices can raise in two ways, either supply goes down, or money supply goes up. You claim it's the first, I claim the latter (notice, the latter will cause the same effect).

before 'we' go 'explore' anything, let's get the facts straight. I did not claim that supply went down, in fact I clearly stated suplly was constant. I also don't think money supply simply went up, worldwide. It was an artifice of speculative activity that drove the price up. Now, you would likely state that money supply is a government-created artifice, and on that I would agree with you. I argued around production restrictions back in the pre-traded, OPEC controlled days, when then they would manipulate monthly production quotas, and hence manipulate the pricing(I am talking 1960-80 timeframe here)

: Sorry, I'm at work, and overlook things. Here; "The only reason prices dropped(...) was the sudden tightening of the supply of not oil, but liquidity to fuel the speculation". Yes, I agree with this. I'm a bit confused as this explain way more than your assumption of withholding supply.

I think you are getting mixed up(likely my lack of clarity, not your fault) between my statement that at times, supply has been manipulated, and my later statement that pricing can be driven up by pure speculative pressure.

I made some small nuanced mistakes in my last post. It's been too hecktic at work today, I should stay off the board during my work day.

LEON wrote:I made some small nuanced mistakes in my last post. It's been too hecktic at work today, I should stay off the board during my work day.

seems a reasonable plan. Have a good work day!

At Jeff250

I don't think one can privatize the air, at least I see no practical way that can be done. When I said property rights as a solution to air contamination, I meant that contaminated air drifting into one's property could be viewed as transgression, hence one could sue the offender.

Individualism vs Collectivism.
I never thought you, or anyone, had any doubt whether free market is better than planned economy. I made a comparison based on rights - property rights. My thesis is that since old Soviet were based on collectivism, individuals were considered less important - after all it was public good that was the goal, therefore they were less eager to protect its citizens from pollution. The United States had an opposite approach, here the individual was the center, and thus protected from anyone trespassing their property. I therefore claim that the difference between those two lies in whether the citizen have property rights or not.

USA's Development
This is interesting in several ways. As your country moves more and more away from individual rights, you also moves more and more towards a situation where individuals count less, thus run the risk that the state will give you less protection, also from pollution.

I don't think the market can ensure everything. Like for instance rights. Since rights is the foundation for a market, one can't have a market for rights. Like I hire guys with big guns to protect me, and you hire some other guys with big guns to protect you. A market for rights breaks a hierarchical order in which concepts are formed. For example the phrase "property is theft", this phrase breaks such a hierarchy. Before we can form the concept 'theft' we must form the concept 'property', thus property cannot be theft. Same with the market. To have a functioning market one need rights, thus one cannot have a market for rights.
However, can a free market protect air quality? Well, to be honest, I don't know. Like I have said, it's a good question, and might be the Achilles heel in many free market supporters. But, as I have already mentioned, the state might be incentivized to protect its citizens from pollution because we have property rights. As they protect us from different trespassing, they also protect us from polluted air trespassing. I have never seen it like this before, after a quick search, however, it doesn't seems like free marketers support this idea. But I'll look further into this question.

I'm not sure about IP either (intellectual property) - if one can own an idea? I'm not able to decide here. I read arguments from either side and I agree with them both.

Trade-Offs
You made a point that it could be difficult to track down the offender, which is quite right. However, I'm not sure if the state has anymore capacity to do that. Which brings me back to the fallacy of nirvana. There's a tendency to view the state as an almighty entity, who always make the right decision. Which I doubt.
There can be difficult to differentiate between pollution and externalities. Pollution is a trade-off, and we will always have trade-offs. People run risks every day, we drive our cars, airplanes, we rather live in a city than on the country side; which is polluted more, we smoke despite health risks, when we first start to dig out coal the workers got their lungs polluted, we accept smoke from a nearby factory, because all these things provide our economy as well. We cannot make everything 100% safe, then we wouldn't be able to do anything. This is the nirvana fallacy. It's all a question about trade-offs. The state gives us trade-offs and the market gives us trade-offs.
The thing is, the state has its incentives as well. When one calls for regulation in China, one must remember that they lag behind us in accumulation of capital. Regulation of those kind might halt their accumulation. I'm not sure if we can deny them the development we have already done some decades ago. Which brings me to my point about capital and technological development. I think more than regulations technological development helped our environment. We went from burning wood and coal in steam engine, to burning diesel and gasoline, to electrical motors, and next step might be nuclear. Steps towards more and more cleaner energy. I'm not sure how regulations contributed to that development, quite the contrary. For instance we have almost prohibited nuclear energy, which might delay our development towards cleaner energy.
However, I don't say that the state never have done something good for the environment when the market have polluted. But, I wouldn't be too surprised if lack of property rights was the case in those incidents. At the same time, I believe the state has polluted way more. They lack the incentive that derives from private property. Like the river Thames in London, state property, was heavy contaminated. Same with forest and lakes, and overfishing in the sea. Speaking of which, this might be interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... as/307544/

that Atlantic article is very good, Leon, however:
1. That whole scheme depends on very strong government intervention to maintain the rules, not true privatization
2. All similar attempts to control more wide-ranging species run afoul as soon as one or more nations fails to uphold the agreements.
3. NO nation will EVER go along with privatizing anything far past the current agreed-upon maritime borders, and those are merely boundries of
national control, not private control.

I've been very involved with fisheries ecology and management for decades.....largely around the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries, and the Coastal Mid-Atlantic region(ocean fisheries). The only successes I've seen have involved complex partnerships of government, private business and non-profit foundations, with the latter being the true drivers.

And yet, no one wants to work together to achieve the best outcome for all. Everyone thinks that they know best, so nothing gets done right BECAUSE no one can come to a consensus and AGREE on anything.

callmeslick wrote:that Atlantic article is very good, Leon, however:
1. That whole scheme depends on very strong government intervention to maintain the rules, not true privatization
2. All similar attempts to control more wide-ranging species run afoul as soon as one or more nations fails to uphold the agreements.
3. NO nation will EVER go along with privatizing anything far past the current agreed-upon maritime borders, and those are merely boundries of
national control, not private control.

I've been very involved with fisheries ecology and management for decades.....largely around the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries, and the Coastal Mid-Atlantic region(ocean fisheries). The only successes I've seen have involved complex partnerships of government, private business and non-profit foundations, with the latter being the true drivers.

All valid points. To your first point. Yes, we need a state, I'm not an anarchist. Like I said, one can't have a market for rights. We need the government to maintain the Rule of Law and enforce property rights and contracts.