They voted for change.............

[TBLfan 25]

Speculation does drive prices and the government didn't do anything to help. Was that soo hard?

Instability drives price & speculators buy/sell contracts to mitigate risk. More risk = more speculating/hedging

Speculation happens world-wide and is not something that happens only in the US. The US government cannot regulate Luftansa from entering derivative contracts as it is not a US company.

Hedging/speculating, as a whole, is insignificant when pricing commodities. There is no conspiracy as speculating is a zero sum gain. There's a reason speculators would go long in a commodity and it's not so they can all reap the benefits. It's b/c new information has emerged and they all go 'oh shit' and buy options. This 'information' is what can cause a commodity to become more or less valuable. You can also call it 'instability'.

To somehow say that 'speculating' is Un-American or the cause of all our woes is flat-out wrong. 99% of people do not know WTF speculating really is or what a derivative is. Speculating is nothing more than buying an insurance policy...just like you have on your home & car. (For the record; you have a 'put' option on both your home & car)

If that's too difficult to swallow and comes off as rambling...well...I can't make it any more simple.

So... Speculation is driving prices?

Instability is given a false stability by speculation, which in turn drives prices. This is what you are saying, how is that different then what I said? I just cut out all the babble and said that speculation drives prices.

I don't get where you're pulling this "Un-American" crap from, I don't believe I ever made such a claim.

...Because I know you're going to argue, even though we are agreeing... I will make another point, just to clarify. Take car insurance for example. Your 16 year old driver pays more for insurance because based on the numbers these drivers have a better chance at wrecking the car. So the insurance companies charge more(hey, that's driving prices by speculation, neat-o) to insure this driver to cover their(the insurance company) asses.

[chk hrd 164]

"The problem with the economy is property values and not the banking industry or greed on Wall Street. Default rates on homes wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now if property values did not crash. People who couldn't afford their homes could have simply sold it, turn a profit, and avoided delinquency."

property values did not crash, they were artificailly inflated and went down to a correct level. The mortgage crisis was caused by greed, institutions making loans to unqualified people through creative financing.

[Ital79 0]

So... Speculation is driving prices?

Instability is given a false stability by speculation, which in turn drives prices. This is what you are saying, how is that different then what I said? I just cut out all the babble and said that speculation drives prices.

I don't get where you're pulling this "Un-American" crap from, I don't believe I ever made such a claim.

...Because I know you're going to argue, even though we are agreeing... I will make another point, just to clarify. Take car insurance for example. Your 16 year old driver pays more for insurance because based on the numbers these drivers have a better chance at wrecking the car. So the insurance companies charge more(hey, that's driving prices by speculation, neat-o) to insure this driver to cover their(the insurance company) asses.

I think I understand now what you are getting at.

Speculators (dudes with badges looking at tickers - aka "scalpers") drive risk...that is not possible. It would take a grand world-wide conspiracy in which only 50% of the scalpers out there are in on. But then again, that's possible...as there isn't that many of them.

Now some facts;

The dollar has been weak

Oil production is not much higher than consumption

Sabre rattling from Iran/Russia

...and a host of other factors

In bold is the real kicker. A small 'blip' in production can cause quite a ripple since it could mean there is a shortage and demand is not met. There isn't much of a cushion for this as US is not oil production friendly. We import our oil b/c it's cheaper but at the same expense we are exposed to a number of risks that we cannot directly control.

These risks coupled with the small spread between the amount of oil pumped out of the ground and the amount consumed is what drives the price of oil. If 100 barrels are produced and it is forecasted that the world will consume only 50...all is well. It's when 100 barrels are produced and 100 is estimated to be consumed is where we run into price spikes in anticipation of a shortage.

Speculators don't have any control on production nor do they have any influence with estimating demand. They simply buy and sell off the same information that is available to you and I. They watch the same news you and I do and, to use a populist slogan, 'bet' on what will happen in the future. The markets react on new information and not what a small group of individuals do. Now there can be a 'heard mentality', but the driver is emerging information...not a bunch of dudes doubling down on oil.

Information is catalyst to spikes in commodity prices and slim margins between production & consumption just exacerbate the problem.

[mrusse01 0]

"The problem with the economy is property values and not the banking industry or greed on Wall Street. Default rates on homes wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now if property values did not crash. People who couldn't afford their homes could have simply sold it, turn a profit, and avoided delinquency."

property values did not crash, they were artificailly inflated and went down to a correct level. The mortgage crisis was caused by greed, institutions making loans to unqualified people through creative financing.

Well, correct level or not...the value of many homes crashed, the bubble burst, whatever you want to call it.

Responsibility certainly lies with the lenders, but the borrowers (home owners who couldn't afford their mortgage) also have to share in the blame. I find most people upset with this issue either point to 'Wall Street' or the 'idiot with a $500,000 mortgage they've now defaulted on and my tax dollars are bailing them out', when in fact, the true outrage should be directed towards the system that doesn't lift a finger when the problem is forming (prices spirling upwards, a surplus of credit) and then overreacts when the inevitable 'crash' happens (prices collapse, credit vanishes).

You have to accept a certain cyclical aspect to any economy, the problem in America (and elsewhere) is that hardly anybody is willing to accept even the smallest of concessions in boom times; we always want more, better, bigger, for a cheaper price.

[chippa13 1844]

It seems like Obama is trying to end the economic downturn with his version of the new deal. FDR did it during the Great Depression and it actually made the Depression longer and somewhat worse. The real thing that got us out of the Great Depression was World War II because it created so many jobs with the huge increase in demand.

This makes me wonder, how will we get out of the current economic downturn? Will we ride it out or will something create demand for production and tons of jobs?

The Obama stimulus really isn't going to do much for the economy. It definitely won't be helping the little guys. All the money that they want to throw at infrastructure improvements, well, who do we think will be getting that cash. It won't be the guy who runs a couple of crews to pave driveways, it will be the huge types like Modern Continental that will get the contracts.

"The problem with the economy is property values and not the banking industry or greed on Wall Street. Default rates on homes wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now if property values did not crash. People who couldn't afford their homes could have simply sold it, turn a profit, and avoided delinquency."

property values did not crash, they were artificailly inflated and went down to a correct level. The mortgage crisis was caused by greed, institutions making loans to unqualified people through creative financing.

It wasn't a correction to property values that caused the problem, it was the types of financing that folks took and the rising interest rate. People who took adjustable mortgages were the first to falter because the rates went up and they couldn't make payments. That started the foreclosure and house selling ball rolling. It put a lot more houses on the market and by increasing the supply, prices fell. This killed the folks in interest only loans because once their short term deals ended they couldn't finance their house because it was worth less than what the mortgage needed to be to cover the cost that it was bought at.

[TBLfan 25]

The economy has to fix itself and will fix itself. The problem is hoping that they don't keep screwing around and making it worse. I don't understand how printing money to pay these bailouts that will lower the value of the US dollar will, in any way, help anything.

What they need is sponsors. For only 250,000 dollars a day, help a CEO keep his penthouse and $100,000 car. For your generous donation a photo of your CEO will be sent to you along with a letter of appreciation for your donations. 1/25th of every donation will go to the fund for feeding Sally Struthers.

[ponty 0]

OMG its been over 60 days and nothing has changed!!!

Please. Lets be serious folks. If we had to put up with 8 years of crap from the other side and their ideas lets give more than 60 days. 90 maybe???

I dont like everything that has been done either but am willing to give it a chance. Hell I have president cluster-f*ck a 1 year window ... twice ... before I gave up.

The good news is that its pretty clear where each side stands. By this time next year of things are not getting much better than you have a gripe.

[troy 12]

For only 250,000 dollars a day, help a CEO keep his penthouse and $100,000 car. For your generous donation a photo of your CEO will be sent to you along with a letter of appreciation for your donations. 1/25th of every donation will go to the fund for feeding Sally Struthers.

There was an Onion article with that same premise a month or so ago.

[chippa13 1844]

OMG its been over 60 days and nothing has changed!!!

Please. Lets be serious folks. If we had to put up with 8 years of crap from the other side and their ideas lets give more than 60 days. 90 maybe???

I dont like everything that has been done either but am willing to give it a chance. Hell I have president cluster-f*ck a 1 year window ... twice ... before I gave up.

The good news is that its pretty clear where each side stands. By this time next year of things are not getting much better than you have a gripe.

Nobody expected to wake up January 22nd to a fixed economy. However, what has been done? The single biggest spending proposal in the history of the nation, throwing more good money after bad, trying to get back bonuses that should never have been allowed in the first place, and MORE troops heading overseas.

The only way to truly fix this country is to get back to making things. Unfortunately, folks expect cheap goods but great wages so the US has priced itself out of the manufacturing game.

[TBLfan 25]

For only 250,000 dollars a day, help a CEO keep his penthouse and $100,000 car. For your generous donation a photo of your CEO will be sent to you along with a letter of appreciation for your donations. 1/25th of every donation will go to the fund for feeding Sally Struthers.

There was an Onion article with that same premise a month or so ago.

I'm not surprised, it's a pretty easy "joke" to go to. I'm not one to read "The Onion" but I'll take your word for it.

It's just a ridiculous situation that really, despite the seriousness, is laughable. You have billion dollar companies that are given billions of dollars and reporting billion dollar losses, while small businesses are going belly-up... Employees of these companies, with families to feed are getting laid off. You have this bailout money being hoarded instead of invested, which might actually stimulate the economy. You have a woman that has more children to count, that is basically attempting to steal tax payer dollars that has been given the spotlight and money to support her irresponsible choices... when she should be in jail or possibly a mental hospital. Oh and you have half the country expecting immediate change that hate this administration no matter what happens and the other half that would support Obama if he signed in a bill to make the first Tuesday of every month "Baby Punching Day."

Oh and don't forget how irresponsible the Yankees are for drawing up big contracts in this kind of economy. Instead it would be more responsible to hoard the money or lose it in the stock market. Last time I checked, a company or organization employing someone stimulates the economy by moving money from one hand to another. We might just have bigger fish to fry besides talking about how irresponsible the Yankees are or how college football needs a playoff. I can't wait for them to call a congressional meeting on the "Wedge" rule changing in the NFL.

[hattrick74 0]

I completely agree the administration before had its problems, but since 2006 the senate and house have been Dem controlled, so for the last 2+ yrs the white house has be republican but the government has been democrat, so i would not fit 100% of the blame on GW. Hey you all got to deal with whats going on as a nation, but i have to deal with that on top of all the crap that the government here in California is doing, yeah for higher sales taxes! yeah for higher property taxes!!!!

[fieldofdreams 0]

the other half that would support Obama if he signed in a bill to make the first Tuesday of every month "Baby Punching Day."

I'm in. I am now the staunchest Obama supporter EVER!

[ponty 0]

OMG its been over 60 days and nothing has changed!!!

Please. Lets be serious folks. If we had to put up with 8 years of crap from the other side and their ideas lets give more than 60 days. 90 maybe???

I dont like everything that has been done either but am willing to give it a chance. Hell I have president cluster-f*ck a 1 year window ... twice ... before I gave up.

The good news is that its pretty clear where each side stands. By this time next year of things are not getting much better than you have a gripe.

Nobody expected to wake up January 22nd to a fixed economy. However, what has been done? The single biggest spending proposal in the history of the nation, throwing more good money after bad, trying to get back bonuses that should never have been allowed in the first place, and MORE troops heading overseas.

The only way to truly fix this country is to get back to making things. Unfortunately, folks expect cheap goods but great wages so the US has priced itself out of the manufacturing game.

A lot has been done, if you agree or not, it a very short period of time. We wont see any affects, if there will be any until late this summer early next fall.

I do agree a great way to fix the economy is through manufacturing. We killed that long ago starting with Reagan, Clinton and the Bush's and their policy's that shipped jobs overseas and encouraged it.

I dont think Bush is the only reason for our current problems. It goes both parties through business executives and the general public.

For example:

Clinton for putting together the policies to allow just about anyone to buy a house no matter their income or financial history.

Barney Frank for ignoring the issues with the Mac's

Yes a democratic congress but an equally ignorant republican one before hand.

Bush - Not a bad guy but he was so clearly no able to do the job. At the end of the day, whether he admits it or not, the buck does in fact stop with him. Too many issues and screw ups happened under his watch and you have to stop pointing the finger as some point.

AIG - AAA rating the CDA's that they did! Why arent people in jail over that?

General public - So you make 30K a year as a household and you bought a 400K house. I dont care what you are paying per month now its simple math ... no???

In short there is blame for everyone on every side.

I am obviously not a political expert nor do I not want to be one. The one point I think WE ALL need to understand is that from a political stand point Democrats and Republicans BOTH have poop on them over this.

[Chadd 916]

In short there is blame for everyone on every side.

I am obviously not a political expert nor do I not want to be one. The one point I think WE ALL need to understand is that from a political stand point Democrats and Republicans BOTH have poop on them over this.

I think that's the part where most people drop the ball. They are always blaming "the other side" instead of admitting that everyone involved shares some culpability.

[hattrick74 0]

i completely agree, thats what has me soo frustrated with the current political format. I am "registered" republican, but i vote/decide on issue by issue. This is how it should work, we shouldnt vote for everything republican or everything democrat and then state that the other side is "all wrong".

one thing that scares me for the next 4 years is that in hindsight, like you said bush was not able to do the job, so how is it any different with Obama who has little no experience? I like alot of what he was saying during the elections, but will he follow through and will he know what to do? (i didnt vote for him BTW)

[GekigangarIII 0]

I'm not normally one to get into this sort of talk but this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

should scare the ever living crap out of anyone, obama supporter or not...

[ponty 0]

i completely agree, thats what has me soo frustrated with the current political format. I am "registered" republican, but i vote/decide on issue by issue. This is how it should work, we shouldnt vote for everything republican or everything democrat and then state that the other side is "all wrong".

one thing that scares me for the next 4 years is that in hindsight, like you said bush was not able to do the job, so how is it any different with Obama who has little no experience? I like alot of what he was saying during the elections, but will he follow through and will he know what to do? (i didnt vote for him BTW)

The kicker for me as far as Obama vs McCain was Palin. If McCain were younger if would have been a tough decision but I just could not get over Palin. That and the first big decision he makes as a candidate was to select her. Combine that with his over reacting and suspending his campaign and the decision was not too hard.

[cptjeff 0]

I'm not normally one to get into this sort of talk but this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

should scare the ever living crap out of anyone, obama supporter or not...

Why should that scare me? The government is giving GM a shit ton of money, don't they have the right to make sure the company has competent management?

In fact, I would support the administration to ask more executives to step down from the various corporations we're bailing out. How does it make sense to just say, "Here's some money, but you don't have to make any management changes to make sure the people who got your companies in this mess won't get in this mess again."

The US government is investing $26 billion in GM. I think they have the right to protect their investment by hiring somebody that they have confidence in.

[GekigangarIII 0]

I'm not normally one to get into this sort of talk but this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

should scare the ever living crap out of anyone, obama supporter or not...

Why should that scare me? The government is giving GM a shit ton of money, don't they have the right to make sure the company has competent management?

In fact, I would support the administration to ask more executives to step down from the various corporations we're bailing out. How does it make sense to just say, "Here's some money, but you don't have to make any management changes to make sure the people who got your companies in this mess won't get in this mess again."

The US government is investing $26 billion in GM. I think they have the right to protect their investment by hiring somebody that they have confidence in.

You're totally right, the government subsidizing a private company with tax payer dollars and then forcing out their ceo in order to appoint someone of their own liking is totally cool. Seriously, bailing out the companies is bad enough (read: should never have been done). The government is essentially buying corporations by doing this. What is stopping the government from controlling markets through taxation or regulation then "bailing out" the "failed" business and forcing out the executives in order to controll the business? All at the expense of the tax payer.

Nobody is going to argue that a business that is run poorly can't ask for a bailout and then expect to NOT have stipulations from the government entity that bails them out. The problem with all of this, is the precedent it sets. Especially when the tax payer has absolutely no say in it, aside from our pathetic congress who forget the desires of their constituents the second their asses land in a chair in washington.

The US government is investing $26 billion in GM. I think they have the right to protect their investment by hiring somebody that they have confidence in.

I think you're mistaken here. YOU/WE invested $26 billion in GM, including the CEO that is getting drummed out in favor of a government sponsored replacement. Except we don't have any say on who gets to run the company.

I do love that you think the US GOVERNMENT can run a company. They can't even handle their own business let alone something that actually has to MAKE money.

[Chadd 916]

So Geki, you want me to look for a place on the island for you too?

[troy 12]

I do love that you think the US GOVERNMENT can run a company. They can't even handle their own business let alone something that actually has to MAKE money.

Milton Friedman once said something to the effect of, "If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara, there'd be a sand shortage in five years." And I do not disagree.

[GekigangarIII 0]

So Geki, you want me to look for a place on the island for you too?

I would much appreciate that bud. ;)

[cptjeff 0]

I'm not normally one to get into this sort of talk but this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

should scare the ever living crap out of anyone, obama supporter or not...

Why should that scare me? The government is giving GM a shit ton of money, don't they have the right to make sure the company has competent management?

In fact, I would support the administration to ask more executives to step down from the various corporations we're bailing out. How does it make sense to just say, "Here's some money, but you don't have to make any management changes to make sure the people who got your companies in this mess won't get in this mess again."

The US government is investing $26 billion in GM. I think they have the right to protect their investment by hiring somebody that they have confidence in.

You're totally right, the government subsidizing a private company with tax payer dollars and then forcing out their ceo in order to appoint someone of their own liking is totally cool. Seriously, bailing out the companies is bad enough (read: should never have been done). The government is essentially buying corporations by doing this. What is stopping the government from controlling markets through taxation or regulation then "bailing out" the "failed" business and forcing out the executives in order to controll the business? All at the expense of the tax payer.

Nobody is going to argue that a business that is run poorly can't ask for a bailout and then expect to NOT have stipulations from the government entity that bails them out. The problem with all of this, is the precedent it sets. Especially when the tax payer has absolutely no say in it, aside from our pathetic congress who forget the desires of their constituents the second their asses land in a chair in washington.

The US government is investing $26 billion in GM. I think they have the right to protect their investment by hiring somebody that they have confidence in.

I think you're mistaken here. YOU/WE invested $26 billion in GM, including the CEO that is getting drummed out in favor of a government sponsored replacement. Except we don't have any say on who gets to run the company.

I do love that you think the US GOVERNMENT can run a company. They can't even handle their own business let alone something that actually has to MAKE money.

You got a better plan? The whole free market thing didn't exactly work out too well.

I don't like bailing out companies personally, especially since I'm young and will be paying for it the rest of my life, but if we are going to bail out companies shouldn't we put somebody in charge who wasn't the one who ran it into the ground in the first place? It's like an airline pilot. Say a guy chrashes a plane into the ground, killing most everybody, and the insurance company (the role the US government is playing now, for better or for worse) says "It's okay, you were responsible for that, but we'll give you a new plane and you can fly that one."

[GekigangarIII 0]

You got a better plan? The whole free market thing didn't exactly work out too well.

I don't like bailing out companies personally, especially since I'm young and will be paying for it the rest of my life, but if we are going to bail out companies shouldn't we put somebody in charge who wasn't the one who ran it into the ground in the first place? It's like an airline pilot. Say a guy chrashes a plane into the ground, killing most everybody, and the insurance company (the role the US government is playing now, for better or for worse) says "It's okay, you were responsible for that, but we'll give you a new plane and you can fly that one."

Haha. Ok... Actually that's a great example. Mainly because the airline company actually pays the insurance company for insurance. When a pilot crashes a plane the insurance company has absolutely no say whether or not the pilot can fly again for that company (that's the company's job). If the airline company deems the pilot worthy of still flying for them it's their own risk, if people stop flying with them and they go under that's their call. The insurance company (gov't in your example) has absolutely no say in the matter one way or the other. The airline company pays the insurance company to protect their assets, not run their business.

Are schools really teaching people that it's the government's job to control all aspects of life or that it should? I have to be honest here, and I don't mean any disrespect, but I find it shocking how many of your liberties you seem willing to forfeit to "government". You understand that this is a republic right?

[Chadd 916]

You got a better plan? The whole free market thing didn't exactly work out too well.

I don't like bailing out companies personally, especially since I'm young and will be paying for it the rest of my life, but if we are going to bail out companies shouldn't we put somebody in charge who wasn't the one who ran it into the ground in the first place? It's like an airline pilot. Say a guy chrashes a plane into the ground, killing most everybody, and the insurance company (the role the US government is playing now, for better or for worse) says "It's okay, you were responsible for that, but we'll give you a new plane and you can fly that one."

Haha. Ok... Actually that's a great example. Mainly because the airline company actually pays the insurance company for insurance. When a pilot crashes a plane the insurance company has absolutely no say whether or not the pilot can fly again for that company (that's the company's job). If the airline company deems the pilot worthy of still flying for them it's their own risk, if people stop flying with them and they go under that's their call. The insurance company (gov't in your example) has absolutely no say in the matter one way or the other. The airline company pays the insurance company to protect their assets, not run their business.

Are schools really teaching people that it's the government's job to control all aspects of life or that it should? I have to be honest here, and I don't mean any disrespect, but I find it shocking how many of your liberties you seem willing to forfeit to "government". You understand that this is a republic right?

You have to realize that this is the generation of helicopter parents doing everything for their kids. Why are you surprised that those parents and kids expect the government to be there to fix everything for them?