"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...


While the separate arguments he makes looks pretty good on their face,
when you put them together it seems a bit like leaving the hen house
unlocked, and handing the keys to the fox. Basically, let the bad oil
companies alone set the price for the raw material they need, as they
see fit? How's that gonna work?

What are you talking about??? The henhouse is *already* unlocked! The
presence of non-industry gamblers in the hedging process is the largest
part of the problem. Are you saying they *belong* in the futures market
because they somehow keep the oil companies honest???
The world according to Doug Kanter, aka JoeSpareBedroom, sure must be a
rigid one. If I have money to invest or speculate on commodities or
futures why should I be limited to specific vehicles?

Your world doesn't sound like a place most of us Americans want to live
in.


It's already that kind of world. Walk into a brokerage firm and tell them
you want to play with uncovered call options. There's a 50/50 chance that
they'll walk you to the door because the regulations are designed to
prevent people from jumping off bridges.

However, if I have enough of a net worth I can play with uncovered call
options.


Anyway...back to the oil subject: Oil is a product too important to be
fiddled with by monkeys. Would you agree that when the price increases by
50%, it affects parts of the economy in negative ways?