"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's
absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation, because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation, because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks) doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up, and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect it
from the industry.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks) doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up, and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect it
from the industry.

You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the
games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks)
doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up,
and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to
buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect
it
from the industry.

You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

No buck is clean.

As far as the millions of Americans you mentioned, just over half of them
are stupid, according to some inarguably accurate surveys done since 2002.
Their thoughts about investments are irrelevent.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:09:54 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Nov 11, 12:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Nov 10, 9:49 pm, " JimH" ask wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.

And the highest gasoline prices were under the leadership of Carter.

And your point is?

Just another data point with which to bury Republicans next year.

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Why would gasoline prices be different today if a Democrat were in
office?

Well I'm not worried about it. Pres. Hillary Obama will get it right
back down to a "buck forty-nine" in just six months, and will have
exec. reps on a rope just like a stringer fll of blue gills.

Nobody will get the price down until we eliminate oil speculation by
investors who have absolutely no connection with the oil business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But I also don't know if China having more drivers on their roads int
he past two years than the precious 20 might have to do anything with
it or not.

Plus most of their electricity is supplied by oil instead of coal.


hmmmm.

And we've got an extra 12 million or more automobiles running around the
US.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:31:44 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:00:32 -0500, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask
wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in
gasoline prices.
That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various
ways.

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of
them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.

Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working
majority.

Nice try but no cigar for you.

I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had
"control" of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...


There is already a socialized medicine program whose existence you
approve of, and might even admire. If I told you that I had the power
to end this program and that I intended to do so, you'd say nasty
things about me.

Guess what this program is.


And when the Dems gain control, all will be sweetness and light. Ha!

You of course are familiar with the saying "lesser of two evils."
You'd prefer the more evil was left in charge?

Dems, while not effective, are at least focused on more positive
outcomes. The Republicans will bankrupt us with bullets tax cuts and
the Dems with social programs.

At least the social programs benefit someone of than arms
manufacturers and oil companies.

Which do you prefer?

jps

A political troll got you out, huh?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:20:45 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:24:35 -0000,
wrote:

On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.
That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various ways.

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.

Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working majority.

Nice try but no cigar for you.

I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had "control" of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...

Wow, your head is further planted than previously estimated. How the
hell did you get it up that far?

I suppose you prefer the facsist method of delivering health care,
where corporate profits eclipse your fellow citizen's health and
well-being?

Yes, I bet you do.

jps

Didn't take you long to start with the personal attack, did it? Let's see
where this leads.