Ahh, The Working Poor

[3rdnlng]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/power-unions-average-stagehand-lincoln-center-nyc-makes-290k-year

[Nanker]

Move along now. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

You can't begrudge people a chance to eek out a modest living. It is New York City after all.

Why, Alec Baldwin can't get a cup of coffee in NYC for $6.00.

[3rdnlng]

Move along now. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

You can't begrudge people a chance to eek out a modest living. It is New York City after all.

Why, Alec Baldwin can't get a cup of coffee in NYC for $6.00.

 

I know, I know, but think, they were scheduled to be taxed right along with the other "rich" if an agreement extending the current rates hadn't happened.

[....lybob]

There always seem to be some people who are getting pay they don't deserve

 

 

 

"For 2008, nearly 5,000 bonus payments in excess of $1 million were made at “the largest U.S. banks that accepted Treasury aid,” The Wall Street Journal reported."

My link

[boyst]

Imagine is farmers were in Unions. The country...THE WORLD...would be entirely different and starving. Unions are a joke and maybe once had a point, but only maybe.

[....lybob]

Imagine is farmers were in Unions. The country...THE WORLD...would be entirely different and starving. Unions are a joke and maybe once had a point, but only maybe.

Farm workers are in unions - you never heard of United farm workers?

 

but lets talk about financial speculation in the food markets that actually caused starvation

link instead of your imaginary world where Unions are killing people.

[DC Tom]

Farm workers are in unions - you never heard of United farm workers?

 

but lets talk about financial speculation in the food markets that actually caused starvation

link instead of your imaginary world where Unions are killing people.

 

By taking liberties with the facts and misrepresenting some of the most basic aspects of the commodity futures markets, the author spun a tale that had scant regard for reality.

[...]

Serious inquires into the rise in food prices, such as that conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have concluded that “index funds did not cause a bubble in commodity futures prices.” [irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), “The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing.]

 

The report was prepared for the OECD by Professors Scott Irwin and Dwight Sanders. It represents a preliminary study which aims to clarify the role of index and swap funds in agricultural and energy commodity futures markets.

[...]

While the increased participation of index fund investments in commodity markets represents a significant structural change, this has not generated increased price volatility, implied or realised, in agricultural futures markets. Based on new data and empirical analysis, the study finds that index funds did not cause a bubble in commodity futures prices. There is no statistically significant relationship indicating

that changes in index and swap fund positions have increased market volatility. The evidence presented here is strongest for the agricultural futures markets because the data on index trader positions are measured with reasonable accuracy.

[...]

An unexpected finding was a negative relationship between index and swap fund positions and market volatility. That is, there is some evidence that increases in index trader positions are followed by lower market volatility. [...][T]his finding is contrary to popular notions about the market impact of index funds...

 

The empirical evidence presented in this preliminary study does not appear at present to warrant extensive changes in the regulation of index funds participation in agricultural commodity markets...

 

...the weight of evidence clearly suggests that increased index fund activity in 2006-08 did not cause a bubble in commodity futures prices.

 

[...]

 

The first possible logical inconsistency within the bubble argument is equating money inflows to commodity futures markets with demand. With equally informed market participants, there is no limit to the number of futures contracts that can be created at a given price level. Index fund buying in this situation is no more new demand than the corresponding selling is new supply. Combined with the observation that commodity futures markets are zero-sum games, this implies that money flows in and of themselves do not necessarily impact prices. Prices will only change if new information emerges that causes market participants to revise their estimates of physical supply and/or demand.

 

[...]

 

The second possible logical inconsistency is to argue that index fund investors artificially raised both futures and cash commodity prices when they only participated in futures markets. Futures contracts are financial transactions that only rarely involve the actual delivery of physical commodities. In order to impact the equilibrium price of commodities in the cash market, index investors would have to take delivery and/or buy quantities in the cash market and hold these inventories off the market. Index investors are purely involved in a financial transaction using futures markets; they do not engage in the purchase or hoarding of the cash commodity

 

[...]

 

In addition to the logical inconsistencies, there are several ways the bubble story is not consistent with the observed facts. First, as Krugman (2008) asserts, if a bubble raises the market price of a storable commodity above the true equilibrium price, then stocks of that commodity should increase (much like a government imposed price floor can create a surplus). Stocks were declining, not building, in most

commodity markets over 2006-08, which is inconsistent with the depiction of a price bubble in these markets.

 

[...]

 

Third, theoretical models that show uninformed or noise traders impacting market prices rely on the unpredictable trading patterns of these traders to make arbitrage risky. Because the arbitrage - needed to drive prices to fundamental value - is not riskless, noise traders can drive a wedge between market prices and fundamental values. Importantly, index fund buying is very predictable. That is, index funds widely

publish their portfolio (market) weights and roll-over periods. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that other large and rational traders would hesitate to trade against an index fund if they were driving prices away from fundamental values.

 

Fourth, if index fund buying drove commodity prices higher then markets without index fund investment should not have seen prices advance. Again, the observed facts are inconsistent with this notion. Irwin, Sanders, Merrin (2009) show that markets without index fund participation (fluid milk and rice futures) and commodities without futures markets (apples and edible beans) also showed price increases over the 2006-2008 period. Stoll and Whaley (2009) report that returns for Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) wheat, Kansas City Board of Trade (KCBOT) wheat, and Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX) wheat are all highly positively correlated over 2006-09, yet only CBOT wheat is used heavily by index investors. [...] Headey and Fan (2008) cite the rapid increases in the prices for non-financialized commodities such as rubber, onions, and iron

ore as evidence that rapid price inflation occurred in commodities without futures markets.

 

(Paper at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/59/45534528.pdf.)

 

It is a shame that the plight of these millions appears to merit a cover story in your magazine only when it is exploited as a pretext to launch unsubstantiated attacks against the financial industry. Alleviating food shortages will require hard policy choices to be made based on a serious public discussion of the problem. Your unfounded conspiracy theories only serve to delay this vital debate.

 

Translation: shut the !@#$ up, !@#$.

[whateverdude]

(Jackass switch on) Yo, Lybob got served! (Jackass switch off)

Edited December 27, 2010 by whateverdude

[IDBillzFan]

As much as I despise unions, I won't begrudge them getting everything they can. If anyone is blaming unions for this, they're blaming the wrong people.

[pBills]

As much as I despise unions, I won't begrudge them getting everything they can. If anyone is blaming unions for this, they're blaming the wrong people.

 

 

Everyone that knows me, knows that I am pro-union big time. That being said, YES if people want to B word and complain they are complaining about the wrong people. However, I feel nonsense like that is what is killing the unions. Unions should be about FAIR WAGES, GOOD BENEFITS and JOB SECURITY for hard working men and women. Not raping the company or system, all their doing then is hurting themselves in the long run. Again, for HARD WORKING men and women. Lazy people should be documented and eventually fired just like everyone else.

 

Also, the same people that complain about the unions ought to be complaining about those people who receive ridiculous bonuses because they "need to retain the top talent". Sorry if you were "Top Talent" your company may not be in trouble.

 

 

 

Just my two cents. Happy Holidays Everyone!!

[....lybob]

Better Markets – Review of Irwin and Sanders (2010) – June 30

th

2010

1

Last week, OECD published a report co-authored by University of Illinois

professor Scott Irwin and University of Southern Illinois professor Dwight

Sanders.

1

The study purports to find statistical evidence that speculation played

no role in generating the damaging volatility in food and energy prices during

2008. In fact, it even goes so far as to claim the opposite: speculation by longonly index investors with no understanding of underlying supply and demand

conditions actually helped reduce volatility, by providing liquidity. The study and

its findings can be disregarded for three reasons:

1) The statistical methods applied are completely inappropriate for the data

used.

2) The study is contradicted by the findings of other studies that apply more

appropriate statistical methods to the same data.

3) The overall analysis is superficial and easily refuted by looking at some

basic facts.

link

 

(Jackass switch on) Yo, Lybob got served! (Jackass switch off)

 

I'm pretty sure that switch is stuck in the on position.

[DC Tom]

link

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that switch is stuck in the on position.

 

So you're response is to quote a paper that claims statistical problem yet can't distinguish between "correlation" and "causation", in addition to engaging in many of the dishonest data manipulation practices that pudding-headed morons like yourself routinely fall for.

 

Uhhh...okay.

[....lybob]

So you're response is to quote a paper that claims statistical problem yet can't distinguish between "correlation" and "causation", in addition to engaging in many of the dishonest data manipulation practices that pudding-headed morons like yourself routinely fall for.

 

Uhhh...okay.

Tom your quotes were weak and bringing in anything from Goldman Sachs is like bringing the mob to defend racketeering- lets face it, Union people are the Salt of the earth while the finance industry seems to attract those with low moral character - that starts at the bottom with underlings churning the portfolio's of widows for fee's and boiler room pump and dump schemes to every form of fraud with only regulatory capture saving tens of thousands from RICO charges- Just admit that finance today has gone from symbolic with the productive economy to a sucking parasite that threatens to drag not only America but western civilization down.

[Magox]

link

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that switch is stuck in the on position.

No, and as the kids say, "You Got Pwned"

[DC Tom]

Tom your quotes were weak and bringing in anything from Goldman Sachs is like bringing the mob to defend racketeering- lets face it, Union people are the Salt of the earth while the finance industry seems to attract those with low moral character - that starts at the bottom with underlings churning the portfolio's of widows for fee's and boiler room pump and dump schemes to every form of fraud with only regulatory capture saving tens of thousands from RICO charges- Just admit that finance today has gone from symbolic with the productive economy to a sucking parasite that threatens to drag not only America but western civilization down.

 

The only thing I brought from Goldman Sachs is the third-party study they quoted that says you're wrong. The only reason I brought GS into it is because the dumbass article you linked quoted them as misrepresenting the study. The quotes were weak only because...okay, actually they weren't. They were backed up by other independent studies. The weakest one of them was Krugman's analysis (simply because quoting Krugman on the issue is asinine - he's literally taken both sides of the argument.)

 

But you linked the original article that misrepresented GS's response and completely ignored the study that was the basis of the response. You then ignored it as well, and responded with an axe-grinding study that was intellectually dishonest and ignorant and amounted to nothing more than "Boo! Scary squiggly line! Deregulation bad! Boo!" Hell, that last link didn't even try to show that futures trading drove up prices - it tried to show that deregulation drove up prices, and presumed that was through futures trading. It also tracked OIL prices and futures, not food. It also ignored the weakening dollar over that same time-span - i.e., that link tracked oil prices relative to American purchasing power.

 

So in short, your original link misrepresented somebody talking about a study about the links (or lack thereof) between food prices and futures trading that you tried to disprove with a paper that claimed statistical mistakes while making egregious statistical errors itself in talking about OIL prices and deregulation while not considering any other factors.

 

 

Or, in shorter...you hate the financial industry, but you can't even begin to justify it in any rational sense. And that's okay, really. Just stop pretending you're being an adult about it.

[boyst]

Farm workers are in unions - you never heard of United farm workers?

Farm workers are not farmers.

 

Farm workers do not work for farmers, they work for corporations, as in Dole, etc. Yes, the farmer pays them and you're confused reading that but farmers make squat and are controlled by the corp entities they sell to and thus are powerless. When a local chicken farmer wanted to weigh the trucks Perdue sent he was told if he does so he will be in breach of contract. The farmer had calculated the weight of what was loaded several times and found he was schatt on by Perdue who would undercut weights. For those that do not know Perdue, and other companies will lease chickens, cows, and other animals to farms and regulate the farms practices. The company will then recover the animals and pay for lbs. on the animal.

 

In agricultural crops Monsanto owns the patent for seeds that farmers are given. Their market share is a monopoly and ever expanding. It is legal because Monsanto patented the genome that gives them Roundup ready seeds. If a farmer on one side of the street uses Monsanto products and his products pollinate the other side of the street those seeds then become a product of Monsanto and must be given back to the company. No longer does a farmer keep the seeds he uses to plant, he leases them in a contract. If he does not return them he is sued for house and farm and left broke. For a lamens discussion on both instances above look at the movie Food, Inc.

 

If there was a union for those workers then farmers would be getting what they are actually deserved in lbs.-age, would be able to leverage to protect their rights, would be able stand up to companies to get increased cash flow. It is capitalization, and I am for that, the free market entity, and that is how the world should be. UPS truck loaders should not be making $10.50 an hour to load boxes, grocery baggers should not make $3 above minimum wage, basically, no entry level position should pay as much as Unions force companies to pay.

 

But, if you support Unions then you would be ok with farmers unionizing. Say good bye to Walmart and supermarket prices for your food, because I am a farmer and I would pwn your ass. No more $1.99/lbs. for your ground beef, you have to pay what I charge for my product, ($4.95/lbs). Walmart would charge as much as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. Also, you would see substantial changes in the quality of your farm products, because the practices being done today are strictly to reduce costs. Then again, I do not know why anyone wouldn't want their veggies washed with a bleach or iodine solution, their meat derived from process fed animals, and loads of chemicals to prolong shelf life.

 

You may think what I say is opinion, but I am a professional and is the truth. I may not have a degree in farming, I may not make much, but this is nothing but the stone cold truth.

[....lybob]

Farm workers are not farmers.

 

Farm workers do not work for farmers, they work for corporations, as in Dole, etc. Yes, the farmer pays them and you're confused reading that but farmers make squat and are controlled by the corp entities they sell to and thus are powerless. When a local chicken farmer wanted to weigh the trucks Perdue sent he was told if he does so he will be in breach of contract. The farmer had calculated the weight of what was loaded several times and found he was schatt on by Perdue who would undercut weights. For those that do not know Perdue, and other companies will lease chickens, cows, and other animals to farms and regulate the farms practices. The company will then recover the animals and pay for lbs. on the animal.

 

In agricultural crops Monsanto owns the patent for seeds that farmers are given. Their market share is a monopoly and ever expanding. It is legal because Monsanto patented the genome that gives them Roundup ready seeds. If a farmer on one side of the street uses Monsanto products and his products pollinate the other side of the street those seeds then become a product of Monsanto and must be given back to the company. No longer does a farmer keep the seeds he uses to plant, he leases them in a contract. If he does not return them he is sued for house and farm and left broke. For a lamens discussion on both instances above look at the movie Food, Inc.

 

If there was a union for those workers then farmers would be getting what they are actually deserved in lbs.-age, would be able to leverage to protect their rights, would be able stand up to companies to get increased cash flow. It is capitalization, and I am for that, the free market entity, and that is how the world should be. UPS truck loaders should not be making $10.50 an hour to load boxes, grocery baggers should not make $3 above minimum wage, basically, no entry level position should pay as much as Unions force companies to pay.

 

But, if you support Unions then you would be ok with farmers unionizing. Say good bye to Walmart and supermarket prices for your food, because I am a farmer and I would pwn your ass. No more $1.99/lbs. for your ground beef, you have to pay what I charge for my product, ($4.95/lbs). Walmart would charge as much as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. Also, you would see substantial changes in the quality of your farm products, because the practices being done today are strictly to reduce costs. Then again, I do not know why anyone wouldn't want their veggies washed with a bleach or iodine solution, their meat derived from process fed animals, and loads of chemicals to prolong shelf life.

 

You may think what I say is opinion, but I am a professional and is the truth. I may not have a degree in farming, I may not make much, but this is nothing but the stone cold truth.

 

I'd be fine with farmers joining cooperatives in fact I encourage it- farmers joining Unions is nonsensical like saying what if McDonald franchise owners unionized which is why I brought up farm workers giving you the benefit of the doubt - buy locally MmmK

[boyst]

I'd be fine with farmers joining cooperatives in fact I encourage it- farmers joining Unions is nonsensical like saying what if McDonald franchise owners unionized which is why I brought up farm workers giving you the benefit of the doubt - buy locally MmmK

I do not disagree that products should be bought locally to support local farmers but the simple fact is many people cannot afford it. For whatever reason it has become cheaper for Tyson to have a house in Tennessee, have it sent to VA, have it shipped to a Food lion then it has become to have a local farmer bring you his fresh chicken. Our Walmart beef comes from New Jersey, 10 hours away. It beats my costs by far, and I cannot compete. If I did I would lose money hand over fist. The only reason beef is so cheap is because many farmers have not realized they make a tiny bit of money taking their cattle to stockyards to be sold to feedlots.

 

I barely make a profit selling my ground beef for $4.95/#. That local farmers are still taking their cattle to Siler City, Mt Airy, or Turnersburg is insane. They are paid $.70/# and the cattle are generally shipped out west somewhere to sit in a feed lot until they are finished out.

[....lybob]

The only thing I brought from Goldman Sachs is the third-party study they quoted that says you're wrong. The only reason I brought GS into it is because the dumbass article you linked quoted them as misrepresenting the study. The quotes were weak only because...okay, actually they weren't. They were backed up by other independent studies. The weakest one of them was Krugman's analysis (simply because quoting Krugman on the issue is asinine - he's literally taken both sides of the argument.)

 

But you linked the original article that misrepresented GS's response and completely ignored the study that was the basis of the response. You then ignored it as well, and responded with an axe-grinding study that was intellectually dishonest and ignorant and amounted to nothing more than "Boo! Scary squiggly line! Deregulation bad! Boo!" Hell, that last link didn't even try to show that futures trading drove up prices - it tried to show that deregulation drove up prices, and presumed that was through futures trading. It also tracked OIL prices and futures, not food. It also ignored the weakening dollar over that same time-span - i.e., that link tracked oil prices relative to American purchasing power.

 

So in short, your original link misrepresented somebody talking about a study about the links (or lack thereof) between food prices and futures trading that you tried to disprove with a paper that claimed statistical mistakes while making egregious statistical errors itself in talking about OIL prices and deregulation while not considering any other factors.

 

 

Or, in shorter...you hate the financial industry, but you can't even begin to justify it in any rational sense. And that's okay, really. Just stop pretending you're being an adult about it.

"Williams said there was a time when analysts could look at an indicator such as the number of days that petroleum supplies would meet demand and have a good idea where prices would go. But he said that with the rise of futures trading, which more than tripled leading up to the 2008 energy price surge, that’s no longer the case.

 

Williams can’t say just how much the futures trading alone is pushing up prices. But he estimates that based just on supply and demand, oil prices would be about $20 a barrel lower than they are now. That would amount to $400 million in daily savings on petroleum products in the U.S., and gasoline prices that would be lower by roughly 40 cents a gallon.

 

“It’s absolutely right that in the absence of the index funds that fuel prices would be lower,” he said.

 

Concerns about the 2008 run-up in energy prices, and the role the big firms’ futures trading played in it, were reflected in the financial market reform legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year. One provision gave the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the ability to regulate the big firms’ commodity futures trading — something energy users such as the airlines favored.

 

But the proposed trading regulations have been opposed by investment banks, by trade groups representing them and by the CME Group, which owns the New York Mercantile Exchange, where commodity futures are traded."

 

Tom you and Magox continue to be apologists and shills for fraudulent financial fascists and crony capitalist criminals. btw Union people are the finest people on earth and deserve every penny they get not only for their hard productive work but also for their fine character traits.

[DC Tom]

"Williams said there was a time when analysts could look at an indicator such as the number of days that petroleum supplies would meet demand and have a good idea where prices would go. But he said that with the rise of futures trading, which more than tripled leading up to the 2008 energy price surge, that’s no longer the case.

 

Williams can’t say just how much the futures trading alone is pushing up prices. But he estimates that based just on supply and demand, oil prices would be about $20 a barrel lower than they are now. That would amount to $400 million in daily savings on petroleum products in the U.S., and gasoline prices that would be lower by roughly 40 cents a gallon.

 

“It’s absolutely right that in the absence of the index funds that fuel prices would be lower,” he said.

 

Concerns about the 2008 run-up in energy prices, and the role the big firms’ futures trading played in it, were reflected in the financial market reform legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year. One provision gave the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the ability to regulate the big firms’ commodity futures trading — something energy users such as the airlines favored.

 

But the proposed trading regulations have been opposed by investment banks, by trade groups representing them and by the CME Group, which owns the New York Mercantile Exchange, where commodity futures are traded."

 

Tom you and Magox continue to be apologists and shills for fraudulent financial fascists and crony capitalist criminals. btw Union people are the finest people on earth and deserve every penny they get not only for their hard productive work but also for their fine character traits.

 

So now you're proving your point by quoting someone who admits he can't prove his own position, and follow it up by stating that effect precedes cause? Nice work.