Ahh, The Working Poor

[....lybob]

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.

Tom I can't tell in exact quantities how much untreated Syphilis has contributed to your mental deterioration as compared to Sterno drinking and a sclerotic carotid artery but I can be sure they all have had their effect on making you an idiot.

[DC Tom]

Tom I can't tell in exact quantities how much untreated Syphilis has contributed to your mental deterioration as compared to Sterno drinking and a sclerotic carotid artery but I can be sure they all have had their effect on making you an idiot.

 

Nothing cements one's position in an argument like a timely, well-crafted insult. Too bad that wasn't one.

 

But to get back to the topic at hand (because I just never get tired of proving the ignorant ignorant), do you have anything outside of moral outrage to base your position on? You know, like a fact, or something that might bear a passing resemblance to a fact, or a vague notion that may once have been in close proximity to something vaguely fact-like, before said vaguely fact-like thing was chased away, screaming in terror, by some misguided youtube editorial that somehow manages to be even more ignorant than you are?

 

Or, failing that, when you steal other people's opinions, can you at least try to steal coherent and defensible ones? Start by avoiding anything that resembles "I can prove there's an effect, even though I can't prove it."

[....lybob]

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.

It's incredibly hard to compete with industrial farming- pigs, cattle, chickens- part of the reason is the unequal enforcement of regulations, often the little guy gets crushed while the big guys get around or weasels out - I know you have to adapt, at one time my Moms relatives were mostly dairy farmers and now they are mainly in fruits with lots of miniature fruit trees, grapes, melons, and Strawberries. Some of my relatives couldn't maintain themselves with just farming, I don't think any of them have sold their farms but a couple of cousins do more decorative iron work and gunsmithing than farming.

[KD in CA]

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

 

 

 

Riiiiight. Way to excuse and thereby condone the ongoing union graft in this country using the convenient "Waaaahhh.....Wall Street Bad!!!" red herring.

[....lybob]

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 false information emerges that causes market participants to revise their estimates of physical supply and/or demand.- Goldman Sachs and others both hyped up the market by paying for papers hyping commodities as a new investment asset and exaggerating the rate of decline and overall importance of the Cantarell Oil field in Mexico, and civil war concerns in Colombia and Sudan- nice to have an unlimited PR machine

 

[...]

 

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 not true both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had both extensive storage facilities on land and sea(The oil-storage trade is a trading strategy where oil tank owners and companies that lease storage buy oil for immediate delivery and hold it in their storage tanks, then sell contracts for future delivery at a higher price. When delivery dates approach, they close out existing contracts and sell new ones for future delivery of the same oil. The oil never moves out of storage. Trading in this fashion is only successful if the forward market is in "contango", that is if the price of oil in the future also known as forward prices are higher than current prices or spot prices. Storing oil became big business in 2008 and 2009 [1], with many participants - including Wall Street giants such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs or Citicorp - turning sizeable profits simply by sitting on tanks of oil.[2]

It has been estimated that one in twelve of the largest oil tankers are being used for the storage, rather than transportation of oil,[3] and that if lined up end to end, the tankers would stretch out for 26 miles)

 

again your quotes are weak sauce

[pBills]

Riiiiight. Way to excuse and thereby condone the ongoing union graft in this country using the convenient "Waaaahhh.....Wall Street Bad!!!" red herring.

 

 

Acting as though Wall Street is full of angels is ridiculous. Just keep avoiding the fact that the "Top Talent" that is over paid is not worth two cents.

[DC Tom]

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 false information emerges that causes market participants to revise their estimates of physical supply and/or demand.- Goldman Sachs and others both hyped up the market by paying for papers hyping commodities as a new investment asset and exaggerating the rate of decline and overall importance of the Cantarell Oil field in Mexico, and civil war concerns in Colombia and Sudan- nice to have an unlimited PR machine

 

[...]

 

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 not true both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had both extensive storage facilities on land and sea(The oil-storage trade is a trading strategy where oil tank owners and companies that lease storage buy oil for immediate delivery and hold it in their storage tanks, then sell contracts for future delivery at a higher price. When delivery dates approach, they close out existing contracts and sell new ones for future delivery of the same oil. The oil never moves out of storage. Trading in this fashion is only successful if the forward market is in "contango", that is if the price of oil in the future also known as forward prices are higher than current prices or spot prices. Storing oil became big business in 2008 and 2009 [1], with many participants - including Wall Street giants such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs or Citicorp - turning sizeable profits simply by sitting on tanks of oil.[2]

It has been estimated that one in twelve of the largest oil tankers are being used for the storage, rather than transportation of oil,[3] and that if lined up end to end, the tankers would stretch out for 26 miles)

 

again your quotes are weak sauce

 

So you're now arguing that it wasn't futures trading, but the buying of oil directly coupled with a propaganda campaign against the oil markets...that caused a food shortage?

 

What, they were storing wheat in the oil tanks?

[whateverdude]

- buy locally MmmK

.....and what am I going to buy locally this time of the year to eat, snow and Icicles? Please don't tell me to can.

[....lybob]

.....and what am I going to buy locally this time of the year to eat, snow and Icicles? Please don't tell me to can.

No freezer? how about a Walipini?

[Magox]

It's very simple; When a person is incapable of seeing things outside of the narrow prism that he suscribes to, he by default is unable to use proper reasoning.

[....lybob]

It's very simple; When a person is incapable of seeing things outside of the narrow prism that he suscribes to, he by default is unable to use proper reasoning.

yeah but don't beat yourself up too much about it, I'm sure someday you'll break free of your free-market dogma.

Edited December 28, 2010 by ....lybob

[birdog1960]

too bad this thread isn't really about the vast group that constitutes the american working poor...just another straw man to take attention away from a serious problem. do any of you really believe that markets aren't commonly manipulated? anybody remember the hunt brothers? ya think that was an isolated incident?

[Magox]

yeah but don't beat yourself up too much about it, I'm sure someday you'll break free of your free-market dogma.

Sorry billybob, I'm not beholden to one philosophy, you on the other hand.....

[IDBillzFan]

Acting as though Wall Street is full of angels is ridiculous. Just keep avoiding the fact that the "Top Talent" that is over paid is not worth two cents.

That wasn't his point, but great job putting a fresh coat of crimson on the fish.

[Magox]

too bad this thread isn't really about the vast group that constitutes the american working poor...just another straw man to take attention away from a serious problem. do any of you really believe that markets aren't commonly manipulated? anybody remember the hunt brothers? ya think that was an isolated incident?

I already proved you wrong when you were bringing up the issue about BP, Oil and pricing, remember?

 

So please, don't pretend that you have any clue in what you are talking about regarding this topic, ok?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Magox

[birdog1960]

I already proved you wrong when you were bringing up the issue about BP, Oil and pricing, remember?

yeah, i remember how badly you felt for haliburton after their stock dropped a couple of percent after being implicated in the bp spill. have you looked what it's done recently? not really very severely punished...up significantly since then. and do you deny that silver prices were successfully manipulated for a protracted period of time by a few investors?

Edited December 28, 2010 by birdog1960

[Nanker]

Chew on this.

he trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

 

But the jobs are going elsewhere.

[Magox]

yeah, i remember how badly you felt for haliburton after their stock dropped a couple of percent after being implicated in the bp spill. have you looked what it's done recently? not really very severely punished...up significantly since then. and do you deny that silver prices were successfully manipulated for a protracted period of time by a few investors?

How badly I felt? Yeah, you're a putz. I didn't feel "badly" about it, go back and specifically show me anything that resembled your characterization of how "badly" I felt about it.

 

Do it!

 

What I did do, is that I corrected your statement through facts and reason. Now go back with your preconceived ignorant views and spew it somewhere else.

[....lybob]

Chew on this.

he trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

 

But the jobs are going elsewhere.

Which is why I'd have a limit that a company would have to have at least 75% American workers to keep it's ability to participate in the American political process- letting a multinational company who has no vested interest in what's best for America have a say in the political process is no different than letting a foreign government participate in the political process.

[birdog1960]

How badly I felt? Yeah, you're a putz. I didn't feel "badly" about it, go back and specifically show me anything that resembled your characterization of how "badly" I felt about it.

 

Do it!

 

What I did do, is that I corrected your statement through facts and reason. Now go back with your preconceived ignorant views and spew it somewhere else.

you used their short term loss and converted it to more dramatic dollar figures in an effort to show how the market punished them for the bad news as would be reasonably expected...except that it was very short lived. but what of silver? does that not fit into your facts and reason?