And I assume you are talking about the clean money you make invested in stocks or real estate? The government rigs those games just as much. Interest rates are doing what right now? Forcing people into real or stocks to have a hope of getting a return. Fixed incomers get screwed. They are debasing our money supply out from under savers and conservative investors. Look at where your retirement investments have to be put to work by legislation. You don't have a choice in this country. Clean money??? I haven't been in stocks in a couple years now because of the created bubble, and what does the government do, buys me into a healthy stake of crappy failing companies and a portfolio of bad home loans with my tax money and future debts. Give me a break. If you call the money made and lost in energy dirty, and you won't participate, there is no way to justify making money in the government manipulated markets you somehow see as clean. You're out of business. Don't give me some crap about for the greater good the government has to... It's all manipulated. You just have to try to be honest with yourself. JIM
I thought the 60 Minutes argument was weak and inconclusive, but 60 Minutes ceased to be a serious program years, maybe decades, ago. Basically, they said prices went up and tried to establish a correlation between that and increased spec activity. Even that was flawed, as COT data show commercials far overshadowing specs. They never answered the basic question of what happened to all the oil that long-side specs were cornering. They never addressed the risk premium issue, the china Olympics issue, the fact that every other commodity also went vertical or the dollar weakness. That said, I find it awfully coincidental that prices collapsed as soon as congress got involved.
You have drawn a number of incorrect conclusions regarding my earlier post that I don't even know where to begin. Read what I wrote. I'm not necessarily blaming the traders who hitched a ride and potentially exacerbated (either knowingly or unknowingly) an underlying manipulation. I refer to the apparently willful and considerable manipulation that got the snowball rolling so fast and hard in the first place. I would be hard pressed to condone or defend that sort of conduct. But maybe that's just me.
If by clean money you are referencing the carbon emissions of oil, then you must realize that the fad of environmentalism and cleaner fuels falters in a price decline such as the one that the oil markets have experienced. According to current cost structures, $60-$70 / barrel seems to be the break-even of cleaner products. Secondly, if it is your contention that hindering motorists' and others' use of this fossil fuel is unclean in some sort of karmic or moralistic sense, then consider the alleged effects of their burning of those emissions and how only in a higher-priced environment would those vastly unconscienable consumers you sympathize for actually change their behavior. Lastly, I fail to see any evidence of the "egregious manipulation" that you and so many others point to as it seems to be more of a biased disfavor of price excursions that are not best for your wallet. Nevermind that a higher price of crude could have some effect in enabling cleaner alternative energy or even discouraging "dirty energy." Regarding your unease with the idea that Morgan Stanley is a participant in energy exploration, production, and distribution via their investment in TransMontaigne, I also have some comments. Would you prefer that they were bought out by another energy company that would exert more control of the market through their sheer market share? I believe that Kinder Morgan was going to try to buy TransMontaigne, but Morgan Stanley was willing to pay more for them. Why? Of course, they are motivated by the potential for profit. As members of a nation that embraces the free market system (at least it did at one point), we choose to allocate resources to the highest bidder because such participants are motivated py profit to do the most with those resources since they paid the most for them! Some of the "fringe benefits" of our society are the freedoms of speech, assembly, life and liberty. Would it be preferable for the government to oversee the exploration, production, and distribution of the world's most precious resources? If so, there are plenty of nations in the Middle East whose market mechanisms you may prefer. Call me crazy, but I prefer the American way of life.
Not that I am an expert on anything, but I do not find it coincidental at all: Congress is always the last to deal with any sort of issue and is to their credit and fault generally backward looking in always asking themselves the same question: How can we prevent this from happening again?.. like a dog chasing it's tail! If Congress were to exert any control over the energy markets whatsoever, the likely consequence would probably be an increase in the price of oil rather than a decrease as it would discourage participants in the market from allocating their resources towards more production.
Congrats, you now have a piece of prime real estate on my Island of ET Idiots((C) 2009). Uh, how about the 100's of billions that were confiscated by the scammers through the PUMPs located at every street corner. Dude, you are part of the problem, get out of my sight.
Those "people" have consistently voted for policies that created the vulnerability to high prices. I'm not clear on why there should be a great deal of sympathy for people who kept maximizing for the short term without paying attention to the long term.