Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
yeah futures magazine. that's about the 25th article they wright about how innocent speculators are. wonder why
only blaming the U.S. Government (monetary policy) for rising oil prices is quite frankly too simple. or was the printing machine on full blast till mid 2008 and then shut off all the sudden? didn't think so either.
Why 70, why not benchmark it to 120$? As I see it, if price doesn't stay high, human race will only race ahead to finish off oil quicker than ever. Let the prices go still higher. Living happily ever after doesn't mean cheap petrol.
Speculators do not have a good or bad side. But when the party is over they all rush to the exit at the same time. This is what is called a crowded trade.
As you said before, we need higher oil prices to develop alternative energy supplies. In the end oil will be replaced for various reasons: price, impact on environment, changed demand structure. I have never understood, why you need a vehicle of 2 short tons to move around 1 passenger of 200 pounds. 90% of the energy is used to move the vehicle!
The answer lies within game theory. Let me try to explain.
You need a heavy vehicle, because in case of an accident, the passengers of the light vehicle will suffer from a greater decelaration than the passengers of the heavy vehicle. Also the heavy vehicle will probably have superior stability. This induces everyone to buy a heavy vehicle, which in turn increases the danger for all other vehicles. The additional safety of the large vehicle is immediately consumed, as it is only a transfer of safety from other drivers to the buyer of the heavy vehicle.
Defection in a n-person prisoners dilemma means that you gain an advantage by defecting. Defection - buying a larger vehicle - is a dominant strategy in terms of a Nash equilibrium. However, if everybody drives a heavy car, there is no advantage for anybody. The outcome does not guarantee Pareto-Optimality.
The problem here is that the sanctions for non-cooperative and selfish behavior are insufficient. This game is a repeated prisoner's dilemma, so in the long term cooperative strategies will be superior to defective strategies. However, a social and moral norm - for example appropriate laws - is needed to support the development of cooperation. This in turn is not understood by a lot of stupid politicians - let us call them liberals - who think that market autoregulate towards an equilibrium.
Markets never find the optimal solution - the nervous breakdown of CL today was just another example -, markets cannot be Pareto-Optimal, they need to be tamed. The same applies to the American - and other - people. Let alone they achieve the Nash-Equilibrium, which is not really what we need.
Game theory applied to political science is a fascinating topic Fat Tails. I saw an incredible presentation by Bruce Bueno De Mesquita where his computer program (focused largely on self interest dictating decision making) calculated that Iran would get a nuke but not use it. He wrote a book called "The Logic of Political Survival" that, if anything like his speech, will be great for those who have a mind for game theory.
I wonder how the political representation of a country would come into play under game theory for your idea of highly regulating (Americans need to be informed not "tamed") an aspect of life as important as personal transportation.
In the 70's America made the best "affordable" cars in the world. Then there was year after year of emissions regulation adjustment that literally made them start from scratch. Some people worth listening to know of US politicians, who were heavily invested in Japanese car makers using motorcycle engines at the time, but now they dominate the US market. Mean while, many American made cars in the 90's proved heavier isn't always safer; it's where the car caves in on impact.
In the 2000's Bush offered tax breaks for gas guzzlers and some people worth listening to feel he benefited greatly.
Maybe both examples are a partial result of our dependence of foreign bond buyers and it was an issue of shorter term foreign dependence leading to longer term. Still there are a lot of questions as to how the restrictive "cooperative strategies" would be decided on and to what benefit.
Do you know of a game theory stand out who focuses on investing?
On a side note, maybe it's a matter of different definitions, but how are you or any of us not a speculator?
The problem is... oil is priced in $US. Weak dollar , makes oil more expensive and causes price fluctuations.
Solution:
Price oil in Chinese Yuan.
The Yuan is about $0.15. Initially oil will be very expensive , but as the Yuan is not allowed to fluctuate , the price will remain very stable around $500 a barrel.
The cost to develop alternative fuels will be cheap in comparison.
Of course we will have to get used to coal burning automobiles polluting the air.
Demand for oil will drop forcing OPEC to to pump at maximum capacity trying to force the price down .
The terrorists won't be able to get funding from oil producing countries.
China will let the Yuan float to get the price of oil down and Donald Trump will have to shut up griping about the Chinese.
Now... those slimy speculators don't seem so bad do they...
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"
