Re: alternative sources, I’d be more concerned that as consumers look for substitutes they’d be more likely to go toward increased consumption of a cheaper yet more environmentally destructive fuel such as coal rather than more green alternative sources.
There are not a lot of big inventories of actual oil, which is a hallmark of a speculative bubble. Morris should stick to sucking the toes of hookers, he’s a disgusting phony piece of $h!t
Rydex Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That must have came right from econ 101 > textbook… haha …yeah … still in exam mode . Anyway this was on bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aOoYOT0Y6WsE&refer=energy Just hoping that OPEC and the Saudis keep to their word
I’m with the guy who says that margin limits were never 50% on futures contracts. Dick Morris is a political analyst, what the f does this guy know about finance? A google search for oil dick morris margin comes up with this thread and the rest are referring to election margins. So you should have noted where you heard that. If anything, he could have noted that Glass-Steagall prevented banks from being investment banks until 1999. He could also have noted that the price of oil, even in late 2002 or early 2003, wasn’t that high compared to where it was in 1999. I wonder what changed in early 2003? So if you were a betting man, you could argue that not much changed in '99 and a lot changed when the Iraq war happened that would give people a lot of reason to bet that the price of oil would go up.
jmh, if you were a better research analyst, you would have noted that I already clarified to Joey–IN THIS THREAD–that Morris never said margins were ever 50 percent on oil. As I already clarified in this thread, Morris stated that oil–versus other investment securities–can be traded on 5 percent margin. The original post should not be–and was not intended to be–interpreted as saying that 1999 saw the end of a regulation which had anything to do with margin. It was an in-addition-to statement.
kkent, if you were better at reading you would note that I say I’m with the guy who said the margin limits were never 50%. In my last paragraph, the he I was referring to was Morris.
aks2010: can you name an alternative source of energy that has the same energetic content per volume as gas (extractable in normal, everyday environment), is as easily transportable and storable, and is as cheap? Several hundred of years down the road, we will call the 20th century “the golden age of cheap energy” and we won’t be able to believer we just plain *burned* the stuff. I still think we don’t fully appreciate what a precious commodity oil is.
Saw an article in the most recent USNews that was about Toyota and its brilliance as a company. At the end, it basically said that hydrogen is the wave of the future as most major auto manufacturers have bet long-term on hydrogen.
kkent: I am a sceptical about these alternate sources of energy. We might have a situation here where neither electrical cars, nor ethanol, nor hydrogen will ever come even close to the convenience of oil as a portable, storeable, efficient and cheap energy source. As with all science/engineering, we just don’t know if we are ten or two hundred years away from a workable replacement. The fact that we all *want* that replacement to be found has no bearing on the fact it might not be easy or even possible. Similar to looking for a flu vaccine. Enough people are looking, and there is *much* money to be made there but the problem itself is not easy. I certainly hope I am wrong. I also do realize my point of view is not helpful or does not give people warm fuzzies but that’s the way I see it now. Buy oil, they ain’t making more of it.
FourCastles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > aks2010: can you name an alternative source of > energy that has the same energetic content per > volume as gas (extractable in normal, everyday > environment), is as easily transportable and > storable, and is as cheap? > yeah u r right …nothing is as cheap or as storable and as easily transportable…it was more wishful thinking…The battery in my calculator has not been changed for the last 5 years even after a lot of use. Wish I could put it in my bike and run it
I hear ya, FourCastles. I do know, however, that the oil companies have blocked decades of advancement in alternative energy sources. My father was positive that the hydrogen fuel cell was the wave of the future in the late 1950s. He bought stock in a company working to develop hydrogen. His stock became worthless when an oil company bought a controling share of the company and shut it down. My dad told me about this in the 1990s and died well before the oil crunch of the last several years. In fact, I believe his anecdote was self-depricating in nature (e.g. yeah, I was an idiot for thinking hydrogen was the wave of the future–look at gas prices: $1 a gallon!).
While not actually about oil prices, the first paragraph of this article asserts that oil price movements recently have had little to do with supply and demand by demonstrating the correlation between the weak U.S. Dollar and the movement of crude oil prices. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article4144100.ece “Why does anyone still think that the US economy is in recession? A week ago, this belief acquired a host of new adherents when Jean-Claude Trichet, the European Central Bank President, more or less promised to raise eurozone interest rates on July 3, while US statisticians reported a jump in the unemployment rate from 5 to 5.5 per cent. Financial markets duly bid up the euro and dumped the dollar. This currency move triggered the biggest one-day leap in oil prices on record. This price surge, in turn, confirmed that recent movements in the oil price, which have had a 97percent daily correlation with the dollar-euro exchange rate, have been driven almost entirely by financial players and have had very little to do with energy supply and demand.” Compelling.
S&P 500 would be at 800 if we required 50% margin. So what is your point? Regulation brings down pricing BUT ALSO EFFICIENCY of any market. It does not mean that this price that has been “speculated” is any less correct. Remember there are two sides to the trade. And someone bought it this supposed “overvalued” price.
buddha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > S&P 500 would be at 800 if we required 50% > margin. > > So what is your point? Regulation brings down > pricing BUT ALSO EFFICIENCY of any market. It > does not mean that this price that has been > “speculated” is any less correct. > > Remember there are two sides to the trade. And > someone bought it this supposed “overvalued” > price. You’re assuming that the benefit of “efficiency” is outweighed by the cost of “efficiency”. If the last 11 years has shown us anything it’s that deregulated “efficient” markets do nothing but lead from one self destructive bubble to another in an increasing amplitude and area of effect of destruction. Efficient markets are only efficient when they price in all information, are unbiased about that information’s uses, and can rationally determine a price. In otherwords, efficient markets are impossible when it comes to human implementation. I think the biggest downfall of finance professionals is that they think that models, “efficiency”, and capitalistic driven supply/demand, trump all other motivations of humans to the detriment of the rest of humanity. In otherwords, they practice the highest amount of hubris possible, the idea that whatever they create is infallable. As I said, the last 11 years has shown that to be anything but true.
buddha, two or more people also agreed to buy and sell real estate that was widely out of whack with reality. Two or more people also agreed to buy and sell tech stocks that were widely out of whack with reality.