% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

GameStop Corp. Message Board

  • pschkqitzsough pschkqitzsough Jul 16, 2008 5:03 PM Flag

    Oil Speculation Bill

    The debate over whether or not speculation in the markets is a significant factor of rising oil prices is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Of course it does, which is evident simply by the incredible volatility of oil prices while supply and demand is nowhere near that volatile. In fact, there are laws in place that say it is legal for large investment banks (and the common investor, but that is really only a factor when considering the large number of them) to influence the price of commodities through investment. Obviously, this means speculation CAN move oil prices, and so the debate is more about how significant it is relative to supply/demand etc.

    Given speculation is causing a significant amount of the rise in oil prices, this bill could really slam the oil market.

    I'm no expert on this stuff, what do you guys think?

    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A group of Democratic senators said Wednesday they had introduced a bill targeting speculation in oil markets. Among other measures, it would require the U.S. futures regulator to allow only those companies that buy or produce petroleum to be considered legitimate hedgers, a distinction that could cut into the ability of large investment banks to use exchange-traded futures to offset swaps with financial investors such as pension funds. The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, introduced late Tuesday by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., would also give the Commodities Futures Trading Commission more resources and authority to demand data from large traders. Reid, speaking from the floor of the U.S. Senate, said he had spoken to UAL Corp. (UAUA:
    ual corp com new
    News, chart, profile, more
    Last: 4.43+1.30+41.53%
    4:00pm 07/16/2008
    Delayed quote data
    Add to portfolio
    Create alert
    Sponsored by:
    UAUA 4.43, +1.30, +41.5%) CEO Glenn Tilton several times about the need for such changes. On July 15, 2008, Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Dorgan, and Murray introduced S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. This legislation, developed after consultation with consumer advocates, oil market analysts, and experts from the financial and airline industries, seeks to reduce the amount of excessive speculation in the oil markets. Specifically, the legislation would increase the resources and authority needed by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to detect, prevent, and punish price manipulation and excessive speculation and give the CFTC emergency authority needed to rapidly implement the legislation. S. 3268 would also strengthen the amount and quality of information available to the CFTC so that the Commission can better regulate all aspects of the energy futures markets. In addition, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 would provide better transparency in the trading of energy derivatives by closing the "London Loophole" so that oil traders using a foreign exchange cannot manipulate the price of oil in the United States. Finally, the legislation would require the CFTC to implement position limits to restrict excessive speculation that would still allow for reasonable trading for price discovery, liquidity, and legitimate hedging purposes. End of Story

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 80% of my posts lately are about oil because since 5/19 oil is one of the mainthings that has moved GME. NPD reported a 53% increase yoy of sales and GME dropped 5% today because oil went up $2.00. Failure to understand that is good way to lose money.I would hope longs in GME are still buying puts for protection or selling calls As far as the last word. I will diuscuss something usally as long as someone else want to discuss it. If that means I usally get the last word because others fade away then so be it. Just the way the die rolls.

    • no I think the present system is better than famine. What part of that do you think is wrong. Would you rather have famines? It is not perfect but it works. It does it job. Don't fix things that aren't broken. Now if we were having massive famines, little food production, sky high prices for the food etc then I would be all for changing it. We have enough problems at the present to not mess with things that are working quasi sucessful. maybe 10-20 years from now we can look at farm subsidies.

    • Yeap those native americians were all just sitting around the fire singing before the Americians/"white eurpoeans" showed up. Forget for a moment the spainards, the british, the french, and the russians. Forget all that and tell me how the Iroquois
      nation was formed, or the Aztec nation, or the Inca nation. Tell me of the beaver wars, the wars of conquest in Mexico. tell me how the nomad tribes use to raid each other, tell me of counting coup. Tell me of wars over land, resources, yes women. In short the Native AMericians were the same as any human population with their good societies and those that prayed on the weak. Those are not lies or opionions those are facts.

      Now study some history and tell me of the great expension of ther british, french and spanish empires of the 1700 and 1800's of the wars between these empires that lasted until 1945. Tell me of their leaders that never ever took advantage of native populations.

      As far as islam goes tell me how it rode out of the dessert in the early 600's and went to conquer the sourrounding lands by the sword, and pushed all the way into France before defeat. How they treated the conquered populations if they did not submit to islam. How they conquered the holy lands which lead to the first crusade being called to try to take back those lands that fell to Islam. Tell me how Islam brought the downfall of constinaople.

      I'm sure in 2000 years the Germans will say of DDAY that is was a barbaric invasion.

      Tell me of the hundreds of years of war in spain that lead to the inquisition. that pushed the muslins from the coast of spain. Tell me how muslims still speaks of spain as theirs. tell me of the peacefull Ottoman empire. Of the "cultral sharing" of Marco Polo and china during those same times. Tell me why the middle east quit advanceing after Islam took hold.

      As far as christian conservatism? You do not even know what you are talking about. I'm an iffy church goer. Never been to Roberts U and think that the baptists are wrong about alot of things.

      You hate is getting too much. like most narrow minded racists your true colors are showing through. You beliefs in magic pixie dust to cure the worlds ills shows your lack of education now your race baiting and lack of civilty shows you innermost character flaws. the only racist on this thread is yours.

      You are a racist against the majority. Believing that woman and blacks are more important than others. I believe they all should be treated the same no better no worse that the majority. hoping that your country gets taken over? what a pile of crap.

    • I'm going to end this conversation on my end because your facts and my facts don't match up - and you think you are telling the truth, and obviously so do I. There's no common ground here and people are right, we really should take this to a political board, its not GME relevant. Go ahead and write your last response because I know you love the last word.

      ps - that Halliburton comment was because 80% of yr posts are about oil, not having to do with Bush cronies.

    • Give me a break. So now you think farm subsidies are ok because they prop up an inefficient farm system? How many times are you going to contradict yourself in one conversation?!

    • yeah it is a bad system as all the famines we have had over the last 80 years show. Oh wait a minute. We haven't had any famines in the last 80 years and hunger is not a major problem in the country any longer? hmmm maybe hati has a better "free market" response to this issue.

      And here is a major NEWS FALSH for you. a city the size of NEW YORK could never support itself from the sorrounding country side. And if it could and rains didn't come that year? and the waters off the coast of New York would be fished out and the soil quaility would be leeched, and the prices would be many times as high.

      Sure some smaller cities would be able to support local farming but food prices would be higher. Add into the fact that the midwest helps feed the entire world and getting rid of the "anti-free market system could have 100,000's of people starving in very quick order but hey its all good right?

      damn facts. always there.

    • Ha - way to misstate my position. I believe in individual freedom as long is doesn't hurt anyone else - nice try though. Your conception of individual freedom is one where you have freedom as an individual but others not like you do not. That is why I will fight to the death against your hypocrisy. It's immoral and unethical and frankly pretty sad

    • Your facts are opinions. There is no other truth for you. Your 'history' of Native Americanism is a bunch of lies meant to perpetuate and rationalize xenocide. Oh, we did it so it's OK because someone else probably would have done it. That makes no sense!!

      Your denigration of Islam is even more unfounded. Islam perpetuated the Greek mode of thinking when Europe was in the Dark Ages. It is a FACT of history that the Italian and Spanish Renaissance periods were direct outcomes of the cultural 'sharing' brought about by the barbaric crusades and inquisition.

      It's funny because if you do ever read Middle Eastern history (try picking up 'The Song of Roland', 'The First Crusade', among other books that you've never bothered to find), the roles of Islam and Christianity were flipped for much for much of the 13th to 17th centuries, where Muslims looked upon Christians with besument with their religious persecution, feudalism, and inability to provide free societies. It is also a fact that Muslim countries in aggregate have elected more female leaders than oh wait, 0 in America, where we've had to deal with a parade of good ol' boys forever.

      Just because a few thugs rule certain countries in the Muslim world now (propped up by our wonderful 'freedom-representing' government) does not equate to a denunciation of the religion, so get your FACTS straight, because you are seeming more and more to me like a baldfaced liar at this point.

      Please try to read a history book that did not come from Oral Roberts U. and you might learn something. I knew it wouldn't take long for the Christian conservatism to come out.

      Do you still fly segregate flags? Are you upset black people and women can vote? I wonder, cause you're pretty much flying lockstep with every other stereotype that moral, rationale people have fought against for the last 150 years. If this is the fight for the soul of the country, and if people like you win, then I can't wait for Russia, India, Brazil, and China to end this hegemony once and for all.

      Folks, people like unseen are people who the war was won against in the 1920's (women) and 1960's (blacks). It is the same war that hopefully gays will win now - to enjoy their rights as human beings who are not hurting anyone else.

      Its abundantly clear that you think people that are different from you do not deserve the same rights and rules as you. You are a hypocrite. And to that, the only response is what I said it before and will say it again. Freedom will prevail, not your hatred of other religions, not your hatred of people who are different than yourself. Enjoy your backwater reasoning, I hope it provides you comfort.

    • a final fact the vote of a person in the city counts just as much as those in the country and those in the smaller states. that is a fact. A city dweller has the same power of a vote as someone who lives in Climax, Va or rual Iowa. Some of the big cities have more represenitives in congress then some entire small states. The cities get more resources in total than some small states. the fact that on a per person basis the cioties get less misses the fact that the cities get more in total than others. Of course the city pays more total taxes because there are more poeple. Each person pays the same if their income is the same.

      this belief that just because you live in a big city you should be able to dictate terms to others is another figment of unreality. those types of government did exist at one time they were called city states and they failed because the needs and wants of a city are different than the needs and wants of the rural population. Making one live like the other will bring failure and rebellion.

      facts are facts. Is there Pr from each group of course, does each group have their loons, yes. But when one group tries to live in fantasy lands then we have major problems.

      your halibuton comment is beneath this discussion. next you will be saying that evil Bush planned and executed 9/11

      as far as individual freedom? If you really believe that the dems want individual freedom than you have more studying to do. From the party that mandates what type of lightbulb you can use, to how high your thermostat should be, to how much of your income they will leave you with. The list is endless.

      sure the dems are more carefree on moral issues and on those I tend to agree wioth them. What someone does in their bedroom BTW two ADULTS is none of my business. However, prositution, drugs etc have implications for entire societies. As with anything you have the right to yell fire but not in a crowed place. some individual actions impact society in a negative way.

      As far as your racists belief I would remind you that bush has promoted more minorities (blacks, hispanics and women) to postions of power than Clinton ever thought of doing.

      You comments conflict each other in the end. You say you are for individual freedom but then you say that individual freedom is selfish. So which is it. individual freedom gives you the right to be selfish. It is no coincidence that the most charity comes from those that believe in individual freedom and the least from those that believe the governmetn should deal with society ills.

      As far as "moral hypocrisy" Any student of history will tell you that certain morals will lead to the death of entire civilizations. again facts get in the way I know but they are there.

    • Here is another fact. Profiling does not take away the Bill of rights. where does it say in the bill of rights that the government can not profile. If certain groups express a desire to destroy you you are either stupid or live in fantasy land if you do not take steps to protect yourself. If 98% of a people that want to destroy you come from a certain group then failure to traget that group for extra attention is crimnal insanity. You waste limited resources checking 75 year old nuns the same way you would a 20 something muslim. That is fact. Another fact that is easily missed. the christian faith and the muslim faith are different. they have different thought process, different aims, and different morals. Equating the two as the same "relgion" by atheists is not a wise decsion. I will leave it to others to site the difference. As the history shows one promotes free societies and the other does not. that is fact. While everyone is free to worship what God or lack of God they want, the actions of that relgion should not threaten the civil authorities of those that choose not to worship that particular God or idol.

      as far as conservation and "balance" with nature. If the it includes humans in the equation of "nature" then there is no problem with it. When humans are considered a pollutant of nature than I have a problem with it. When the animals have the same rights as humans then there is a problem. When entire economies are destroyed because of the polar bear I have a problem. Any talk of consevation and balance must include economic balance too. If you force humans into a declining or poverty economy history shows that is the worse thing for the environment. Tradeoff or in your language "balance" must be found to encourge economic growth with environmental protection. placing "tracts of lands off limits" to humans is not how you get balance. that is facts. more facts: humans will always be here, humans will always try to better their lot in life, humans are creatures of nature and will use nature for its betterment as a polar bear will kill to eat and survive so too will humans. Wanton destruction of nature and animals should be frowned upon. But sustainable destruction of animals for food, for clothing, plants to eat, to build homes etc is sadly a neccessity of continued human life. To thing the wovles will lay with the lambs is again a lack of education and based in a fantasy world.

    • View More Messages
28.80-1.180(-3.94%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT