reply to post by getreadyalready
Yes there are more commodities and yes many "powerbrokers" are in charge of how things shape up, but the market is still a great indicator of what
is happening in the world. Yes there is false hope in some stuff b/c of the microtrading volumes, but economists don't look at the day to day, we
look at the year to year.
The fact that more commodities exist and that trade occurs much quicker does not change the fact that the essential fundamentals of the economy are
still there. Yes, barter does occur in some cultures today, but that is only b/c those cultures are far behind the others around the world. Barter
is extremely inefficient, hence the creation of paper money.
With all of that said, do you really think that the markets in history were not manipulated? Trade contracts weren't fitted to please the interests
of the few powerful wealthy elite? Have you read about the invisible hand???
Of course the answer to all of the above is yes they were, yes they were, and you either haven't or didn't completely understand it. Just look at
the slave trade if you dont' believe me. I bet the slaves weren't very happy about the manipulation of "Human Rights", but the trade still
occurred. Of course the invisible hand is still in existence. If the few powerful manipulate the market to fit their own interests then by
definition of the invisible hand it will benefit the many, and I am speaking on average of course. There are powerbrokers that take advantage of the
system and do send out poor indicators and cause some to lose in this system, but on average if the big brokers make a trade that hurts the market,
then they are harmed as well. In fact, look at the slave trade, the slave trading countries both developed slower and even today are far behind.
Even the slave states of the U.S. have smaller economies today than the free states. The ripples of history even affect the outcomes today.(Nunn
2006, The Long-Term Effects of Africa's Slave Trades)
I agree that microsecond trading should be outlawed, but only because it skews the market and isn't fair to the rest of the participants. You,
however, should be in favor of it b/c you like the free market and you constantly push for more economic freedom, so to regulate this is only a step
away from complete freedom. I refer you back to your argument against the bail out, and also don't wish to start a discussion on that topic, but my
point is that you argue on both sides of the court. Pick a team. haha.
No, you are absolutely wrong, nobody is trading and creating wealth out of thin air. This simply DOES NOT OCCUR! Somebody has to be selling a
commodity for one to be purchased, so only a transfer of wealth is occurring. Not only that, but for a trade to occur both parties have to be made,
if not better off then, at least no worse off otherwise why would either party agree to the trade? As prices rise, the market rises, and eventually
people stop buying, or sellers stop selling if the price gets to low. That is the law of supply and demand. As I stated before, ONLY A TRANSFER OF
Yes, its bad since the uneducated traders are typically the ones losing, but its really no different than a casino. No casino creates wealth for the
owner, it only facilitates the transfer from those poor bastards that wish to give their money away, to the owners of the machines. I suppose the
companies that are being traded on the microsecond scale are losing too since many times they are the ones buying their own stock back and thus the
transfer goes from companies to brokers. This is just the nature of the beast.
New century, new commodities, new people, same markets, same incentives, same evils, same world.
[edit on 8-9-2009 by memarf1]
[edit on 8-9-2009 by memarf1]