by threadbear » Thu 08 May 2008, 17:20:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UncoveringTruths', 'I')'ve got a feeling that just changing a law to prevent the purchase of oil on the global markets will not be as easy as the lawmakers think. It's not like flipping a switch. Aren't some folks already out on a limb in foriegn future markets? How would they renogatiate the delivery sometime in the future to an American market if the purchases have already been made.
Please excuse my ingnorance on this issue.
We are all ignorant on this issue. No apologies required. Here's an interesting article, regarding commodities and govt intervention. Many investors are jumping off the wheat and rice boat now, as govt intervention is assumed to be in the cards. This could easily happen to the oil markets, as well. The article I'm linking to, doesn't necessarily agree with my point of view, but it's worth a look. If govts are willing to intervene to cool commodity markets (rice is dropping in price, as a consequence), then why would they not do this for oil?
Oil is so over. I give almost the entire rotting complex 10 years and would avoid it like the plague, as an investor. Many of the masters of that greasy universe, and all the little dumbass investors are going to get burned. As a Canadian, I can see it destroying half of our population's retirement funds. Too bad.
Ed Roseman's eruptions:
The argument among the agricultural bears is that grain prices are too hot, too widely publicized in the popular press and eventually will draw some sort of government response to control prices. That might be true, if only temporarily. High oil and gas prices have already made headlines for the last several years, yet prices remain at record highs amid a shortage of about 2 million barrels of crude daily. But when it comes to food, investors should probably take notice because voters have to eat. They do not necessarily have to drive.
http://rosemanblog.sovereignsociety.com ... -impl.html