weekender

Please explain to me how commodity traders manipulate prices. I am an equity market maker and am very curious how my commodity trading peers are able to manipulate prices in a regulated market and get away with it. Since you seem to know, i would love for you to share that with me. Please be as specific as possible as i am not a laymen and have a very good understanding of the markets. Nice way to miss the point. US farmers do not operate in a free market, there are countless government controls and price supports in place. A good friend of mine owns a farm and he is paid handsomely by the government to grow NOTHING except for his own family's consumption. And commodity traders don't manipulate prices? What universe are you living in? My father was a vegetable farmer. My family is still in farming. I am a professional trader with 20 years experience trading for major institutions. That is my universe. Manipulation is illegal. If you and the other gentlemen know how people are manipulating the price of securities, then please explain it to me. keep in mind, this is a subject i am an expert on and not easily fooled. as far as farm prices, i did not miss the point. I stated that farmers price to what the market will bear. they do not set prices based on cost. nothing you are the other gentlemen stated disproves that. my comments are about pricing and cost and are on point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Please explain to me how commodity traders manipulate prices. I am an equity market maker and am very curious how my commodity trading peers are able to manipulate prices in a regulated market and get away with it. Since you seem to know, i would love for you to share that with me. Please be as specific as possible as i am not a laymen and have a very good understanding of the markets. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Waaa? USA has a LOWER poverty count than Europe. I'm sure someone can find more recent (possibly accurate) statistics than those I linked below, but I think you'll find that they're pretty close. Also, given how easy it is to travel between countries on a schengen visa, I have trouble believing that people aren't moving between these countries a lot. Europe http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article99 USA http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ I was implying old Europe, as my father use to say. Sorry, i should have been more clear. France, Germany, Italy etc... those are usually the examples given when discussing how much better healthcare is in Europe and what i was referencing. I am well aware Romania is poor. We are not Europe and cannot solve our problems by simply mimicking their healthcare. we are a far more giant nation with far more giant problems. I am not pretending to have the answers nor bashing Obamacare. I'm simply stating we are not Europe and comparing us to them is not accurate. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Some things: (1) the ACA is the furthest thing from "less money." It's hugely expansive and increases costs as a whole. What it decreases are the individual costs for those who were uninsurable. Those are covered by the young and healthy. (2) It's easy to do healthcare for less money. Either lower the quality or ration it. It appears that they are working on both (take a look at the increased scopes of practice for PAs, nurses and psychologists. Psychologists are being suggested for prescribing meds to lower costs (yes. Psychologists are starting to prescribe meds. Sure, they can't prescribe blood tests or a CT, but let's give them the power to prescribe). Lower the quality and ration the doctors (HMOs ration doctors, too. It's why you'll need a referral to a specialist). (3) It apparently doesn't even work for more people, because it leaves 10% of the population uninsured and also leaves plenty without work or with fewer hours working. I really do scratch my head and ask, "Did they deliberately choose to do the worst possible thing because they wanted to say, 'Fuck you, we can' or did they do it so that Americans would find anything to be better than this?" I think the latter. I spent a lot of time with my family in Italy. My wife is diabetic as is one of my Italian cousins. She gets far better care with the most advanced medications by comparison to him. They live in Rome and not some rural backwater, fyi. The difference is so great that we have indefinitely postponed building a retirement home there for her fear of inferior medical care. I fully support her. The problem is more complicated than you want to admit. the USA is not Europe. They do not have nearly as many poor people nor open immigration. Its not apples to apples. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

NY and NJ have very high rates because they are highly regulated by the states already. That probably explains them being in the blue. the more the gov't mandates you must cover the higher the premiums, pretty simple stuff. Its somewhat blunted by the fact our incomes are also higher usually. I still firmly believe it would be cheaper if the gov't allowed people to by policies they wanted and not ones special interest groups wanted us to buy. I dont want to pay for chiropractic care or massage therapy and should not be forced too. I am fully willing to pay cash for a massage and fake Dr's. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!! General Assembly of the UN is this week. There are quite a few VIP's in town, to say the least. I know your mostly kidding but thought id add that fact to provide some color as to the added concerns. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Farmers charge what the market will bear and its not my criterion, this is the basics of a free market system. im not saying anything radical or remotely new. vets and family doctors do the same. Everyone does . The actual costs have nothing to do with it. You do not price your product based on your cost, you charge what you can get and if its more than expenses you are profitable. People do not value your services as much as they do family dr's. so you can charge less and they can charge more. pretty simple stuff. (edit to add. my father in law is a vet and my sister is a family dr. I'm am very close to both. he has actually been very helpful, giving her advice on running a practice. my point is i'm not so unaware of running either business as you might assume.) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the products are structured in a way that are Sharia compliant but still profitable for the bank. Wikipedia does a good job of explaining it. Basically, they just create a product that makes their conscience and the Mullahs sleep at night yet still get what they want. it reminds me of Amish people not having phones in their home but in the barn for business. They get what they need to live in a modern world but still feel they are not violating their faith. Seems silly to me but the customer is always right. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

That is a load of propaganda. As a Veterinarian we go through the same training, perform the same services on as many as 7 different species for one tenth the income. The human health care system is grossly out of control and based on greed not compassion. ... People do not put the same value on livestock and pets as they do themselves and their families. They are willing to pay more to have their children healthy than their livestock or pets. You run a business as does a regular physician. They can charge more than you because people value their services more than yours. this cannot be the first time you heard of this. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

When an airliner crashes there's a major investigation and the responsible parties get to foot the bill and compensate the victims. When the economy crashed the bankers who caused it just walked off with big bonuses. content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130923,00.html I agree with both of you. i could expand but i have a meeting with the Republican Party and the Koch Bros. Same topic as always. we are discussing how we can increase the wealth gap through criminal acts all the while not getting caught and reaping a nice bonus. Its almost too easy but sure beats working for a living. All true. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

this was a pretty fashionable belief prior to the crash. The future of the euro is still in doubt, though not as bleak as it looked two years ago. as bad as the dollar looks, the alternatives are worse. It may have been a fashionable belief but now it is a reality. The countries listed above are all dealing in oil not using the dollar and we're talking about some massive sums of money. The dollar was only 'underwritten' by the petrodollar after Nixon unlinked it from gold. Interestingly enough I saw this today: http://rt.com/op-edge/china-control-world-currency-707/ I'd give the USA less then five years before the dollar collapse and actually think it will be much more rapid then that. I'm not hoping that is the case far from it, Sterling won't survive and the Euro is barely breathing as it is. I'm thinking the Yuan is the next big thing. They DO transact oil in dollars. everyone does worldwide. the US has the most liquid oil commodity exchanges and trade the highest volumes of contracts worldwide. they also set the benchmark price globally. All in USD's. They cannot avoid trading oil futures and oil futures trade in USD's mostly. They can sell their physical oil at the spigot in local currencies but its impossible for them to not hedge using futures. futures trade in dollars and all stored commodities are hedged. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i don't know what to say... that is how things worked 25 years ago. at the risk of sounding like a wise ass, they could always raise our dues to bring their technology up to standards. im guessing someone would then create a post about that, though. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"Russia, China, Iran and Syria & India are no longer trading oil in the US dollar and its just a matter of time before other countries follow their lead. Without the Petrodollar the USA is screwed." That is not entirely true and a bit misleading. Many nations sell their oil in local currencies, including the British for North Sea exports. That is not odd at all. They still trade their futures and purchase in other local spot markets in the dollar. OPEC oil is sold in USD's as is our exports, which sets the standard for the world markets. All the countries you named still actively trade oil in US dollars as it is still a standard for the major world markets. It would be more accurate to say that many nations no longer export in dollars. this is true but not as dire for the USA as your implying. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I suppose your point is that we should give more attention to other issues. that does not make you a horrible person IMO. Today i walked past the WTC site and had to take a detour because of all the film crews. it is terribly annoying and i grumbled that they dont need to stand in front of the WTC to report on 9/11. i dont think that makes me horrible. it was 12 years ago and i think the tv news people try to milk it for all its worth. I'm not saying we should forget it but i am cynical about their motives. We can pay our respects to the 9/11 victims and still have plenty of compassion and concern for gun violence and house hold accidents. I dont believe there is a limit to your ability to care about others. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Oh . . . so close you almost have it. No. The price dropped because the computers were programmed to value the stocks less because of a mathematical model which said they had less confidence in the future value of the stock. Other computers also looked at the prices and determined stocks would ONLY be worth buying at lower prices because they also had less confidence in the future value of the stock. It had zero to do with the actual value of anything. IMO you are correct about the result of programs and algo's but have a very weird way getting there. program selling is triggered by algorithms based on volume, momentum and the size of bids and offers. they dont really think as much as your describing. once they notice a sell imbalance they trigger another sell program. this momentum triggers another momentum sell program and so on. the bids below the market will cancel once they detect the momentum to the down side. if no human notices or cares, there are no bids. all offers and no bids or in laymen terms, more sellers than buyers, the stock goes down. One stock triggers the other and it all happens in fractions of a second. your use of the words "value" and "confidence" are not really accurate to describe how algo's and program selling work. they are not thinking like humans. they do not model for the future as humans do. they work on liquidity and momentum solely. your correct on the process, however, your explanation could use some polish. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I said it was "literally a confidence game." I didn't suggest there was fraud (although there certainly is quite a bit of that as well), but money is NOT what most people think it is. Most people, much like Lawrocket, assume money is something fixed and constant like a chunk of gold. Like if we were two children trading a fixed number of beads and a zero sum game where if I "win" you "lose." The reality could not be further from the truth. In fact, not even the value of something such as a bar of gold is fixed. It completely, 100% absolutely, depends on the confidence of individuals today agreeing on what they think it's value will be in the future. You say, "I dont think you understand the financial markets well..." I say, you should reconsider your concepts of "reality." I owe you an apology. You do understand the concept of zero sum. i miss read your post as the opposite. sorry. also, i suppose i owe you an apology about "literally a confidence game." i interpreted that to mean a con or a scam. i was basing that on the context of your post, which i believe to be overly dramatic and inaccurate in its description of the hack. i still think you lack my understanding of finance but that is understandable. I am quite a big deal, hah. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow. NEGATIVE. Just the other week the Syrian Electronic Army took hacked into AP's Twitter account and made a false post about the White House suffering an explosion and the President being killed in it. MACHINES, not people, scanning various news sources picked it up and for a brief time the Dow PLUNGED. Literally billions upon billions of dollars instantly vanished from the world economy. Then, AP regained control over its Twitter account and posted a retraction. The NYSE reversed some of the purchases. The Dow "recovered" -- almost. However, MY stocks are still lower than they were before the attack as is the entire Dow. It is literally a confidence game where money is created out of nothing and lost the same way. Don't even get me started on derivatives. the twitter hack was such a small event i forgot about it and had to look it up. it was in April, not recently and certainly not the drama you seem to imply. the DOW lost 150 points or so. its currently at around 14800, higher than it was during that sell off. It was as high as 16658 on 2 Aug. You are grossly exaggerating the impact of that hack. There were a number of far more important events that have impacted the pricing of equities since then. Machines can buy and sell stocks but there are none that can read newspapers and then buy and sell stocks. Even if they could it does nothing for you argument that equities are zero sum and a confidence game. it only shows that computers are involved in finance. that should not be news to anyone. There are certainly inefficiencies in the market from time to time. That does not make it a confidence game or a fraud as you imply. Stocks trade based on their fundamental valuation mostly. There are short term fluctuations based on momentum and speculation, sure. That doesnt make it a scam. I dont think you understand the financial markets well and should moderate your strong opinions. there are people who lurk here with vastly more experience and understanding. also, its a quiet day and they have the time to point out your misunderstandings. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Yes, actually, money is going from one person to another somewhere in the chain that affects the Dow. (edited and removed the part where i disagreed with the above poster. on second reading i realize he understand the markets and the other gentlemen is confused. the rest of my post stands because it explains zero sum.) money going from one to the other does not make it a zero sum game. If you buy a stock that is in the Dow index and it goes up and then sell it. The next person can buy it and also sell it higher. His profit and loss is completely independent of yours. so by definition it is not zero sum. futures and options are much closer to zero sum since they are contracts for a goods delivery based on a agreed price and also time. If they expire one person has a profit equal to the others loss. zero sum. not the case with bonds, equities and currencies. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So Starbuck's and MCD have the same balance sheets? For you to make that comparison they must. i would guess its possible that maybe they pay more because it fits into their earnings model. Maybe they dont have the same margins, expenses etc... I value companies for a living. i do not believe MCD's and Starbucks are comparables and neither do my peers. MCD's and Taco Bell are closer. A more honest argument for you would be that you'd prefer to see the shareholders earn less and the workers earn more. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the NYC ferries are not as famous as the subways for sure. There are actually alot of them and tourist probably only know of the Staten Island Ferry and the one to Ellis Island. They are the Newark of public transportation, placed anywhere else and they would be a big deal but due to the size of NYC they seem insignificant. Same with the tugs, there are a massive amount of them but they blend into the back round of the giant metro area. this story is known in NYC area, just not as much nationally. The story of 9/11 was so big that some of it just doesnt make headlines. I was fortunate enough to hitch a ride with a Park Police boat to NJ that morning. This was before the call went out to all ferries and merchant tugs to come and help so i was quite fortunate. Many of my friends rode ferries or tugs home that day. Additionally, the black out of 2003 i caught a ride home on a ferry when they and the merchant fleet again came to our rescue. NYC is huge and alot of cool things are lost to the headlines. NY'ers ARE aware of the story and proud of our ferry and merchant fleets. Especially those of us that live in NJ, hah. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

if i have to take a day off from work and stand in line at the DMV, i feel trapped there. i cannot leave without losing my place online and a days work. Its not a starbucks, where i can go to another DMV and get their drivers license. we both know that i am not literally trapped there. you also know my point but dont like it, fine. Dont try to imply its not logical. you can just say you would prefer people are permitted to preach at the DMV and i should have to suck it up. I'm curious how much you'd support it if they were preaching the Koran or evils of flouride in drinking water. Or the benefits of Obamacare. Some folks feel the same way about protesters that you feel about street preaching. Should protesters be muzzled because they annoye somebody? Me? I don't like any of them, but I'm not about to call in the law to silence, arrest, and remove them. I ignore them, or pop in the headphones. The only one I ever took action against was a baptist preacher in the crazy westboro strain who was blocking entry to a building. Police were watching but not doing anything about denying access. So we pulled out a video camera, and a friend tried to walk through the group. One of them got in his face and poked him in the chest. My boy went all wristy-twisty and took the guy to the ground. The group howled bloody murder. When the cop came over, we showed him the video. He asked my guy if he wanted to press charges for assault. The fuckwits let us through. They didn't come back the next day. Bottom line, don't fuck with free speech. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended or annoyed. Grow up and deal with it. i live in a city that is not short of street preachers and protesters. i pass many every single day. i walked by the OWS'ers, not your local branch but the real smelly deal for a long time. I'm a pretty tolerant guy. i dont think i am fucking with free speech by saying they should not be able to do it to people waiting online at the DMV or other gov't buildings. you have to draw the line somewhere, and i draw it there. i think its pretty reasonable and grown up place to draw it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

According to what I read they were just reading the bible among themselves i read it and see it differently. he was reading it out loud. he is a pastor. to me that is preaching. no one would even care if he read it to himself because he wouldnt be disturbing anyone. on the video he is reading it in very loudly and obviously projecting his voice so others can hear it. again, that is preaching to me. to me its not about what he is reading. if he stood there all day and read the WSJ in the same manner, i would consider it harassment. And that is the bible to me and my friends. So, if they are on the same street as you are, they have no free speech rights and should shut up or be arrested. Regardless of what they are reading Got it To reply bull shit You dont have to listen If they are harrasing you and are in your face then that would be different But you chose to be bothered or not get over it I am thankful the court and the Constitituon does not agree with you i believe i made it clear that we are discussing me at the DMV or similar gov't buildings. if you reread my post you will see i have no problem with it in other public places or even the same side of the street as i. as i said, you have to draw the line somewhere as to preaching or just blabbing in public out loud. i feel that drawing the line at the DMV seems reasonable. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

if i have to take a day off from work and stand in line at the DMV, i feel trapped there. i cannot leave without losing my place online and a days work. Its not a starbucks, where i can go to another DMV and get their drivers license. we both know that i am not literally trapped there. you also know my point but dont like it, fine. Dont try to imply its not logical. you can just say you would prefer people are permitted to preach at the DMV and i should have to suck it up. I'm curious how much you'd support it if they were preaching the Koran or evils of flouride in drinking water. Or the benefits of Obamacare. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

According to what I read they were just reading the bible among themselves i read it and see it differently. he was reading it out loud. he is a pastor. to me that is preaching. no one would even care if he read it to himself because he wouldnt be disturbing anyone. on the video he is reading it in very loudly and obviously projecting his voice so others can hear it. again, that is preaching to me. to me its not about what he is reading. if he stood there all day and read the WSJ in the same manner, i would consider it harassment. And that is the bible to me and my friends. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>" He might have a point had these people been inside but they were outside on a sidewalk A public area And the judge ruled that there was no captive audience fun sees only what he want to see" i dont think either of us are discussing the legality of it. You should not be able to harass people with your preaching if they are trapped outside a gov't building. Every time i walk underground from Times Square to the Port Authority i am bombarded with preachers and dont really have a problem with it. If they show up at the DMV, where i am pretty much trapped for a time, and preach to me, id consider it harassment. Not sure about the law, just saying it seems reasonable to me to draw the line somewhere and online at the DMV is a good place. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante