MyFox
 

Marks Blog

by Marks

Last Post 1 day, 13 hours Ago


If ever there was a more glaring example of our elected officials living in a bubble, I would be hard-pressed to unfavorably contrast it with this! What is so difficult to understand about our energy problem? It is a classic supply vs. demand issue, as I have been saying in so many forms for the last several blogs. Twenty-plus years of whistling past the oilfields/nuclear plants/alternative energy has left us with our energy-pants down. This is not brain surgery - though it appears the US Congress needs some serious brain transplants.

Oil "speculators" are those who buy oil futures and sell them to a third party (other oil speculators, I would assume). This is the same racket in which Hillary Clinton turned $1K into $100K on cattle futures. The same type of trade if done on a larger scale can ruin an individual. Eventually the "speculator" will have to produce the "produce" so-to-speak, and that is where all advance trades end up. So here is the meat of the proposed "regulation" of "oil speculators":

The Senate legislation would require institutional traders to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission more details on unregulated over-the-counter transactions to determine if price manipulation or excessive speculation is occurring. The CFTC also would review trading practices of swaps dealers and commodity index funds. The legislation would not require the higher margins to buy and sell oil that the futures industry had feared. But the bill requires tough position limits on speculators to restrict the number of oil contracts they could control.

Who determines what "excessive speculation" is? The CFTC. Who is the CFTC? Read the link for more, but this is the summary:

Congress created the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 1974 as an independent agency with the mandate to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States. [...] The Commission consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve staggered five-year terms. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairman. No more than three Commissioners at any one time may be from the same political party. (Marks Note: We could appoint Libertarians instead of Democrats, but they would never survive Senate "speculation" in the form of "advice and consent"...)

Two things to point out here, followed by my own speculation. Number one: They regulate markets "in the United States" and nowhere else. Any idea how much tax revenue in capital gains is raked in from "market speculators"? My precise guess would be that famous economic number most economists use with such precision: "A bunch!"

Second, we are talking about political appointees making majority judgments upon "free-market" principles which are not necessarily shared by our two-party political system. How are they to determine a certain trade is somehow tainted? The answer is politically, unless I'm a dunce. It will be a majority-driven determination, and ultimately will perform about as well as a dog with no teeth.

In effect, the first obvious condition that will result from this legislation is US market share of trades will dwindle. It won't stop, but trades that might trigger CFTC review will move offshore. This will immediately result in less tax revenue for the IRS. Markets have been moving abroad for years, and usually are driven there by government pre-conditions like this proposed legislation. The bottom line is regulating "speculators" results in the failure of the government to collect taxes.

 As I have stated many times over the course of the last month, energy prices will only drop when there is an energy glut. So far, there has been zero increase in our energy generation or oil production. That absence is why you are paying $4 for a gallon of gas, and until either demand drops or production increases you will continue to pay through the nose to keep your current lifestyle in order.

I recommend hypermiling and public transportation as a way for you to save money, but you will lose time as a result. Life is full of trade-offs, and this Congress is proving we should have paid attention to their mismanagement long ago.

Time for that Congressional brain transplant...

6 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 6
Page 1 of 1
oldi read my blog view my photos
Jul 22, 2008 | 4:50 AM

Part of the energy problem is parked in our garages. I know that many people to not like to hear this.
Most folks do not need a big pickup truck or SUV.
Farmers, construction workers and the like do need pickup trucks.
People with 3 or more children might need an SUV.

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Jul 22, 2008 | 8:24 AM

No, the problem isn't what we choose to drive.

The problem is government telling us what we need to do.

One Southwest airlines flight uses more fuel on a single flight then I will use in a lifetime.

furbie read my blog view my photos
Jul 22, 2008 | 10:28 AM

You're right Scotty - I love for the big shots to tell us how we need to cut back on fuel consumption,

as they are putting on a free air show !


It's like the clip of Al Gore, going from his jet to his limo,

then giving a speech telling the people we need to walk and ride bicycles !

scottythecomic read my blog view my photos
Jul 22, 2008 | 10:36 AM

Gore spends 20 times what the average household does on electricity costs. No telling how much fuel he uses up.

Marks read my blog view my photos
Jul 22, 2008 | 7:35 PM

Actually, Oldi is correct. Had the American auto industry recognized the need for autos that consumed less mpg's, GM and the others would not be on the brink of failure. This is a cyclical problem, and any company who pays attention to the product that propels their product would have seen the decline coming and scaled back accordingly. World oil production is not expanding, and this Congress is making sure that will continue.

As for Algore - puleeeze! The guy went nuts after he lost in 2000. Why deal with a crazy person?

berrywi
Jul 23, 2008 | 3:28 PM

Hi, Marks,

Restating the obvious: the last line of your original post implies that there was one to begin with.

When a person gets elected to Congress, they get a lobotomy, plus any other operation that removes any vestiges of a moral compass (cf. last week's Dilbert cartoons).

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Marks

Gone golfing. Permanently, I believe...

Member Since: 10/9/2006