« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Failed Leaders With Failed Agendas Always Blame The Speculators

Hiding The Prices Only Partially Hides The Truth

"The Price Had Better Be Right."

It’s worth noting that, although the President of the United States hasn’t the power of Generalisimo Chavez, Pres. Obama’s attacks on speculators are just as politically opportunistic and economically ignorant – and potentially as destructive – as are any such attacks issued by Latin American dictators…

Don Boudreaux, Café Hayek.

If anyone out there still needed a primer on why a Government-Centered Society was doomed to ineluctable failure, Hugo Chavez is conducting a seminar in ineptitude out of Caracas. Hugo Chavez has decided to devalue his currency in order to flood the Venezuelan State-Run oil company with revenue. He would then “tax” these revenues in order to fund his social welfare apparatus which has fueled his political viability.

Looking only at the revenue side of the equation makes this plan look like a winner. The oil company gets more cash, Chavez gets more revenue. However, the cash is held in the form of a deliberately devalued currency. By definition, each individual unit must buy less in goods and services. Except that Hugo Chavez doesn’t like that definition. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He doesn’t like the price of a hyper-inflated lunch.

So now the Venezuelans get to play the Leftist Version of The Price Is Right. Soldiers are deploying to make certain that store owners don’t guess too high when they haul out the price gun. If they do, the Venezuelan National Guard will haul out the weaponry and confiscate the store. The Christian Science Monitor describes this hyper-Keynesian view of a well-regulated system of commerce.

Chávez said the moves should not spur price increases, and on his Sunday radio and television address promised to punish those who do. “There is no reason for anybody to be raising prices,” he said, calling on citizens to “publicly denounce the speculator” and promising to “take over any business, of any size, that plays the bourgeoisie speculation game.”

This means that any store owner that reacts to a 50% decrease in nominal currency value by raising prices a logical 100% will need bayonet assault course training to plead his case. So the store owners are using their only other viable recourse and de facto shutting down. The artificial price levels are insuring that nothing remains available. The New York Times described the fundamental breakdown in everyday commerce.

A supermarket in the upscale La Castellana neighborhood recently had plenty of chicken and cheese — even quail eggs — but not a single roll of toilet paper. Only a few bags of coffee remained on a bottom shelf. Asked where a shopper could get milk on a day when that, too, was out of stock, a manager said with sarcasm, “At Chávez’s house.”

The United States blessedly limits the power it invests in one branch of our Federal Government. This is good, because compared to the technocrats in Venezuela; America’s current political leadership has no monopoly on decency, logic or even basic common sense. In recent years, America’s economic “Leaders” have felt their perspicacity impinged as prices for essentials like food and fuel have gone up “unexpectedly.”

After a major spike in the summer and fall of 2008, people believed the worst had receded as prices reached a valley of $1.61 by Christmas. But then, they began an inexorable climb back up to about $3.90. This happened at a monotonic rate, over a three year period. This was not a shock or a manipulation. It was a steady, consistent climb of approximately $0.70 per year.

What has happened between 2009 and now has not been a speculative bubble. The behavior is entirely too consistent and steady. There is no sudden shock* to react to. Yet still “The Speculators™” get trotted out there like “The E-VIL Banksters™” were a few short years ago. Like Hugo Chavez, Our President Barack Obama wants the US electorate to dance to the tune of yet another boogeyman.

On April 17th, as the predictable commodity market reaction to a policy of loose money and low interest rates caused him political grief, Barack Obama busily pulled out “The Speculators™.” In order to “check the box on the economy” and “do something about the problem,” Barack Obama unveiled the following proposals.

The Obama administration proposed new measures Tuesday to limit speculation in the oil markets, seeking to draw a contrast with Republicans who have been calling for more domestic drilling during a time of near record gasoline prices. The new proposals require oil traders to put up more of their own money for transactions, ask for more money for market enforcement and monitoring activities, and call for higher penalties for market manipulation.

CNN Money

Of course this ignores the lack of any physical evidence that a “cornered market” has occurred. Somebody has to own a significant portion of an existing commodity to profoundly manipulate its price. This would imply that prices can fluctuate in ways that President Obama doesn’t like absent any sort of greedy capitalist boogeyman.

This would pierce the eminence front that gets erected anytime a government wants to spend beyond its means and use implicit inflation to make the people pay back the debt without the appearance of excess taxation. And that’s the truth that gets hidden when a government attempts to control prices. Inflation remains the cruelest tax of all and is present in the margin between what interest bearing accounts pay and what goods and services cost. No blaming a corporate entity with a margin to hold will make this obvious truth any less obvious.

* – Magically doubling a money supply is an example of speculative price manipulation. hedging against a consistent, observable price trend is not in the same league.

COMMENTS

  • avgjo

    to hear that Eric Bolling went after speculators when he revealed his ‘secret’ plan to drop oil prices. I always thought speculation provided grease for the axles of the economy, by taking on risk no one else would. An ardently free-market guy like that attributing some blame to the speculators makes me rethink the whole thing. And then you remind me that Chavez and Obama are blaming them..

    Yeesh.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      /sarcasm off)

      • avgjo

        I guess I mistakenly took both parties to be advocates of a position, instead of mere messengers.

        Thanks for the logic check.

  • citizenkh

    hasn’t performed well at all for the last 10 years. It loses BILLIONS annually, cannot pay many of its bills and had lost 35% of its production capacity.

    Who knew that an oil company which controlled its production costs and had one the largest, if not the largest oil reserves in the world, in a booming market could possibly be a failure?

    This did play a role in the shutting of Hovensa’s world class (once the world’s largest) refinery in St. Croix, of which Venezuela is a 50% owner.

    Bolling is not 100% correct since much of the crude oil going to refiners is on a direct contract basis, not via the market.

  • DerKrieger

    …doesn’t believe his speculator BS, he just knows that there are enough ignorant Americans that do that he can get away with it.

  • dajeeps

    Someone should answer that question before we go pinning it all on the Fed.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      We need to win an election before the Sec Treas or The Fed will care less what any Conservative thinks.

      • dajeeps

        The Fed is blunt instrument , what it does impacts everything, not just specific things. We took it in the shorts for $7T in real estate alone, not counting the CDS fiasco or any of the peripheral damage. and the Fed’s balance sheet is not even half that size. If it were the cause of the oil price spike, we wouldn’t be having such an employment/sales/demand problem in the broader economy. It’s all in the AS/AD model.

        The oil problem is at least 75% supply-side inflation. It’s a global market, and while we’ve had demand problems here in the states, emerging markets have been going like wild fire. If we had the same demand levels we had in 2007, gas prices would likely be double what they are today.

        • dajeeps

          I’m pretty skeptical of Austrian economics because it doesn’t comprehend supply/demand issues very well and there’s a tendency to oversimplify things to where every price change has something to do with the Fed. I truly am not a Fed defender. I think there are problems with it, but I also know that premise is simply not true. I really wonder if perhaps at least 50% of it is not simply anti-Fed propaganda.

          The danger is that what if price problems have to do with regulatory agencies, excessive taxation, or some other government policy issue, like ObamaCare, and the fingers are being pointed at the Fed which obviously has nothing to do with it. In that way, we can’t solve the real problems if we don’t know what they are in the first place.

  • aesthete

    the leftist complaint that the market is short-sighted and doesn’t allow for long-term thing rings so hollow: they attack every mechanism which allows the market to allocate goods long- and short- term, and politicians and bureaucrats alike are encouraged to fritter away any and all monies that come into the public trust so as to increase their own power and prestige in the short term.

  • johnt

    I don’t recall him hugging Ryan or McConnell.
    Somewhere in this, a sentence or two buried deep in the “new measures”, there is a means or method to cause more misery, locatable in the “enforcement” and “monitoring” parts.
    It’s the one thing government does well, unless we’re talking about guns crossing a border.

  • Risky

    I assumed this was about the French elections. They like to blame the Euro’s problems on “Ango-SaxonSpeculators” (Meaning the US+UK based banks and funds) rather than thier own economic shortcomings.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      is now claiming that curious white people (?Ango-SaxonSpeculators?) have ruined the world…

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        not anglo-saxon.

  • renny

    so what would explain the average $1.81 gallon of gas the summer of 2008?

    Were the speculators all on vacation?

    There are always investors in energy, but they only occasionally completely drive prices.

    What is raising them now is a combination of debased money (the trillions Bernanke and Geithner have been flooding us with), uncertainty over Iran and the whackiness in the Middle East that could disastrously interrupt foreign oil, and the o administration policy that oppresses the fossil fuels markets.

    o mobster minions have not just limited oil in the Gulf and Alaska but have banned mining and sales of uranium on gov lands (Salazar), prevented frating on gov. lands in PA, sued TX to shut down 16 refineries, and, of course, stopped the Keystone pipeline, among dozens of other stupid energy decisions.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      using logic like that! Someone might get confused!

    • ohiohistorian

      See links in article below.

  • ohiohistorian

    The St. Louis Fed analyzed the oil market over 30 years. They came to the conclusion using a FAVAR statistical approach that speculation was responsible for about 15% of any oil price change. Based on reading the rest of this, it appears that the major factor is oil supply. http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-027.pdf.

    Another study concluded just the opposite over approximately the same period since 2004: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lkilian/milan030612.pdf

    Recommended for late-night reading by insomniacs.
    All that this proves is that you can’t get two sets of statisticians to agree on anything. But it also fuels the argument that, of the increase in price, about $.30 is the maximum effect of speculation. That means the Obama policies are the cause of the other $1.70. Thanks, Barack. I always wanted to send $1.70/gallon to Saudi Arabia and similar so that they could send it to the Taliban and other terrorists. Barack Obama’s environmental policies are therefore the major cause of death of all sides in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • renny

    maybe the Wall Street Journal as he reads it, but he constantly quotes a $31 trillion sent by us since the 1930s to the Middle East, primarily the Saudis for oil. Sounds high to me, but surely, we have sent MANY trillions by this time, and maybe once it was worth it, but surely no longer.

    We have 100s of years of oil and nat. gas and coal and even uranium, until something like cold fusion comes along, those are the fuels that are going to run the world.

    I can tell you of a great uncle who was a NJ Piney and lived in the woods in a shack and used only a little windmill attached to a car battery to generate his electricity. His was true subsistence living, which I do not see the average Am. regressing to. Uncle Jerome trapped rabbits, had a kitchen garden, apple orchard (or part of), canned, sold eggs and chickens, heated with kerosene, and had a piece of linoleum on a bare dirt foundation as a floor and an outhouse for hygiene. The battery ran a black and white tv on Fri, nights for the fights. Except for the tv, he could’ve been out of the Great Depression or 1850. That is the vision the greens really have and it is not modern Am.

    • Flagstaff

      or unavailable. “Endangered species,” you know.

  • Flagstaff

    Lou “Dubious? Dobbs seem to agree with Obama-Chavez. “Speculators” are the force behind higher oil prices. They drive up oil prices by buying high and selling higher, making untold sums of greedy profits while the rest of us suffer at the pumps. They do this by buying with practically no money down, so they pocket the entire profit when they sell.

    None of them have an answer when asked, “Why don’t they do this all the time? Why do prices ever go down? Why don’t we all get in on the fun and games? With all this unethical profit, why are oil company profits on the low side of average for industrial companies? What is Apple doing to generate its tremendous profits?”

    Of course, they can’t answer because their premise is all nonsense, and I’m surprised that Dobbs even buys into it a little bit. He does distance himself from O’Reilly somewhat by making a distinction between speculators and industrial hedgers, but never gets specific about what that means.

    Eric Bolling has a thing about raising margin requirements. His claim is that Wall Street banks can trade oil as a commodity for no margin, if bought and sold on the same day. Held overnight, the contract can cost them “only” 2% to 3%. As a result, the world oil market “uses” 83 million barrels of oil per day, while 4 billion barrels are traded every day (in futures contracts). This bad “excessive” trading, he says, artificially impinges on the price of oil, which indirectly affects what we pay for gasoline. This is a basic definition of speculation. There is good speculation, too, called hedging by oil users, but no time to discuss that.

    Again, no explanation of why the banks aren’t hurt when they make the wrong bets. They are apparently always right. Prices never go down. But in the real world, they do. A Goldman-Sachs study (for what it’s worth) indicates that “excessive” speculation raises the cost of the commodity by about 30%. It doesn’t say (or they didn’t tell us) how much a new restriction of speculation might add to costs. One cost would be that small hedgers, who need to be in the futures market to protect their future costs, might be priced out of the market, resulting in a lower supply (and thus higher price) for their products.

    There are other ways to address this problem without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    The trouble with using pop culture/TV news to learn about this stuff is it doesn’t tell anywhere near the whole story. But we do know that doubling the money supply in closed system, as in Venezuela, will cut the value of a fiat currency in half. The only reason it hasn’t happened to us yet, is that our currency is used around the world and we have a long way to go before we double the supply. I think.

  • spandrel

    I was in Venezuela several times during ‘early’ Chavez, visiting my missionary brother, and it was a pleasure to be there. Other than the scary gas subsidies (10 cents per gallon? is obviously not market rates in any reality based economy) it was an easy and pleasant place to shop, eat, travel, and share life stories with Venezuelans. No more, I fear.

    As for oil speculators: they may be to “blame”, but as long as they play by the rules, who are we to complain if it drives up prices.

  • unclefred

    If you heat with oil and sign a contract with your local provider to lock in your heating oil or NG/Propane price in the off season you are speculating. If you decide not to lock your price, betting that price will fall or remain stable, you are still speculating, just not in a way that uses the futures market.

    When I was growing up my next door neighbor installed a 1000 gallon tank for gasoline so that he could “buy in bulk”. His plan was to buy in the valleys at a discount and ride out the price hikes, or at least miss the worst of the peaks. Over the long haul he ended up losing money on his “trades” and ultimately stopped buying in bulk.

    Speculation is simply part of the market place.