Crude went from $25 to $80+ bucks a barrel, in five years (that's how Rothschilds are born). The Federal reserve boys, realizing that oil prices have a direct relationship to the US economy as a whole (such as mortgages, credit, bonds, etc.), more or less adjust interest rates accordingly (though they were off until 2003 or so).
Trading units in crude oil are 1000 barrels each. Most shekelmeisters start with at least 10 contracts: 10,000 barrels (a big-time baron like Gates or Ellison probably has millions tied up in the crude casino). So starting--modestly, in capitalist terms---with 10,000 @ $25, you had $250,000 (minus the fees for brokers and other whores). Less than 4 years later, you got $800,000 in value (add another 0 or two for how the deep pockets boys in NY or Chi-town play)--actually with leverage, it could be more. That ain't working.
6 comments:
That's just an open trade on the commodity futures, comrade. The options contracts themselves have a value in addition to the value of the commodity: which is to say, when that oil market surges 5 dollars, the value of the option contract goes up in ticks--not just the value of the underlying barrels (the commodity "future"). The crude option ticks offer a great deal more potential profit (and that's where deep pockets are) than just the flat trades. Potential risk too, but that is offset because the options do not like stocks or straight futures require any margin: you only lose what you put in. Either way, it's an investor's paradise (and since you seem somewhat given to contrarian thoughts, rather ironic, since as oil reserves dry up, a few shekelmeisters (or OPEC sheiks) rake it in--big time).
Really we think you are dyslexic, or at least incapable of critical reading. And as moralistic as baptists: Like Jimmy Carters on crack.
"Taking my quote out of context (i.e. refusing to include my point on Orwell, who was opposed to pacifists, and to statist-leftists): that is “ethically-challenged.”"
Sorry you feel that way. I approved the entire comment. Just because I didn't comment on every word doesn't make me ethically challenged. Not approving most of your diatribes might, but then again, isn't everyone ethically challenged? Find me someone who isn't and I'll show you a monster in the making.
Hard to tell, given your moderation policies: the post indicates what, 17 comments, and yet 20 are in the queue. Either way, you missed the point (which is hardly gibberish--unless you define "gibberish" as "semantics we don't care for).
Given secular, human-based ethics (i.e. non-religious, and non-objective), any value statements are really subjective "preferences"--or based on taste, as Hume says (though most agree that a Hume--or Sam Harris' "preferences" or arguments-are probably more important than say those of Esmeralda at work in the garment district). So Hume in effect says you cannot prove that something like "Justice" exists merely by reason (whether inductive or deductive). BF Skinner and most empirical psychologists of the 20th century would agree.
Hume does not imply nihilism, as many xtians seem to think: merely that values are not innate or floating in some platonic or theological Heaven. But on NW, that heaven is appealed to regularly; moralists (including leftist ones) appeal to Justice, 24/7, as you do. A more sober assessment of the war would take into account the conflicting views, weigh them, assess them. You don't simply wave hands and say anyone who disagrees is wrong. That is scientific thinking as well, which depends on a certain degree of relativism.
In fact, you have said that (in your own words) on NW quite a few times. But then you routinely turn around and become a Jimmy-Carter-on-Crack. I agree there was tragedy in the Iraqi war. But whether that tragedy is worse than letting Hussein remain in power is hardly obvious, except to the NormaRae-crats.
That's right, Hume. Dead white dude. Ben Franklin's pal. Major influence on Bertrand Russell. And even Einstein quoted him at times.
(google fact/value distinction for starters. then provide counterargument to Hume's ethical skepticism; (and then perhaps you could post "Why we are obligated to be Pacifists--or even against Iraqi War Effort")).
LOL: TennesseeWilliamsRon refers to "graduate school-format." That's pretty funny. Had Tenn. ever been required to write something following the APA format--or even Osiris, Forbid, the MLA--, the world would have been saved from a lot of stupid, useless, emotional verbiage. As soon as he encountered something like "the researcher must support all assertions (which must be clealy indicated) with ample data and relevant evidence, anticipate opposing arguments, and avoid generalizations and other fallacies," his entire do-gooder project would have been defeated from the proverbial start.
And even Marx (at least the young sociologist Marx) agreed with the APA guidelines, mostly.
Post a Comment