Dan Sheppard wrote in
:
Paul Treadaway wrote:
[Hedges and Futures]
The same would apply to them - if they stopped being profitable they
would disappear.

I can assure you that the same thing regularly happened in the USSR.

On recent evidence of quite a few datapoints, they'd most likely be
bailed out by the relevant central bank. Even macroeconomics jiggled
to give them breathing-room.

Well in theory they are no different to any other market. In practice, as
I said in my other post, theory is sometimes abandoned when markets
collapse. But it isn't consistent - the state of the housing market is
something that most of the population experience directly, and it
gets a lot of media coverage, so governments are less likely to be
laissez-faire about it as it more directly affects their votes. Effectively
this means that if you want to take big risks, operate in a market that
the government can't allow to crash, so you have the opportunity to
blackmail them when it does.

Dan Sheppard wrote in
:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-08, Dan Sheppard wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Theocracy, military dictatorship, Soviet style communism, all these
star with a preconception as to what is right and will work, and
attempt to create people to fit the perfect system,and thise
ultimately end up being totally repressive.

I agree with this,

Market based economies at least do not second guess societies shape:
what works tends to flourish and what doesn't falls by the wayside.

But I'm not so sure about this. Isn't this what futures and hedge
markets do?

No. Futures are a bet on which way the market will move, not an
attempt to move the market in a specific direction.

Is betting on society's shape not "second guessing society's shape"?
I'm not a betting man, but I imagine that if I were to put my money on
a horse, I'm trying to second guess which horse will be fastest?".

[Of course, it's easier in futures. The futures market helps determine
where investments are placed, which is the life blood of many
businesses. Which is like a race where every bet on a horse removes a
pound of handicap.]

Or a race where heavy betting on the favourite gives someone the
incentive to nobble it. Which probably does happen occasionally of
course.

The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
Dan Sheppard wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Theocracy, military dictatorship, Soviet style communism, all these
star with a preconception as to what is right and will work, and
attempt to create people to fit the perfect system,and thise
ultimately end up being totally repressive.

I agree with this,

Market based economies at least do not second guess societies shape:
what works tends to flourish and what doesn't falls by the wayside.

But I'm not so sure about this. Isn't this what futures and hedge
markets do?

Dan.

Almost the reverse. They attempt to secondn guess a what tbe future
economic shape of the economy will be for sure, but their actions
usually tend to make things if more volatile, ultimately act against
their expectations.

i.e.todays oil futures account for and etsimated 20% of the price RISE
(Barclays Capital).

Current oil prices are a bubble, but that's not the usual effect of futures.
The flight to commodities are a consequence of retreat of capital from
the financial markets, and commodities futures are predicting that this
will continue. As with most perturbations, the system will return to
equilibrium eventually.

The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
The correct way to handle a Northern Rock would be to implement
insurance that all banks must pay to safeguard depositors deposits: if
that had been in place, Northern Rock could (and should) he gone to
the wall with scarcely a ripple. Fat cats, employees, and all.

That would just shift the risk onto insurance capacity providers, so the
government would be bailing out failing Lloyds syndicates etc. rather
than banks directly. And of course with insurance the banks might
have pushed the envelope of risk even more.

In message , at 10:08:06 on Mon, 9 Jun
2008, Huge remarked:
And when things would fall by the wayside (e.g. Northern Rock), it
often isn't politically possible to let that happen.

I'll add Railtrack to that. In theory such "rescues" distort the market,
but people generally aren't very happy dealing with the consequences of
simply letting the market solve the problem.

Usually referred to as "market failure" when it is no such thing.

Could be a failure of the market, but as you say a "market failure" has
a precise and quite different meaning.
--
Roland Perry

Dan Sheppard wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-08, Dan Sheppard wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Theocracy, military dictatorship, Soviet style communism, all these star
with a preconception as to what is right and will work, and attempt to
create people to fit the perfect system,and thise ultimately end up
being totally repressive.
I agree with this,

Market based economies at least do not second guess societies shape:
what works tends to flourish and what doesn't falls by the wayside.
But I'm not so sure about this. Isn't this what futures and hedge
markets do?
No. Futures are a bet on which way the market will move, not an attempt to move
the market in a specific direction.

Is betting on society's shape not "second guessing society's shape"?

No, its first guessing, and knows that it is.

And its only for money.

Ideology is far more dangerus, as it dens;t guess which way society will
go, it decided s where society ought o go and then uses the most
inappropiate means to get it somewhere else entirely, usually.

It is, if you like, the difference between 'betting that by 1945 there
won't be a pole, gypsy, mental defective or jew left in Germany' and
actually lighting the gas.

Paul Treadaway wrote:
Dan Sheppard wrote in
:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-08, Dan Sheppard wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Theocracy, military dictatorship, Soviet style communism, all these
star with a preconception as to what is right and will work, and
attempt to create people to fit the perfect system,and thise
ultimately end up being totally repressive.
I agree with this,

Market based economies at least do not second guess societies shape:
what works tends to flourish and what doesn't falls by the wayside.
But I'm not so sure about this. Isn't this what futures and hedge
markets do?
No. Futures are a bet on which way the market will move, not an
attempt to move the market in a specific direction.
Is betting on society's shape not "second guessing society's shape"?
I'm not a betting man, but I imagine that if I were to put my money on
a horse, I'm trying to second guess which horse will be fastest?".

[Of course, it's easier in futures. The futures market helps determine
where investments are placed, which is the life blood of many
businesses. Which is like a race where every bet on a horse removes a
pound of handicap.]

Or a race where heavy betting on the favourite gives someone the
incentive to nobble it. Which probably does happen occasionally of
course.

I hae the strange feelking that about 90% of football matches are fixed,
60% of hourses entered in a race are not intended to win it, and that
you can get away with anything in formula one up to and including
prancing mnaked with a swastike tied to your dick, as long as you dont
actually in any way stop a Ferrari winning a race.

That carries the death penalty.

Paul Treadaway wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
The correct way to handle a Northern Rock would be to implement
insurance that all banks must pay to safeguard depositors deposits: if
that had been in place, Northern Rock could (and should) he gone to
the wall with scarcely a ripple. Fat cats, employees, and all.

That would just shift the risk onto insurance capacity providers, so the
government would be bailing out failing Lloyds syndicates etc. rather
than banks directly. And of course with insurance the banks might
have pushed the envelope of risk even more.

Lloyds names are not bailed out. Whatever happened to Hunt the Shunt?


Al right dont call it insurance, call it a liquidity fund that simply
backs te ebanks as a seconfd line of liquidity. The money paid as
premeiums accumulates and is what inures the customers against bank losses.

We know that bankers don't care about customers, just their jobs: this
way they lose their jobs, but the customers don't lose their deposit.

Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-09, Paul Treadaway wrote:

And of course with insurance the banks might
have pushed the envelope of risk even more.

No "might" about it. Bond insurance demonstrated that.

The German market implies teh opposite.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message 3, at
16:40:01 on Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Paul Treadaway
remarked:

And when things would fall by the wayside (e.g. Northern Rock), it
often isn't politically possible to let that happen.

I'll add Railtrack to that. In theory such "rescues" distort the market,
but people generally aren't very happy dealing with the consequences of
simply letting the market solve the problem.

Railtrack is now run optimally I think.

Northern rock is popssibly the worst of all possible worlds.

The Natural Philosopher wrote in :
you can get away with anything in formula one up to and including
prancing mnaked with a swastike tied to your dick, as long as you dont
actually in any way stop a Ferrari winning a race.

Montoya says he was penalised for "looking at Schumacher a bit funny".

The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
Paul Treadaway wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
The correct way to handle a Northern Rock would be to implement
insurance that all banks must pay to safeguard depositors deposits:
if that had been in place, Northern Rock could (and should) he gone
to the wall with scarcely a ripple. Fat cats, employees, and all.

That would just shift the risk onto insurance capacity providers, so
the government would be bailing out failing Lloyds syndicates etc.
rather than banks directly. And of course with insurance the banks
might have pushed the envelope of risk even more.
Lloyds names are not bailed out. Whatever happened to Hunt the Shunt?

They would be if they were all that stood between the banking system
collapsing and the banking system not collapsing.

Al right dont call it insurance, call it a liquidity fund that simply
backs te ebanks as a seconfd line of liquidity. The money paid as
premeiums accumulates and is what inures the customers against bank
losses.

Well the premiums would be passed on to the customers, so what
actually is the advantage over the government providing the liquidity
and then everyone paying for it in taxes? Unless it's happening every
year, it's hard to see that the market is going to be noticeably more
efficient at sporadic liquidity splurges.

The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
Northern rock is popssibly the worst of all possible worlds.

Well it depends who you are. As a taxpayer but non-home-owner,
obviously it would be better for me to let some banks collapse and
the housing market crash. Whether that's the best outcome for
everyone is another matter, and if they're happy to pay the overheads
for a softer landing, there's not much I can do about it.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:39:36 GMT, Paul Treadaway
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
Paul Treadaway wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote in
:
The correct way to handle a Northern Rock would be to implement
insurance that all banks must pay to safeguard depositors deposits:
if that had been in place, Northern Rock could (and should) he gone
to the wall with scarcely a ripple. Fat cats, employees, and all.

That would just shift the risk onto insurance capacity providers, so
the government would be bailing out failing Lloyds syndicates etc.
rather than banks directly. And of course with insurance the banks
might have pushed the envelope of risk even more.
Lloyds names are not bailed out. Whatever happened to Hunt the Shunt?

They would be if they were all that stood between the banking system
collapsing and the banking system not collapsing.

Al right dont call it insurance, call it a liquidity fund that simply
backs te ebanks as a seconfd line of liquidity. The money paid as
premeiums accumulates and is what inures the customers against bank
losses.

Well the premiums would be passed on to the customers, so what
actually is the advantage over the government providing the liquidity
and then everyone paying for it in taxes? Unless it's happening every
year, it's hard to see that the market is going to be noticeably more
efficient at sporadic liquidity splurges.

The question is should just the customers pay or everyone? Personally
I'm not happy paying the premium as a tax payer for a company that I
have nothing to do with.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-06-09, Paul Treadaway wrote:

And of course with insurance the banks might
have pushed the envelope of risk even more.
No "might" about it. Bond insurance demonstrated that.

The German market implies teh opposite.

Please elaborate. I'm not familiar with the German bond market.

Geman banks maintain a fund to pay customers deposits back in full in
the event of a bank failure.

In message , at 11:05:43 on
Tue, 10 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
Geman banks maintain a fund to pay customers deposits back in full in
the event of a bank failure.

In the event of an isolated small bank failure I suspect.

If Deutsche Bank went broke I think it might not be able to cope. A
quick Google says there are nearly 3,000 different banks (ie different
legal entities) in Germany, more like the USA where it seems every town
has its own small bank.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 22:37:43 on
Mon, 9 Jun 2008, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
I'll add Railtrack to that. In theory such "rescues" distort the
market, but people generally aren't very happy dealing with the
consequences of simply letting the market solve the problem.

Railtrack is now run optimally I think.

Railtrack doesn't really exist. Did you mean "Network Rail"? Say they
run optimally to anyone with a journey involving Rugby Station, and
you'll get laughed at.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:19:54 +0100, Duncan Wood wrote:

No more so than oil filters, headlamps, tyres, windscreens. Should
they all be forced to be one of four or five basic types? How about
front wings or bumpers?

Why not? This is only a car, something to move you from one place to
another, not a fashion accessory.

Because the advantages would be miniscule?

Would they? No need for motor factors to have massive stocks of umpteen
different type of what ever. Less transportation. Every garage could carry
the full range of common consumables for all cars, this would save the
motor factors delivery van doing a trip just to deliver a single set of
filters etc to a garage servicing a particular model that they don't have
stock for.

With fewer types economy of scale in manufacture kicks in, you just make
10,000,000 "filter, oil, type C" instead of 100,000 of this 3 million of
that another 750,000 of the other, oh and 50,000 of variant B of filter X
etc etc.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:19:54 +0100, Duncan Wood wrote:

No more so than oil filters, headlamps, tyres, windscreens. Should
they all be forced to be one of four or five basic types? How about
front wings or bumpers?
Why not? This is only a car, something to move you from one place to
another, not a fashion accessory.
Because the advantages would be miniscule?

Would they? No need for motor factors to have massive stocks of umpteen
different type of what ever. Less transportation. Every garage could carry
the full range of common consumables for all cars, this would save the
motor factors delivery van doing a trip just to deliver a single set of
filters etc to a garage servicing a particular model that they don't have
stock for.

With fewer types economy of scale in manufacture kicks in, you just make
10,000,000 "filter, oil, type C" instead of 100,000 of this 3 million of
that another 750,000 of the other, oh and 50,000 of variant B of filter X
etc etc.

Look up 'efficiency' 'cartel' and 'jobs for he boy' and 'unions' to see
why things are the way they are.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:19:54 +0100, Duncan Wood wrote:

No more so than oil filters, headlamps, tyres, windscreens. Should
they all be forced to be one of four or five basic types? How about
front wings or bumpers?
Why not? This is only a car, something to move you from one place to
another, not a fashion accessory.
Because the advantages would be miniscule?

Would they? No need for motor factors to have massive stocks of umpteen
different type of what ever. Less transportation. Every garage could
carry the full range of common consumables for all cars, this would save
the motor factors delivery van doing a trip just to deliver a single set
of filters etc to a garage servicing a particular model that they don't
have stock for. With fewer types economy of scale in manufacture kicks
in, you just make 10,000,000 "filter, oil, type C" instead of 100,000 of
this 3 million of that another 750,000 of the other, oh and 50,000 of
variant B of filter X etc etc.

Look up 'efficiency' 'cartel' and 'jobs for he boy' and 'unions' to see
why things are the way they are.

I'm sure people know why things are like they . I thought the OP was
looking for reasons as to why the authorities shouldn't legislate to stop it
being that way.

tim