You can also do "bad" things on first order by hoarding the items themselves.
More narrowly, the ability to forward sell or buy things allows financing of production but in turn it needs people willing to take the other side. Derivatives money is a thing.
You need to manufacture a widget and it must cost no more than $5. You have a few inputs to your widget, some made with steel and some with plastic. If steel and plastic prices increase, your inputs cost more than $5 and you’re making a loss on every widget you sell.
So you go to the futures market and take a bet that the input prices will increase. If you’re right, you win $, which makes your widget manufacturing profitable and you’re still in business. If prices fall you lose the bet, your profits are lower. But hey, at least you’re still in business.
A responsible, well run manufacturing business benefits from the existence of such a market because it allows them to de-risk.
The same thing: hedging/insuring against price changes. The supplier (ultimately, a farmer, steel mill, gold miner, electricity generator, etc) is getting a guaranteed price for the commodity they're selling, reducing risk.
Again, these aren’t theoretical considerations, we’ve always had naïve Puritanical elements seeking to ban speculation, and in some assets and jurisdictions they have succeeded. Reducing market participation has never worked.
This isn't remotely how manufacturing works. Manufacturers are focused on making the widget, for them the most important thing is that material is available, not a paper contract.
Essentially you are saying 100% of bad things are bad. Which is true, but also meaningless statement. Since it would still be true in a utopia with no bad things.
"nah brah it's just rational actors rationally acting with rationality"
Supply and demand is a thing the same way the convention of shaking hands upon meeting is a thing.
If supply and demand is just a convention, they what are the alternatives?
I guess I’m ignorant, but central planning is the only one I can think of.
Unless you lock in all commodity costs, how is long term planning even possible without speculation? If you plan to open a distribution center somewhere, the optimal location depends on e.g. fuel costs. You can’t do anything but speculate about the costs of those commodities. So I don’t even see the need to track down sources. Do you not see that you just need to guess at the (future) cost of certain things?
You are just making a bunch of claims with no support but “people I trust say so so the claims are true”. Now I really will bow out.
Of course it is "speculating" trying to estimate fuel prices, but this is not meant, when people condemn "gambling" on the stock market. What they mean is people with lots money investing wherever short term profits are possible and often gaming the market while doing so. So creating unexpected price changes for the actual industries needing those supplies and they obviously don't like that. But I couldn't draw a clear line between "necessary gambling" and "unnecessary gambling".
Followed by
> But I couldn't draw a clear line between "necessary gambling" and "unnecessary gambling".
What? you literally just drew a very crisp line.
The existence of the futures market does not prevent a copper provider from entering into an exclusive sales contract to sell 12 months from now to a specific consumer. However, unless they match the current 12 month contract price, one of them is taking a bad deal with what they can get on a much more liquid market. Additionally, their counter party risk is now much more significant because they are tied to one other party.
Maybe you could actually offer something specific about how “the speculation market is more of a hindrance than a help”?
So far whenever I see this, it’s people who don’t like that the price changes on them but their solution is to remove participants from the market to a point where it is so illiquid the lack of trading looks like the price isn’t moving.
Let me try to answer this though: one example out of many is how Kodak speculated that the transition to digital cameras would lead them to lose profit over the long run, so they chose not to pursue the route. This was a long term plan that lead them to bankruptcy. (of course, they changed course once they realized that digital cameras were competitive options, but the original long term goal was to continue the film camera route, shown by their unwillingness to even try to produce digital cameras as an possible option)
However, there is copious cause/effect data showing that non-sobriety is expensive in terms of health- and societal repercussions.
> Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
Morality seems more of a subjective call, e.g. "Thou shalt marry heterosexually ahead of procreation", than a stochastic analysis, e.g. "X percent of fatal car crashes involve blood alcohol above Y concentration."
My argument is that we can declutter discussion by treating all "moral compass" arguments as orthogonal to an "ethical plane".
If our subjective judgements are treated as internal (booze==sin), and de-conflicted from the external, legal arguments, we'd be in better shape.
But too many are invested in the status quo to tidy up the model like that.
It’s entirely reasonable for law to take the moral stance that people should broadly pay for the benefits as participating in organised society, so to ensure the long term upkeep and maintenance of that organisation they derive benefits from.
At which point consumption taxes have nothing to any moral judgement about the consumption of various products, but simple calculus that the voluntary consuming those products increases the cost of running our society, and so you should pay a bit more for engaging in these activities.
But none of that is judgement on the morality of activity. I personally couldn’t give a shit what drugs you or anyone else consumes. But I don’t particularly like the idea of having pick up the bill later for an activity I didn’t participate in. So if you pay some extra taxes to cover to cost of additional healthcare, then feel free to consume whatever the hell you want.
The repeated grouping of morality/ethics into purely religion/judgement throughout this thread really bothers me. IMHO your argument is an argument of moral propriety of making people pay for others choices. You’re semantically choosing to not call it that is all.
But my point is there’s a difference between moral basis for having laws and taxes, and their specific implementation. Consumption taxes are just one approach for implementing a social system build on the basis “fair contribution/usage”, or whatever we want to call it (my views on “moral” behaviour are too nuanced and confused to fit into an internet comment, so let’s just work with something simple). But the taxes themselves aren’t a direct expression of moral judgment themselves, but rather an implementation detail of a broader governing moral system that provides legitimacy to laws and the states rights to enforce them.
It might be a distinction without a difference. But if someone is going to call out consumption taxes as somehow more inherently driven by moral judgments than any other part of a system of law, then I think making the distinction is reasonable.
Look at the futures market. Speculators are a big part of the liquidity of the futures market.
Price of wheat is $60/bushel. Farmer won't harvest for another 6 months and is worried prices will drop. They can secure a future and lock in the price now.
Wheat purchasers aren't on the other side of that trade, because why would they lock in a higher price? A lower price benefits them.
Speculators come in and bet on the price of wheat, creating a deep pool of futures that can be bought and sold.
Neither are great, but one is definitely preferred.