Of course there's a difference. It's based on information asymmetry, i.e. the 'greater fool' theory. When the information asymmetry is deliberately created, that's being done in bad faith, and is the sort of thing we call fraud when done on an individual level. It often feels like a great deal of our corporate and financial machinery are designed around diffusing actions that would be criminal, or reprehensible if done person to person, in order to allow them to be done at scale without consequence.

> When the information asymmetry is deliberately created, that's being done in bad faith, and is the sort of thing we call fraud when done on an individual level.

What information asymmetry? The previous comments referred to speculators betting on price movements.

Deliberately creating fraudulent information asymmetry would be altering data in industry reports and publishing false manufacture/consumption data. Which, I assume, is illegal.

What is illegal is financial advising without a license. Which recommending a stock falls under. Altering some one else's report and claiming your rendition is the real one is forgery or something, but writing your own report and making up numbers is totally fine.

By, for example, deliberately delaying delivery while owning a significant segment of the available commodity, such as Goldman Sachs did with aluminum a decade ago. [1], while simultaneously selling derivatives based on the very commodities they were manipulating. To the best of my knowledge, there were no consequences - if anyone knows of a financial penalty or change to law or regulations, please share!

1. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2...

I agree that there is concern of malfeasance in that scenario, but I was under the impression the context of the discussion was solely around the purchase and sale of contracts for the commodities (i.e. betting on the future price of a commodity), not manipulation of the actual supply and demand.

When the same legal entities are in a position to do both (participate in the futures market and manipulate supply and demand) I do not see how or why you would try to make such a distinction.

It feels like you're trying to say, "this market would work fine if it weren't for those meddling bad actors" as a response to "the problem is the bad actors".

> Unless you want to restrict markets to being only between suppliers and consumers

That is what I would like to do, yes.

That is how they were in the beginning. I recommend reading about the development of markets and futures trading to see what benefits they provide, as they are a component of any developed economy around the world.

I challenge you to write out what scenarios you think reducing market participants will solve. Historically it has 100% so far been highly illiquid markets with huge price spreads, which is terrible for both sellers and buyers.

What you’re suggesting means a farmer selling wheat futures for delivery a year from now needs to be at the market at the same time a bread maker is looking to buy wheat a year from now. That basically doesn’t happen because the bread maker doesn’t need that level of forward looking price stability.

Read up on the onion futures markets; due to a (rather fascinating) historical decision, they are one of the few commodities without speculative futures. As a result, price volatility in the market is massive, with far worse swings compared to the efficient markets where speculators operate.