Posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Are Oil Futures Markets Being Manipulated? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary
Are Oil Futures Markets Being Manipulated? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If futures prices rise even though no underlying shortage exists to justify higher future prices, the shorts (along with everyone else) will be offered a golden opportunity to buy oil in spot markets (so-called because oil can be bought 'on the spot'), put it into storage, and sell that crude forward into the futures market — at the inflated, 'manipulated' price — and realize a very real and totally risk-free profit. Because our economy is full of people who are smart enough — and motivated enough — to know a risk-free profit opportunity when they see one, any significant divergence between spot and futures price will trigger so much of this sort of thing that futures prices will fall (more futures are being sold into the market, and futures prices — like the price of everything else — is established by the supply of and demand for futures) and spot prices will rise (because of the reduced supply from oil being placed in storage) eliminating the difference between the futures and spot price."
The "Buy-Local" Canard - Tyler A. Watts - Mises Daily
The "Buy-Local" Canard - Tyler A. Watts - Mises Daily: "The cost of providing a good typically goes up with increased distance from market. But for many goods, people in more distant locations are so much more productive that — even factoring in the cost of transport — we find that trade makes sense."
"If buying local makes sense, there's no need to extol or encourage it. If it doesn't make sense, but people do it anyway in a half-baked attempt at local stimulus or in a vain effort to save the planet, the effects are not 'good for the economy,' but quite the opposite."
"If buying local makes sense, there's no need to extol or encourage it. If it doesn't make sense, but people do it anyway in a half-baked attempt at local stimulus or in a vain effort to save the planet, the effects are not 'good for the economy,' but quite the opposite."
Getting Osama Bin Laden: The Case against Torture | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Getting Osama Bin Laden: The Case against Torture | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "the GOP torture caucus argues that Bush-era prisoner abuse enabled officials to track down bin Laden.
Assume for the moment that this is true. It still offers no compelling argument to torture.
Bin Laden was a moral monster, well deserving of his fate. But for all of his plotting, he does not appear to have achieved very much in recent years. Wrote Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General, and Gregory Fried, a philosophy professor: 'Osama bin Laden was not the ticking bomb requiring immediate defusing, so familiar now from television dramas.'"
"The U.S. prosecuted Japanese military officers for war crimes including waterboarding: how can American interrogators use the same technique today?"
"many professional interrogators argue that torture generally is ineffective. Carle complained that torture 'didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.' The interrogator stationed in Afghanistan, who also has worked in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, stated: 'No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion -- nothing inhumane -- is considered a useful tool in our work.'
Warned Stuart Herrington, a retired Army colonel who interrogated leading Iraqis, 'The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.' Similarly, Alexander, now with the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, argued that prisoners tend to 'quit talking' after being tortured.
Even if they continue talking, what they say cannot be trusted, since torture creates an incentive to appear cooperative and say whatever will stop the pain."
"though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, provided Abu Ahmed's nom de' guerre, Khalid apparently was not the first detainee to do so. That information also was not garnered while he was being tortured--when, in fact, Khalid lied about many details about the courier."
Assume for the moment that this is true. It still offers no compelling argument to torture.
Bin Laden was a moral monster, well deserving of his fate. But for all of his plotting, he does not appear to have achieved very much in recent years. Wrote Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General, and Gregory Fried, a philosophy professor: 'Osama bin Laden was not the ticking bomb requiring immediate defusing, so familiar now from television dramas.'"
"The U.S. prosecuted Japanese military officers for war crimes including waterboarding: how can American interrogators use the same technique today?"
"many professional interrogators argue that torture generally is ineffective. Carle complained that torture 'didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.' The interrogator stationed in Afghanistan, who also has worked in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, stated: 'No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion -- nothing inhumane -- is considered a useful tool in our work.'
Warned Stuart Herrington, a retired Army colonel who interrogated leading Iraqis, 'The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.' Similarly, Alexander, now with the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, argued that prisoners tend to 'quit talking' after being tortured.
Even if they continue talking, what they say cannot be trusted, since torture creates an incentive to appear cooperative and say whatever will stop the pain."
"though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, provided Abu Ahmed's nom de' guerre, Khalid apparently was not the first detainee to do so. That information also was not garnered while he was being tortured--when, in fact, Khalid lied about many details about the courier."
Biebermania and Its Lessons for Our Time - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Daily
Biebermania and Its Lessons for Our Time - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Daily: "In other words, Justin has won the day not by fighting against technology — as the entire recording industry has done for many decades — but rather by getting out in front of technology and pulling it along to benefit his artistic ambitions.
His career then stands as yet another case for what seems to be an immutable law of human history: people who use technology win while those who fight against technology lose — if not immediately then certainly over the long term."
His career then stands as yet another case for what seems to be an immutable law of human history: people who use technology win while those who fight against technology lose — if not immediately then certainly over the long term."
Strauss-Kahn case: 4 ways French and American law differ - The "perp walk" - CSMonitor.com
Strauss-Kahn case: 4 ways French and American law differ - The "perp walk" - CSMonitor.com: "Much of the French ado over US media coverage of Strauss-Kahn has focused on the infamous “perp walk.” In the US, it is standard procedure for police to walk a suspect out in handcuffs in front of photographers, as it did with Strauss-Kahn.
In France, showing images of a suspect in handcuffs has been illegal since 2000, based on the belief that doing so undermines a person’s presumption of innocence. There are also no cameras in the courtrooms. France’s broadcasting watchdog agency, the Conseil Sup�rieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA), warned television stations against showing footage of Strauss-Kahn in handcuffs unless he is convicted."
In France, showing images of a suspect in handcuffs has been illegal since 2000, based on the belief that doing so undermines a person’s presumption of innocence. There are also no cameras in the courtrooms. France’s broadcasting watchdog agency, the Conseil Sup�rieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA), warned television stations against showing footage of Strauss-Kahn in handcuffs unless he is convicted."
GM's Profits: Nothing to Gloat About | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary
GM's Profits: Nothing to Gloat About | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "But only the most gullible observers would accept GM's profits as an appropriate measure of the wisdom of the auto bailout. Those profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed over $50 billion to the task of rescuing a single company. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten, and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a cyclical U.S. recovery and structural global expansion in auto demand — only the most incompetent operation could fail to make big profits. To that point, it's worth noting that more than half of GM's reported profit — $1.8 billion of $3.2 billion — is attributable to the one-time sales of shares in Ally Financial and Delphi, which says nothing about whether GM can make and sell automobiles profitably going forward."
"To net $50 billion, those 500 million public shares must be sold at an average price of just over $53 — a virtual impossibility anytime soon. Why? The most significant factor suppressing the stock value is the market's knowledge that the largest single holder of GM stock wants to unload about 500 million shares in the short term."
"To net $50 billion, those 500 million public shares must be sold at an average price of just over $53 — a virtual impossibility anytime soon. Why? The most significant factor suppressing the stock value is the market's knowledge that the largest single holder of GM stock wants to unload about 500 million shares in the short term."
100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil - Gary Galles - Mises Daily
100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil - Gary Galles - Mises Daily: "predatory pricing costs the supposed predator far more than it costs the prey, who can further expand the cost difference by temporarily shutting down. Unless the predator is allowed to buy up a victim driven to bankruptcy, others can buy up those assets cheaply, thus allowing them to again compete with the predator and reenter effective competition. Without the ability to prevent entry once monopoly pricing is attempted, the monopoly payoff disappears. Because it requires monopoly power to finance predation, predation cannot be the source of monopoly power"
"There has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing… claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combating 'predation,' are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer…"
"There has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing… claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combating 'predation,' are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer…"
Michigan Man Still Receives Food Stamps After Winning $2 Million Jackpot - FoxNews.com
Michigan Man Still Receives Food Stamps After Winning $2 Million Jackpot - FoxNews.com: "under federal guidelines, lottery winnings are not counted as income if a person receives a lump-sum payment."
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Pricing Politburo Slams Shampoo - S. M. Oliva - Mises Daily
The Pricing Politburo Slams Shampoo - S. M. Oliva - Mises Daily: "Notice she defined the market as being for 'value shampoo and value conditioner,' not shampoo and conditioner generally. In the modern antitrust system, prosecutors strive with all their might to define 'relevant markets' as narrowly as possible. Antitrust is ultimately a game of numbers. As a percentage of the overall shampoo and conditioner market, Suave and V05 are relatively insignificant players. But if you define the market as only including those two brands and maybe one other, suddenly you have a budding 'monopolist' on your hands!"
The Great Train Con | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Great Train Con | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "But Michigan's own grant application says the $196.5 million will only increase average speeds from 60 to 64 mph — with the top speed remaining unchanged at 79 mph. That is, travelers will save a mere 12 minutes — not 30."
That costs $34 per minute saved ($2,045 per hour saved) per person per trip. Is each person's time worth that much?
"Last year, Amtrak lost $19 million running three round trips a day between Chicago and Detroit. Amtrak fares start at $31 and the subsidy per ride is almost $40. Increasing the number of trains to 20 per day could cost taxpayers as much as $100 million a year on top of the capital costs.
By comparison — with virtually no subsidies — Megabus carries people between Chicago and Detroit at fares of $15 to $18. While Amtrak takes 6-1/2 hours, Megabus takes just 5-2/3 hours, mainly because it stops only in Ann Arbor, while Amtrak trains stop 8-9 times.
The best way to save people time is to simply end Amtrak subsidies, which unfairly compete with buses, airlines, and other relatively unsubsidized forms of transportation. Megabus or some other bus company would no doubt step in and provide non-stop service from Chicago and Detroit to Lansing, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, and other Michigan cities. That would serve those 1,315 Amtrak passengers, saving them time and the taxpayers money."
That costs $34 per minute saved ($2,045 per hour saved) per person per trip. Is each person's time worth that much?
"Last year, Amtrak lost $19 million running three round trips a day between Chicago and Detroit. Amtrak fares start at $31 and the subsidy per ride is almost $40. Increasing the number of trains to 20 per day could cost taxpayers as much as $100 million a year on top of the capital costs.
By comparison — with virtually no subsidies — Megabus carries people between Chicago and Detroit at fares of $15 to $18. While Amtrak takes 6-1/2 hours, Megabus takes just 5-2/3 hours, mainly because it stops only in Ann Arbor, while Amtrak trains stop 8-9 times.
The best way to save people time is to simply end Amtrak subsidies, which unfairly compete with buses, airlines, and other relatively unsubsidized forms of transportation. Megabus or some other bus company would no doubt step in and provide non-stop service from Chicago and Detroit to Lansing, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, and other Michigan cities. That would serve those 1,315 Amtrak passengers, saving them time and the taxpayers money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)