Skip to main content

The Value of Speculation


Speculators, who are often the target of particular scrutiny in terms of weighing on the prices of commodities such as oil, are found to bear negligible weight on the actual price in comparison to fundamental and ancillary drivers such as monetary policy, geopolitical events, and pure supply and demand often spawning from those other drivers. 

Speculators, wherever they are found to influence price directionality, are effectively affording intelligent cautionary signals to producers whose rapacious appetites for profits are tempered in the immediacy for higher gains in a future wherein the utility for the given commodity, as gauged by projected price as a consequence of a climbing demand-to-supply ratio, will be measurably, perhaps desperately greater. 

The reader here must first recognize, however, that speculative activity in today’s financial markets is far more artificially-driven and ubiquitous than in previous, more normal times, today compelled by artificially-low rates of interest in historically-safe fixed-income securities, such as United States Treasury bonds whose yields have effectively turned negative. 

This, along with declining dollar confidence following from consistently anemic economic growth and the ambivalence delivered from the Federal Reserve, forces investors to become more creative in the ways they pursue yields and beat average returns. 

Controlling for these influences, speculators are instrumental in determining the opportunity costs of exhausted resources today, to defer consumption until a later date and potentially for posterity. This serves to effectively meter the consumption of any commodity for uses which are potentially unknown by people who haven't even been born, but nonetheless by people who will ostensibly benefit from the underconsumption to apply the commodity in such fashion which will prove imminently utile.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would