Hello:

I'm an oil speculator. How does what I do raise oil prices?

excon

There is only one way. If you are bidding on a fixed qty then the prices can rise and fall on your bid... or if you are betting on the possibility of a supply disruption ,and the evidence suggests there will be ,then the price could rise on your bet .

But you have no direct control of the market .You are just a player . If the supply isn't fixed ,and the supply is replenished to meet demand ,then all your up bidding wouldn't raise the price . You would just lose your money on the speculation.

So the way to offset speculators is to ensure the supply meets demand .

The truth is that this 'blame the speculator 'excuse has never lived up to scrutiny . Yet politicians constantly have photo ops in front of gas stations blaming everyone but themselves for the rise in prices .

If they want to do some good when they get tired of gum flapping would be to allow the permitting process to continue . Then they could address the effect that cheap money policies by the Fed is having on price inflation around the world

I assume Ex you are a "player" on the futures market, purchasing contacts for future delivery. Obviously if you think the price will move up you might purchase contracts at a higher than today's price with a view than the price will be less that the price at a future date as long as the price moves in the right direction you will hold that contact and so influence the market. As this market works on you only actually committing a small percentage of the delivered value of the contact you can have a large slice of the market for a small outlay. Some years ago the Hunt Bros ran the price of silver up in this manner until they had a large percentage of contracts under their control at a very high price. The price moved against them, they couldn't meet calls and the price collapsed but it illustrates the method and the impacts that traders can have.

There is only one way. If you are bidding on a fixed qty then the prices can rise and fall on your bid....Hello again, tom:

If I bought 10's of 1,000's of contracts at once, it COULD affect the market, but probably not... Speculators don't try to MOVE the market, they try to ride the moves the market makes all by itself. As noted, the Hunts DID try to corner the market, and they HAD zillions, and they still weren't able to do it. They LOST their zillions..

excon

Hello again, tom:

If I bought 10's of 1,000's of contracts at once, it COULD affect the market, but probably not... Speculators don't try to MOVE the market, they try to ride the moves the market makes all by itself. As noted, the Hunts DID try to corner the market, and they HAD zillions, and they still weren't able to do it. They LOST their zillions..

excon

Ex the reality is it is a gamble, the market moves because of pressure of both speculators, producers and refiners. If speculators have forced the price to move up, refiners have to protect themselves so they seek to fix the price with forward contracts, producers do the same so it the price has risen it can get locked in at a new level, the only thing that will vary this is fluctuations or perceived fluctuations in supply or demand. At the moment Iran is a factor, refiners are seeking to buy from other sources so you might sell Iran supply short because there will be an oversupply of Iran oil whereas the Saudi's are increasing supply so refiners will be seeking contracts for Saudi oil and the price might rise. Tapis is high at the moment probably from pressure because of the Iranian situation

The Hunts lost out because others decided the price was too high and either stayed out of the market or wrote contacts for a lower price forcing the price down. Once you get a call on a contact the odds have been reversed and you either ante up or close out

It's a fools gamble . The amt of oil on the market can only be controlled by nations in collusion ,or natural ,or geopolitical events . The other part of the equation ,the demand side fluctuates... mostly with the price.

ex the reality is it is a gamble,
It's a fools gamble .Hello again,

It's ALL those things.. What it ISN'T, is a way to RAISE oil prices.. What I want to know, is WHY some people think it is.

excon

It's a fools gamble . The amt of oil on the market can only be controlled by nations in collusion ,or natural ,or geopolitical events . This is the correct answer.

What I want to know, is WHY some people think it is.


That's easy... political expediency. It's like Chucky Cheese Schumer standing in front of a gas station ,pointing to the posted price ; accusing them of price gouging ;saying that releasing oil from the strategic reserve ,or saying he'll pressure the Saudis to bring the prices down ;or slap the oil companies with a windfall profits tax will be the remedy .

It appears that most of the recent noise on this came because some Federal Reserve clowns in St Louis accused speculators for driving up the price as much as 15% over the past decade (which by my poor math means that 85% of the price increases are from other factors ).
Economic Synopses - Research Publications - St. Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/9179?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SM&utm_campaign=Twitter)

It's nutty . Doubly so since the Fed report says nothing about the effect of a devalued currency on the market.

This is a global economy. The days when someone could corner the Dutch Tulip market are over .

Hello:

If speculators can be blamed for RISING prices, then they should also be credited for LOWERING them..

What I DON'T think left wingers get, is that if there's a MILLION people betting that the price of oil will RISE, there's a MILLION people on the OTHER side of the trade betting that the price will FALL. For the life of me, I can't see how either of those trades effect the price of the underlying commodity.

excon

I've heard some of them say things like shorting the market should be illegal... or even better... some have said that if you purchase futures you should physically take delivery of the commodity.

I've heard some of them say things like shorting the market should be illegal .... or even better .... some have said that if you purchase futures you should physically take delivery of the commodity.

I like that one Tom but nothing stops a speculator from having back to back contracts and delivering elsewhere, its called a market for a reason. What is needed is to remove the speculator from the market by requiring that you be either a producer or a processor to participate, and regulating the market so you can't just drop the contract

What it ISN'T, is a way to RAISE oil prices.. What I wanna know, is WHY some people think it is.

Because it's easy to blame the 1%, and speculators are typically in that 1%.

I believe it's true that speculators can influence the market in the short term, but over time it washes out. There are inefficiencies in the markets that can be gamed, and that can cause short term fluctuations. Short sellers can cause a short term panic, and in the case of stocks a short term panic can wreak havoc. But it's wrong to blame the short sellers for other people's stupidity. Over time you can't beat the system unless you own the system (witness Enron and their ability to drastically alter the markets for electricity in California - they owned the producers and the distributors, and could blackmail the consumers, but I digress).

Of course no one complained of the influence of the traders when the prices were dropping .

Because it's easy to blame the 1%, and speculators are typically in that 1%.


You have to question who these speculators are, these aren't day traders, they are well healled hedge funds with deep pockets who are interested in making a fast buck and don't worry about whether they are hurting the economy in the process so they might be "1%" in that they are few in number but the percentage of the market they control is much larger. They also have the ability to offset the risks they take by making compensating investments in other commodities or in currencies.

You have to question who these speculators are, these arn't day traders...

They also have the ability to offset the risks they take by making compensating investments in other commodities or in currencies.Hello again, clete:

All true, and so what?

excon

So I expect this isn't you, so you should be concerned if these people are increasing the price of oil and gas and other commodities, the capitalist economic model never envisaged the manipulation of markets on this scale

So i expect this isn't you, so you should be concerned if these people are increasing the price of oil and gas and other commodities, the capitalist economic model never envisaged the manipulation of markets on this scaleHello again, clete:

The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that speculators, even BIG speculators, CANNOT move markets.. It LOOKED like you understood it, and then it became clear that you don't.

excon

I understand that this is a pointless thread, hedge funds as speculators have the ability to affect markets, so I don't see why you are defending them

hedge funds as speculators have the ability to affect markets

This is where we disagree. We don't believe that speculators (or hedge funds) have the power to affect the market, at least not as individuals. Collectively of course all the people who play in a market create movement in the market - that's Adam Smoth's "invisible hand" at work. When the majority of investors believe the market is going a certain way they will behave accordingly, which can have the effect of creating a herd mentality that forces prices to move - sometimes up, sometimes down. History is full of how herd mentality can lead to bubbles and crashes - from tea prices in the 1700's to tulip prices and railroads in the 1800's to telecom companies in the 1990's to mortgage derivatives 4 years ago. There will always be short term fluctuations in prices, and if you're a wise investor (wiser than me) you can take advantage of them. That's what investments are all about. So why single out hedge funds, and not the rest of us who have investements in the stock market (or commodites)?

Today the President asked Congress to create a whole new regulatory structure to protect us from those evil oil speculators.


He called on lawmakers to boost the surveillance and enforcement staffing budget for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by at least six times the current levels and to give the agency a technology upgrade. The two steps would have a combined price tag of about $52 million, according to a White House estimate.
Under fire over high gas prices, Obama calls for tighter curbs on oil market manipulation | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/under-fire-over-high-gas-prices-obama-calls-165403975.html)
Yeah that's the ticket . Consumers are being hit across the board with higher prices . Some related to the energy market ;many related to the Fed's endless attempt to devalue the currency. One thing for sure... expanding the bureacracy that monitors this, with more consumer's money, will do nothing to affect the prices.
He is hard wired to think "more government power ..... more government power .... I need more power."....

He is hard wired to think "more government power ..... more government power .... I need more power."....

Hey, it worked for the evil "too big to fail" financial institutions he promised to get under control (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/21/president-obama-never-again-will-american-taxpayer-be-held-hostage-a-bank-too-big-fa). Dodd-Frank gave us - wait for it... even bigger banks (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/21/president-obama-never-again-will-american-taxpayer-be-held-hostage-a-bank-too-big-fa).


Two years after President Barack Obama vowed to eliminate the danger of financial institutions becoming “too big to fail,” the nation’s largest banks are bigger than they were before the nation’s credit markets seized up and required unprecedented bailouts by the government.

Five banks -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup Inc. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -- held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to central bankers at the Federal Reserve.

Five years earlier, before the financial crisis, the largest banks’ assets amounted to 43 percent of U.S. output.

Four dollar gas, bigger banks - but hey, at least we get "free" contraceptives.

Good thing because Romney says he will screw the poor and middle class, just read his tax proposal. That's how the market works and its simple, supply cannot meet demand if you buy cheap and wait for the price to goes up. It always goes up in the summer because they figure demand will go up. Holller about a war with Iran, and it goes up. Let Opec say it will increase production, it goes down, it's a risk, a calculated one, and when the price is higher American producers make money, off the world market.

Don't go looking to make money off a few barrels, when Healthcliff is buying them by the millions, and don't get greedy, because the other greedy b@st@rds get together and screw you. Its like a poker game, the big money can just raise you a buck until you are all in, and make you put up, or shut up! And you better not be bluffing.

That's all the market is, a crap shoot. A trillion dollar crap shoot.

So you agree that his bigger more muscular regulatory agency is either a futile effort or just so much campaign season bluster .Obama has proven time and time again that when it comes to business or the economy he is a light weight egg head with a very shallow understanding of what it takes to govern.

No Tom I don't agree as what we have is republican obstructionism standing in the way of allowing this president doing his job effectively for the purpose of their own. They have put interests, and agenda before the country, and its people. This is but another example of whose side they are on, and its not ours. Sad that you will suffer as we will by these obstructionist tactics.

But you do Grover, and Karl proud, making them think Mitt will screw us out of more loot just like your buddy George did. The president hasn't stopped working, nor has the right ever stopped working against him. So go ahead keep praying to the lesser god of MITT, and see what he does to you unrich right wingers, in pursuit of being King of the new OLIGARCHY.

Republican obstructionism ? It isn't the Republicans that won't grant new drilling leases . It's not Republicans approving pipelines to no where. With the reckless growth of government under this President ,the only responsible course for Republicans to take is to obstruct his agenda.

It's not Republicans blocking a pipeline from Canada resulting in the U.S. about to have to pay market prices for Canadian oil (http://news.investors.com/article/606670/201204031900/obama-alienates-mexico-and-canada-over-energy-trade-and-weapons.htm).


Obama's neglect of our nearest neighbors and biggest trade partners has created deteriorating relations, a sign of a president who's out of touch with reality. Problems are emerging that aren't being reported.

Fortunately, the Canadian and Mexican press told the real story. Canada's National Post quoted former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson as saying the North American Free Trade Agreement and the three-nation alliance it has fostered since 1994 have been so neglected they're "on life support."

Energy has become a searing rift between the U.S. and Canada and threatens to leave the U.S. without its top energy supplier.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama's de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.

Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That's about to change.

Isn't that just splendid?

Are you guys crazy? The pipeline to Texas will cost many farmers their land, benefit the Canadians and the oil companies in making refining and shipping easier to global markets, with consequences to the market. Oil production in the US has never been higher, and the subsidized oil companies have yet to explore their many gulf rigs.

Yet you are buying this pablum, from the SUBSIDIZED oil company seeking to enrich themselves and even Canada has little leverage for easy quick bucks. Sell to China, who cannot refine the oil they produce, and neither can Canada at the rates they need to make profit.

Nebraska legislators move to block Keystone XL pipeline route | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/keystone-xl-pipeline-nebraska-bill)

Proposal for 2nd pipeline sparks opposition ? USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-30/keystone-pipeline-opposition/51000802/1)

Keystone XL Primer: Why Nebraska Is Ground Zero in the Pipeline Fight | InsideClimate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110831/keystone-xl-primer-nebraska-oil-gas-pipelines-sandhills-ogallala-aquifer-heineman-obama)

As usual you righties keep repeating the corporate line without looking for the facts. Haven't learned to think, research, before you act or speak, as usual. You rather worry about what big money wants that isn't in your own interest, or those it affects. Well the righties in Nebraska disagree. So talk to them.

I didn't repeat any "corporate line," I posted the Canadian PM's warning to Obama.


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama's de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline.

So Canada is a corporation now?

P.S. He's "leading from behind (http://news.investors.com/article/608159/201204171850/obama-shows-weakness-on-argentine-takeover-of-oil-company.htm?src=SeeAlso)" again after Argentina nationalized the Spanish oil company Repsol. No big deal, eh?

A"subsidy" is a direct payment from the government to a business enterprise.There are NO subsidies to the oil companies.. period. They have the same tax deductions as every other business . That is in direct contrast to the so called green energy industry that gets subsidized to the tune of $12.5 billion a year.

Now if you want to say we should eliminate those deductions in return for a simplified tax system ,then I'm on board. But this lie that Oil companies are subsidized is bunk.

There are NO subsidies to the oil companies ..period.

U.S. President Barack Obama's call to end subsidies to American oil companies has been soundly rebuffed by American lawmakers. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/03/29/obama-oil-subsidies.html)

Senate Republicans reject Obama call to end 'big oil' tax breaks - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/index.html)

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-subsidies-back-nearly-century-215500548.html)

Five Reasons to Repeal Subsidies for Oil Companies | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/29/five-reasons-repeal-subsidies-oil-companies)

When they can conventiently interchange any provision of the tax code with subsidies at their convenience then of course you can make the claim that the industry is subsidized. But that doesn't make it a fact. Show me the direct payment of tax payer dollars to the industry or other things like loan guarantees . Equipment depreciations, development credits, facilities expansion credits are all part of the tax code that ALL businesses can benefit from.

Dude, even the White House web site says it LOL!

Even one of Tal's links call them what they are, tax breaks.

Senate Republicans reject Obama call to end 'big oil' tax breaks

Dude, even the White House web site says it LOL!

And that means what exactly ? The President uses the word incorrectly for political purposes. He knows he can't exclude the oil companies from tax provisions every other industry in the nation is subject to.

Your semantics fight is interesting so lets call the tax breaks/subsidies what they are, corporate welfare for rich industries. Those are okay as long as those lazy poor people, and middle class parasites get nothing.

More right wing balderdash, to justify the half truths and lies you spout, and have the GAUL to let a Canadian tell you what's good for you. I see the problem now, you guys have gotten dependent on rich people telling you what's good for you and can only blame the left, and a democratic president on your lack of knowledge and the false hood that you conservatives are the only ones to know what's good for someone else.

You barely know what's good for you while the Oligarch you protect makes you as poor as they do us. Let the Chinese buy the oil, see how that works out for them, and keep letting Grover, and Karl, inform you of there non facts. The Governor and the people of Nebraska ain't giving up their right so Big Oil can make more loot!

Address those things and let me know why you ignore it as you rant about the right of the few, over the MANY, including YOU!

Definition of 'Subsidy'
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.

Read more: Subsidy Definition | Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp#ixzz1sPv8gszU)

It is neither unless you broaden the term subsidy to include every standard deduction in the tax code... which would not surprise me in the least if that is what the left thinks since they believe a tax break is giving money away instead of what it really is... taking less of someone else's money.

it is neitherIt amazing how everyone is wrong except for you.

I don't call a deduction that every industry gets a subsidy . You do . I get standard deductions;the same ones most tax payers qualify for who file for them . I don't consider it a subsidy from the government .But I can see how people who believe they should be inherently dependent on the state would think that way.

Keeping what you earned is not a subsidy; i.e. it isn't "Obama money (http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/46824/obama-money-handed-out-in-new-york/)."

"Obama money (http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/46824/obama-money-handed-out-in-new-york/)."Some great headlines from that newspaper you get your info from: Weekly World News|Archive|HEADLINES (http://weeklyworldnews.com/category/headlines)

Some great headlines from that newspaper you get your info from: Weekly World News|Archive|HEADLINES (http://weeklyworldnews.com/category/headlines)

You don't use search engines (https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+money&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)? Dude, I don't believe that for a minute.

I do but I always consider the source.

So if you don't approve of the source then it didn't actually happen? The only reality is yours? Nice.

I never said that. But in this case I absolutely doubt that the story is true.

You never learn.

People line up for pre-paid debit cards that don't work (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=8623276)

Even The Goracle's Current website reported (http://current.com/entertainment/wtf/93744774_people-line-up-for-obama-stimulus-money-debit-cards-that-dont-work.htm) it on their page.

Wait a minute, someone sets up a scam and you think it's Obama's fault? That's a reach LOL.

You have a weird sense of humor Speech.

Who should pay for the bridges that are no longer as safe?

Wait a minute, someone sets up a scam and you think it's Obama's fault? That's a reach LOL.

I'll be more than happy to allow you to note where I said the scam was "Obama's fault." But you can't, all you have are red herrings.

You have a weird sense of humor Speech.

What, you don't think it's the least bit funny, sad or telling that some idiots not once, but twice lined up for some "Obama money?"


Who should pay for the bridges that are no longer as safe?

Now that was a question out of left field. I haven't got the foggiest idea what the relevance of that question is to what I've said, but if you must know if the Democrats would stop wasting our tax dollars on speculating in the green energy market, high speed rails and spa tubs in fancy hotels that the 99 percent could never enjoy, we might be able to fix our bridges and potholes.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_wine_tub_2_jef_120416_wblog.jpg

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
What, you don't think it's the least bit funny, sad or telling that some idiots not once, but twice lined up for some "Obama money?"
And this has to do with oil prices, or the president how?


Now that was a question out of left field. I haven't got the foggiest idea what the relevance of that question is to what I've said, but if you must know if the Democrats would stop wasting our tax dollars on speculating in the green energy market, high speed rails and spa tubs in fancy hotels that the 99 percent could never enjoy, we might be able to fix our bridges and potholes.
Or we could eliminate corporate welfare, and loopholes to oil companies that are making profits at a record pace.

And this has to do with oil prices, or the president how??
We could use his favorite expression: "red herring". Just like the propensity to show a half-naked man in a bathtub.

That photo is of a top level official from the "Obama GSA " having a great time on the taxpayer's dime. I believe the last word we heard from him is "I plea the 5th amendment" .

That photo is of a top level official from the "Obama GSA " having a great time on the taxpayer's dime. Because he's in a hotel room? Have you never travelled on business? I have. Lots, as a civil servant. Stayed in some nice places too because they were the only convenient hotels in the city centre I was at. It's jealous and petty to be outraged at that. Obviously that administration is doing quite well if you have to stoop that low to find fault.

No ,in fact it is well documented that the GSA did a whole lot of partying on the taxpayer's dime. That is why he is invoking his 5th amendment protections in testimony.

I take it from your response that you are OK with such abuses ?

And this has to do with oil prices, or the president how??

Follow the posts, Tal, had to do the subject of subsidies which was raised by someone else.

We could use his favorite expression: "red herring". Just like the propensity to show a half-naked man in a bathtub.

I'm not exactly sure me pointing out how government waste could be better used to fix the bridges Tal referred to is a red herring, but I'm sure you'll think of something irrelevant to say.

Because he's in a hotel room? Have you never travelled on business? I have. lots, as a civil servant. Stayed in some nice places too because they were the only convenient hotels in the city centre I was at. It's jealous and petty to be outraged at that. Obviously that administration is doing quite well if you have to stoop that low to find fault.

By the way, this is receiving bipartisan criticism. Do you not follow anything outside of your reality?

Bipartisan anger burns over officials’ parties, trips (http://durangoherald.com/article/20120418/NEWS03/704189942/-1/s)

Wait for it, The Durango Herald is bound to be an unapproved news source.

By the way, this is receiving bipartisan criticism. Do you not follow anything outside of your reality? Hello again, Steve:

Nobody like their government to waste their money. But, to blame Obama for it STRETCHES reality.

excon

Actually I said Democrats. I believe they were in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House in 2010 were they not? But I will blame Obama specifically for the green speculation blunders. Any reason I shouldn't?

I take it from your response that you are ok with such abuses ?You take from my response that the picture of a guy in a hotel room isn't damning to mean I'm OK with spending abuses? How did you infer that?

Actually I said Democrats. I believe they were in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House in 2010 were they not? But I will blame Obama specifically for the green speculation blunders. Any reason I shouldn't?

Geez Speech, some of those scandals are about long term civil servants going off the path, and we are all a bit outraged at the waste of money, but as far as the green speculations you better look deeper as I told Tom in another thread, because its not speculation, its manipulation largely by the Chinese government.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-20/u-s-solar-manufacturers-request-duties-on-chinese-imports.html

I mean is it too much to ask to get all the facts before you hand out the criticism??

I'm not exactly sure me pointing out how government waste could be better used to fix the bridges Tal referred to is a red herring, but I'm sure you'll think of something irrelevant to say.
If you're going to keep changing the subject please let us know. The red herring is that weird "Obama money" post. I'm pretty sure you knew that but avoided it altogether.

Speculation is agame not like baseball or football but more like a fixed boxing match. Large players can and as a rule of thumb do on every occasion possible play the speculation market to create sharp shifts in price to either sell for large profits or short for profits. In the general scheme of things this would not rise or lower prices much in the end because the speculator generally prayed on the novice and just took their money and in the end the commodity was sold at a point of or near to it's actual value. However with more and more people speculating in anything bubbles form and governments interfere to protect the investors that the real speculator saw as the rube.
The speculation market was a loan to producers with their future product to serve as collateral for a fee you could be granted the opportunity to buy a product at a given time in the future for a set price. The producer got money when they needed it the consumer of the product had their materials at a known price usually lower than the spot market price.
All the prophet going to the speculator does not get reinvested by the producer and it hurts the end user by setting a higher established price. Unregulated speculation is dangerous in that it raises prices to the end user and thus cuts demand to the producer as prices rise and people are forces to consume less of a product. A sensable approach to speculation could be to allow speculation as long as the speculator was the user of the product, say I speculated in corn and I am a distiller of corn whiskey. Another approach is to set high taxes on speculators prophets for those not using the commodity for their business in this case I speculated in corn and my business is a computer networking company so I would be forced to pay all gains above a certain point in taxes. Theses systems would preserve the needed benefits of speculation.
Without drastic reforms in our speculative capital system we are in for a real disaster in the near future