Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UNSHURE

Free Market Manipulation

Recommended Posts

In recent years there have been many allegations about 'market rigging' and manipulating of prices. There are several ways that markets can be rigged. If any of these allegations are true, should government be legislating to stop this from happening? Theres a few questions buzzing around in my head about this whole thing.

Is it a fundamental human right to be able to engage in trade in a market that is not being manipulated and interfered with?
Should the EU perhaps, have 'free market trade' enshrined in it's constitution?
Is it the case, that Individuals (VI's) within a society, that manipulates trade, are surpressing a fundamental freedom?
Is the manipulation of markets more akin to a totalitarian regime such a communism?
Is it not the case that true and accurate information is vital to the 'Price Mechanism' and free trading? If so, should surpresssing of such information, or biased reporting by the media (where it can be seen to interfere with prices) be outlawed? Biased opinion is OK provided the part states that it IS OPINION and not fact.
Should central banks and governments be outlawed from trying to influence stock markets and commodity markets?
In light of the above, where are we heading as a society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In recent years there have been many allegations about 'market rigging' and manipulating of prices. There are several ways that markets can be rigged. If any of these allegations are true, should government be legislating to stop this from happening? Theres a few questions buzzing around in my head about this whole thing.
Is it a fundamental human right to be able to engage in trade in a market that is not being manipulated and interfered with?
Should the EU perhaps, have 'free market trade' enshrined in it's constitution?
Is it the case, that Individuals (VI's) within a society, that manipulates trade, are surpressing a fundamental freedom?
Is the manipulation of markets more akin to a totalitarian regime such a communism?
Is it not the case that true and accurate information is vital to the 'Price Mechanism' and free trading? If so, should surpresssing of such information, or biased reporting by the media (where it can be seen to interfere with prices) be outlawed? Biased opinion is OK provided the part states that it IS OPINION and not fact.
Should central banks and governments be outlawed from trying to influence stock markets and commodity markets?
In light of the above, where are we heading as a society?

Too many people on the take my friend, right through from politicians to bankers, businessmen and lawyers. Out of all the contaigon of the last couple of weeks, how many ´in the know people´ made money on the short side?

It´s like a couple of years ago when this dealer sold 10bn worth of currency (I think) to crash the price and bought it all back again a couple of hours later. Now because he was arrogant, it made all the newspapers and he was censured, but not because he did it, becuase he got caught! People are too greedy to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very idea of a free market is absurd: There will always be constraints.

A truly free market would include heroin, contract killing, slavery. There would be no objection to insider trading (always strikes me as odd that the markets don't protest against that constraint).

There can and will never be such a thing.

The problem with today's market is that most of the benefit goes into the pockets of the market players. But the risk is borne much more widely (eg central banks, taxpayers, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heroin and houses are not that dissimilar at the moment. People will crawl over broken glass to get both ;)

and slavery? Well, it just takes a different form.

Same tune, new remix.

Yes, the very notion of a "free" market is inherently absurd. There will always be those that manipulate it to their advantage, and the folk already at the top end have a head start in their ability to do so.

Edited by Fancypants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're referring to the long-term gold price manipulation,

without which the stock-market manipulation wouldn't be possible (or at least more difficult).

The government and central banks are both in on the secret, it was gordon brown that

made the "stupid" decision in 1997 to sell off britains gold just before the price started to go up.

It is a bit rich to expect a government to legislate against its own nefarious activity.

I would hope when the gold rig eventually breaks, and everybody loses their savings & pensions

there is some natural mob justice and central bankers and politicians responsible for this mess

are rightly blamed for this by the public, and hopefully it will not be forgotten in many 100s of years.

Then hopefully we can move away from centrally administered & manipulated

national monopoly currencies, and towards something more free-market based.

It's either that or we shall all be tattooed with the mark of the beast and go into the

new world order anti-christ system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you're referring to the long-term gold price manipulation,

without which the stock-market manipulation wouldn't be possible (or at least more difficult).

Do you have any more information on how this is done, I'm genuinely interested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What free market !

You get bombed if you try selling oil in Euro's and if you don't except american goods that are made in china but have been stamped with a made in america sticker then you are in big trouble.

Why won't america just hand the keys back in and call it a day like Russia did and then move forwards and make a go of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any more information on how this is done, I'm genuinely interested?

GATA has done a lot of research on this.

http://www.gata.org/

My understanding is they do it with a combination of selling/dishoarding gold,

both physical and paper contracts. Banks lending it to each other in complex ways

to create the illusion that there is more than there is.

Demonising it in the media so less people want to buy it, running the price up,

and then bombing it to hell creating volatility which makes it seem 'risky'.

Reducing demand.

I think the bottom-line is the bullion trading banks in London set the price,

but obviously the price they set has to ensure that demand does not exceed

supply.

There is some speculation that some supply is met with fictional gold, in gold

ETFs and other institutional paper gold, but I don't think there is any solid proof of this.

Supposedly the game is up when physical demand cannot be satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GATA has done a lot of research on this.

http://www.gata.org/

My understanding is they do it with a combination of selling/dishoarding gold,

both physical and paper contracts. Banks lending it to each other in complex ways

to create the illusion that there is more than there is.

Demonising it in the media so less people want to buy it, running the price up,

and then bombing it to hell creating volatility which makes it seem 'risky'.

Reducing demand.

I think the bottom-line is the bullion trading banks in London set the price,

but obviously the price they set has to ensure that demand does not exceed

supply.

There is some speculation that some supply is met with fictional gold, in gold

ETFs and other institutional paper gold, but I don't think there is any solid proof of this.

Supposedly the game is up when physical demand cannot be satisfied.

Thank you DD! I'll give that a read :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you DD! I'll give that a read :)

No problem. I also have the excellent gold rush 21 dvd off that site.

If I can figure out how I'll send you a copy, PM me your details if interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No problem. I also have the excellent gold rush 21 dvd off that site.

If I can figure out how I'll send you a copy, PM me your details if interested.

That is very kind of you! I have PM'd you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the EU perhaps, have 'free market trade' enshrined in it's constitution?

[/indent]

The EU (or any kind of government) is the last body you should expect to promote free markets. Governments (whether local, national or federal) tend to be in the pockets of commercial VIs who need a rigged market. Monbiot's 'Captive State' deals with this subject from the UK perspective. Here's an American example that was covered in a Radio 4 documentary some years ago: the ban was imposed at the behest of the manufacturers of the hormone concerned, who had basically hijacked the FDA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very idea of a free market is absurd: There will always be constraints.

A truly free market would include heroin, contract killing, slavery. There would be no objection to insider trading (always strikes me as odd that the markets don't protest against that constraint).

There can and will never be such a thing.

The problem with today's market is that most of the benefit goes into the pockets of the market players. But the risk is borne much more widely (eg central banks, taxpayers, etc)

Great post. But this is why we must decriminalize drugs. They should be openly traded on commodity exchanges; they should be sold, and licensed like their more harmful, legal, siblings tobacco and alcohol.

If someone wants to crawl into a corner and kill themselves with heroin that should be up to them. We could cut maybe 80-90% of all crime by legalization. At the start we would have to control it but we already give them drugs for nothing; why not make them work for the drugs? Flood the market, bring prices down, get them into the hands of proper companies and get the gangsters out. It is impossible to stop. There has been, from the earliest history of man, drug taking. I never met a single human in my life who did not partake of some kind of artificial stimulus, from tea to cannabis to booze to fags to religion to football to whatever it is that take's one's fancy.

It would also allow adults to do as they please instead of answering to interfering aunties. Keep the prisons for paedos and murderers and human traffickers and thieves: i.e. actual criminals.

The City of London is full of cocaine addicts who never get into (that kind of) trouble because they do not have to attack your grannie to get their fix.

I was chatting to my doctor the other day and she said that addicts now have full, personal, staffs. They have great numbers of personal assistants that do nothing except look after addicts. Key workers social workers, health visitors, etc. Each one of them, because it (drug-taking) is illegal and we wrongly consider it a disease, costs us hundreds of thousands each year. They offer nothing to society.

We could make them work 40 hours to get their fixes. They would have to pay as well, but we could recruit em all as social workers, without pension, and get rid of some of the great pork barrel that local government has become.

Recently, out of 1700 working aged men in the Gorbals in Glasgow, 1400 were on invalidity benefit (that means unlimited money if you do enough shagging without a contraception). It is the other 300 who must be helped. They should be rewared by lower taxes and greater opportunity.

We reward failure in this country. After the crash; we must change it.

Edited by dstars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post. But this is why we must decriminalize drugs. They should be openly traded on commodity exchanges; they should be sold, and licensed like their more harmful, legal, siblings tobacco and alcohol.

If someone wants to crawl into a corner and kill themselves with heroin that should be up to them. We could cut maybe 80-90% of all crime by legalization. At the start we would have to control it but we already give them drugs for nothing; why not make them work for the drugs? Flood the market, bring prices down, get them into the hands of proper companies and get the gangsters out. It is impossible to stop. There has been, from the earliest history of man, drug taking. I never met a single human in my life who did not partake of some kind of artificial stimulus, from tea to cannabis to booze to fags to religion to football to whatever it is that take's one's fancy.

It would also allow adults to do as they please instead of answering to interfering aunties. Keep the prisons for paedos and murderers and human traffickers and thieves: i.e. actual criminals.

The City of London is full of cocaine addicts who never get into (that kind of) trouble because they do not have to attack your grannie to get their fix.

I was chatting to my doctor the other day and she said that addicts now have full, personal, staffs. They have great numbers of personal assistants that do nothing except look after addicts. Key workers social workers, health visitors, etc. Each one of them, because it (drug-taking) is illegal and we wrongly consider it a disease, costs us hundreds of thousands each year. They offer nothing to society.

We could make them work 40 hours to get their fixes. They would have to pay as well, but we could recruit em all as social workers, without pension, and get rid of some of the great pork barrel that local government has become.

Recently, out of 1700 working aged men in the Gorbals in Glasgow, 1400 were on invalidity benefit (that means unlimited money if you do enough shagging without a contraception). It is the other 300 who must be helped. They should be rewared by lower taxes and greater opportunity.

We reward failure in this country. After the crash; we must change it.

Good post Mr. Stars but you sound like a bit of a druggy yourself. Are you not leaving yourself open to pithy remarks from those you claim suffer from various forms of nitwittery?

And legalize prostitution; thereby protecting prostitutes and taxing them. But stick the real baddies in prison for much much longer. And we'd have room for the little gits who terrorize whole areas because 'they're bored'.

And regulate markets. It is not that hard to apply a few general ratios that could remain always under scrutiny (by a small staff; not those great humungous quangos we currently have that do bugger all).

And punish market thieves. There should be way to prove that the ratings agencies must have known what they were doing when they declared zombie debt to be investment grade. Stick a few in prison. Ban central banks and introduce legislation that is self-regulating.

And throw a few pension fund managers into the pokey as well while we're at it. These guys should get to lose money but they should not get to tell someone who's saved for thirty years that their money has gone (and if they can't pay they can work as butlers for the rest of their days, or until they have paid some of it in kind.)

These things sound crazy but they would not be that hard to implement; and they would have massive public support (apart from the drugs; a few pilot schemes would convince though).

RANT!!!!! over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post. But this is why we must decriminalize drugs. They should be openly traded on commodity exchanges; they should be sold, and licensed like their more harmful, legal, siblings tobacco and alcohol.

If someone wants to crawl into a corner and kill themselves with heroin that should be up to them. We could cut maybe 80-90% of all crime by legalization. At the start we would have to control it but we already give them drugs for nothing; why not make them work for the drugs? Flood the market, bring prices down, get them into the hands of proper companies and get the gangsters out. It is impossible to stop. There has been, from the earliest history of man, drug taking. I never met a single human in my life who did not partake of some kind of artificial stimulus, from tea to cannabis to booze to fags to religion to football to whatever it is that take's one's fancy.

It would also allow adults to do as they please instead of answering to interfering aunties. Keep the prisons for paedos and murderers and human traffickers and thieves: i.e. actual criminals.

The City of London is full of cocaine addicts who never get into (that kind of) trouble because they do not have to attack your grannie to get their fix.

I was chatting to my doctor the other day and she said that addicts now have full, personal, staffs. They have great numbers of personal assistants that do nothing except look after addicts. Key workers social workers, health visitors, etc. Each one of them, because it (drug-taking) is illegal and we wrongly consider it a disease, costs us hundreds of thousands each year. They offer nothing to society.

We could make them work 40 hours to get their fixes. They would have to pay as well, but we could recruit em all as social workers, without pension, and get rid of some of the great pork barrel that local government has become.

Recently, out of 1700 working aged men in the Gorbals in Glasgow, 1400 were on invalidity benefit (that means unlimited money if you do enough shagging without a contraception). It is the other 300 who must be helped. They should be rewared by lower taxes and greater opportunity.

We reward failure in this country. After the crash; we must change it.

Agree 100%. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's it isn't working now.

Sure drugs are "bad" but banning them only brings huge profits to criminals and destabilises entire countries.

As regards invalidity benefit - where possible these people should be helped to find work that significantly raises their standard of living. If not people should do some kind of work for their benefits. I'm thinking of public works programs, litter picking - anything to help their community. If they have physical impediments then work can be tailored to suit.

In my voluntary work I have met young lads who have some learning problems and as a result simply can't get jobs but they are incredibly keen to work and do so without being paid. These kids deserve paid jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It´s like a couple of years ago when this dealer sold 10bn worth of currency (I think) to crash the price and bought it all back again a couple of hours later. Now because he was arrogant, it made all the newspapers and he was censured, but not because he did it, becuase he got caught! People are too greedy to stop it.

Sounds like he was stupid. Didn't he lose money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone wants to crawl into a corner and kill themselves with heroin that should be up to them. We could cut maybe 80-90% of all crime by legalization. At the start we would have to control it but we already give them drugs for nothing; why not make them work for the drugs? Flood the market, bring prices down, get them into the hands of proper companies and get the gangsters out. It is impossible to stop. There has been, from the earliest history of man, drug taking. I never met a single human in my life who did not partake of some kind of artificial stimulus, from tea to cannabis to booze to fags to religion to football to whatever it is that take's one's fancy.

I agree that if you judge drugs by the damage they do then our current drug's policy is hypercritical, a case can be definately made for decriminalizing some of the softer drugs.

However not all drugs are equal and I can confidently tell you that you do not want to be in a society where heroin is legal, it's a truely horrible drug. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Agree 100%. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's it isn't working now.

Sure drugs are "bad" but banning them only brings huge profits to criminals and destabilises entire countries.

As regards invalidity benefit - where possible these people should be helped to find work that significantly raises their standard of living. If not people should do some kind of work for their benefits. I'm thinking of public works programs, litter picking - anything to help their community. If they have physical impediments then work can be tailored to suit.

In my voluntary work I have met young lads who have some learning problems and as a result simply can't get jobs but they are incredibly keen to work and do so without being paid. These kids deserve paid jobs.

Totally agree. I am beginning to wonder whether some form of voluntary work should be undertaken by everyone at some stage...compulsorily. You learn a good deal and it gives you the chance to " show willing".

I used to encounter people in my profession who had never worked an unpaid day in their lives. Every single thing they had done carried a price tag. Pretty sad.

Edited by AuntJess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that if you judge drugs by the damage they do then our current drug's policy is hypercritical, a case can be definately made for decriminalizing some of the softer drugs.

However not all drugs are equal and I can confidently tell you that you do not want to be in a society where heroin is legal, it's a truely horrible drug. <_<

On the contrary. Heroin is a top-notch pain killer. When one is riddled with cancer or some other horrible, painful ailment, such a thing can do wonders (I'm told).

It's interesting that a natural assumption is made 'about' the drug but I've read of many people who function quite normally because they can afford it (don't ask me why anyone in their right minds would take such a thing in the first place, but as adults, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, that should be their right in this world).

By legalizing herion we could get the bastards away from the rest of us. We could say, by all means take your poison, but should you commit an act against us you will rot in prison.

In Iran they 'cure' drug addiction by sticking them on a god-forsaken island (instead of holding their hands and giving them money), They also have legalized brothels in Iran; not something Monkey George talks about when he's claiming we're more enlightened than those we would kill.

We could take the impulse to commit crime out of the equation. We could, for example, require them to be registered and that to be registered would mean they would have to work. If they were registered they could get their drug but if they commited a crime we could stiick em on some shitey island for a couple of years (sans heroin). We could use that which currently harms, for the greater good. Addicts are very motivated individuals; we simply have to channel that motivation away from crime and state-sponsored self-pity and into that which suits the rest of us. Imagine if a heroin addict knows he can get a fix by finding work; by helping people? Addicts are not all monsters, many would welcome such a scheme, and it would cost us a lot less than buildings full of professional do-gooders.

I'm not saying introduce a free-for-all from the start but such demand will be met. Imagine all the drug lords who we could put out of business?

When I lived in Mexico (drug-laundering machine) I remember 12 judges being murdered (within a few days) by those bastards. That's how we knew who was a good politician and who was bad: The good ones were dead.

Just take their market from them and we take the first step to free ourselves from the effects of criminalization of sonmething that has such a powerful demand.

The drug trade seriously screws up the international markets as well.

The Taliban got rid of all the opium/heroin but look what they had to do to achive that. We cannot win against the level of ruthlessness in that sector.

And if you seriously believe the US actually tries to contain the trade then think again. Hundreds of thousands of tons of the stuff is imported.

Make it legal. Control the quality and distribution and tax it and trade it. The drug is no worse than alcolhol, and tobacco is a massive killer but we allow those.

We have to stop telling people what to do and spending our money doing it. As long as nobody hurts anyone else it's none of anyone else's business.

Heroin addiction is a career path in this country. We have built a parasitical industry around it: And we pay for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm with you a lot of the way on this dstars.

I think....

On the other hand, your registration scheme hands power from the drug dealer to the state:

Have you been a good citizen this week? Not been thinking disloyal thoughts? So glad to hear it. Now here's your reward for being a good little sheep... sweet dreams...

Hmm.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying introduce a free-for-all from the start but such demand will be met. Imagine all the drug lords who we could put out of business?

Just take their market from them and we take the first step to free ourselves from the effects of criminalization of sonmething that has such a powerful demand.

Completely and utterly spot on!

This is the single most effective thing that would happen if drugs were licensed/leaglised. At a stroke we would remove £billions of police costs, NHS costs, social security costs as well as crime, misery, violence and intimidation from our society.

I read somewhere that the demographic of the person most likely to die of a heroin overdoes is not some drug addled scally or rock star but a homeless teenage girl. By continuing this pointless and inneffective "war on drugs" we, as a society, are essentially condemning these girls to death.

Why would you buy smack cut with brickdust from a gangster (and the implied intimidation/violence that goes right up the supply chain) when you could nip down to Boots with your NHS prescription and get clean, medical grade heroin on a reducing weekly dose until you are cured?

The legalisation of drugs is nothing to do with "hey let's get off our tits!" (but so what if it was!) but instead about taking a stand against the single greatest threat to our society. Forget Al Qaida and "the war on terror", they are as nothing compared to the misery of illegal drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like he was stupid. Didn't he lose money?

No, because he was using options not real currency, in this case a put option. Here's an example.

I purchase a put contract to sell 100 pounds of dollars. The current price is 2 dollars per pound, and I pay a premium of 3% per dollar for the put contract. If the price of dollars falls to 2.20 per pound right before expiration, then I can exercise my put by buying 100 pounds at 2 dollars, giving 200 dollars, then selling it to a put writer for 220 dollars. My total profit would equal 14 dollars (220 from put writer - 200 for buying the currency - 6 for buying the put contract of 100 pounds at 3% per dollar, excluding commissions).

Of course with the sums involved, once the market knew that there was a large option to sell around, everyone else sold, real currency or options and it became a self fulfilling prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you buy smack cut with brickdust from a gangster (and the implied intimidation/violence that goes right up the supply chain) when you could nip down to Boots with your NHS prescription and get clean, medical grade heroin on a reducing weekly dose until you are cured?

Cured is optimistic. Most addicts (I deal with quite a few) have pretty major social and psychological problems - even apart from their addiction - which aren't going to go away.

But I agree that medical prescription of heroin would be a step forward, even if it were a non-reducing dose.

dstars is being more radical though, saying make people buy the stuff legally over the counter, more cheaply than it can be bought now on the streets, giving users an incentive to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.