111–120 of 125 posts
Wow. I had no idea this happened. I'm surprised this story has not had more attention.
I used to work at Goldman's. This story doesn't surprise me at all. This is what all good bankers do. I think the story hasn't gotten attention because it is not a story. It is just how things work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This community is exactly the type of testosterone-driven money-obsessed community that would create a Goldman Sachs Commodity Index that will cause starvation, and then absolve themselves of responsibility due to some free market arms-length ideology. It's not a coincidence that you're disturbed by the comments. Wall Street entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are fundamentally very similar in mindset and…
I could not disagree with you more. SV Entrepreneur types, as a generalisation, are more like the farmers in this article selling there wares than the WS Bankers. Sure people are money obsessed but they do it either by being profitable or by selling equity in value creating businesses. I think the Google slogan of "Don't be evil" is the best summation of the average tech entrepreneur these days, generally because the…
The whole GS franchise is built on their role as a go-between. Need hyphens? You might not understand the hyphen farmer's strange accent, but the merchant has been dealing with him for a long time.
Most kinds of trading are just fucked up.
Care you tell us your opinion of foraging? Also know as ...trespassing... now that almost every acre of land on earth is owned by someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food, and their perfectly rational strategy is to choose not to sell food to anyone who competes with them, I'm not any less free to compete than if one person didn't get to make that decision? Get outta here with that.
> So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food Then you can ride away on your unicorn. The western world doesn't have food monopolies. The 2nd world occasionally does, but they're created by their govts. Of course, it doesn't help that the US govt decided to raise corn prices by subsidizing corn ethanol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food Then you can ride away on your unicorn. The western world doesn't have food monopolies. The 2nd world occasionally does, but they're created by their govts. Of course, it doesn't help that the US govt decided to raise corn prices by subsidizing corn ethanol.
Why is it that a subsidy (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then collects money from taxes progressively) is bad, but an investment (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then sells it at a high price once someone gets hungry enough to buy it, and pocketing the cash) is good?
I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farmer's output. That's a special case of a more general rule that applies to every work product.
So I'm against "pays farmers to grow one thing" if it isn't money paid by folks who want and get said thing in exchange for said payment.
It is a bit disconcerting to me that commenters here are fascinated by the technical analysis of this system and appear quite oblivious to the problem of starving human beings. Perhaps I am not intellectual enough to appreciate the empathy hiding behind this analytical ruminating about the problem - but I wish that I got the impression that there was more reaction happening than "Wow, what an interesting phenomenon i…
>It is a bit disconcerting to me that commenters here are fascinated by the technical analysis of this system and appear quite oblivious to the problem of starving human beings. Your emoting and four bucks will buy a cup of coffee. It's not going to help anyone eat. You have to understand what's going on before you can make things better. So yeah, how the "moving pieces fit together" matters more than how much anybod…
It takes both to take any meaningful, equitable, decisive action. Analysis without motivation leads us to scholarly indifference.
Your point is taken when it comes to empathy without logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that a subsidy (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then collects money from taxes progressively) is bad, but an investment (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then sells it at a high price once someone gets hungry enough to buy it, and pocketing the cash) is good?
Huh? If you're going to claim two things are the same, it's good form to refer to them by their proper names before arguing similarity. And, if you're going to attribute a position to someone, you might want to have some evidence that they actually hold that position. (The fact that Hitler was bad does not imply that he killed puppies.) I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farme…
That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually eating the food, i.e. everyone else, have a choice what to pay.
You're trying to draw this distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" payments which doesn't exist in the real world. I guess taxes are supposed to be involuntary, while food purchases are voluntary? Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die, and when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board... That's a very twisted idea of "voluntary."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? If you're going to claim two things are the same, it's good form to refer to them by their proper names before arguing similarity. And, if you're going to attribute a position to someone, you might want to have some evidence that they actually hold that position. (The fact that Hitler was bad does not imply that he killed puppies.) I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farme…
And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point: A subsidy is when the government pays for food, then gives it out for free (it costs less to the consumer than it would otherwise.) An investor pays for food, then sells it at a higher price, extracting the value for himself (it costs more to the consumer than it would otherwise.) That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually ea…
That's because, as I pointed out, you didn't actually express a point to challenge. You blathered some vague description and an accusation.
Now that I can see what you were trying to say, the error is clear.
The "food investor" spends his money, not mine. If he's wrong, he loses his money. Moreover, the food investor doesn't stop someone else providing food. Govts do that all the time.
Moreover, govts tend to go all-in on their decisions - so the amount lost when they get it wrong is much larger. Investors aren't monolithic - some get it right, some get it wrong.
Yes, you need food, but unless govt gets involved, you have considerable choice about how to aquire it.
> Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die
Speak for yourself. The "square foot" folks have shown that it's possible to grow an amazing amount in a very small area. And yes, poor people have the time.
> when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board
Govts are the only group with that power. If I don't like the prices from ADM, I can buy elsewhere. If I don't like the food prices set by govt, there is no "elsewhere".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point: A subsidy is when the government pays for food, then gives it out for free (it costs less to the consumer than it would otherwise.) An investor pays for food, then sells it at a higher price, extracting the value for himself (it costs more to the consumer than it would otherwise.) That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually ea…
> And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point That's because, as I pointed out, you didn't actually express a point to challenge. You blathered some vague description and an accusation. Now that I can see what you were trying to say, the error is clear. The "food investor" spends his money, not mine. If he's wrong, he loses his money. Moreover, the food investor doesn't stop someone else providing food. G…
For some reason I thought I read this article about how between 2005 and 2008 investment into grain futures pushed the price of real grain high enough that hundreds of millions of people across the world starved, while hundreds of millions of bushels of grain sat in silos, resulting in inflated food prices everywhere which still have not returned to what they should be, meaning people at the margins who starve every single day.
But I guess I must have imagined that. It's good to know only governments have that kind of power here in Bizarro World.