p.s. I've got a future out there right now. It is to buy an old rusty shell of a car and some tools for a set price. The transaction will happen in the future but right now the contract is mine.
If anyone would like to buy this contract to buy the junk from the seller instead of me, I'll go ahead and open the bidding at $1000 (not $1000 to buy the stuff, $1000 to buy the rights to buy the stuff at the price and time I've already negotiated).
Boom, now we have a rusty cars and tools futures market too. Might be a while before they can be traded on the NYSE, but still.
To those questioning what's so bad about it and that it's a commodity just like anything else.
Name another commodity that is literally required to sustain life. Not to be successful or fruitful but literally to sustain life. Waters of basic human need, oil is not. Don't be ignorant enough to compare the two. Citing that you live in XYZ location so you'll be okay merely highlights your entitlement, people won't control what ZIP code they're born into nor should that dictate what circumstances they'll have to deal with throughout their life.
If you want to know why the EPA matters and regulations on exhaust matter it's prevent clean air futures from occurring and turning clean air into a commodity.
That's why my initial post I brought up the biggest three plastic polluters as plastic pollution is one of the biggest issues in water supply, those three control a good portion of the water, outside of agricultural use, and yet there's a three largest contributors to pollution to it. If they invest in it they'll profit from their pollution as they'll create scarcity.
We use a lot of water in brewing, massive amounts are used to cool wort, enough that there's a community garden next door that utilizes our used cooling water for hydration. It's very low level tech as we honestly could cultivate 20+ acres of hydroponic farming based upon our water use which create a far greater impact. And that's one modest sized brewery in a city.
The livestock issue is real. I eat meat I enjoy it though I am tending to eat less of it and am eating more meat substitutes. One of the only potential advantages is if less land is eventually utilized in raising livestock. Ranching it's generally a terrible practice and I'm yet to meet a rancher who is in a complete self entitled buffoon who cares only about themselves and what affects their bottom line. If beef were outlawed I would miss enjoying steak, but I'd be damn happy to know that every rancher out there is now sitting upon a desolate barren scorched earth that they created and are broke with nothing to fall back upon and they've done nothing else with their lives to create value for others. You show me a rancher, and I'll show you somebody who would traffik people if it were legal.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm putting a Short on this transaction. I expect the value of this commodity to continue to Fall.
In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :
You're missing the point (or purposely avoiding it). Water is already bought and sold. Traded for money. Owned by corporations. Abused by some. Do you understand the difference between that and a future contract sale? What about being a basic human need means that water CAN be bought and sold and owned but water SHOULDN'T be traded as a future?
also here's a list of other commodities that have futures markets I beleive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_traded_commodities
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
As soon as there's a futures market there's a reason to manipulate supply levels beyond conservation efforts.
That's why a futures market for something that sustainable for life should never exist.
nocones said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm putting a Short on this transaction. I expect the value of this commodity to continue to Fall.
You are eligible to purchase a short position. It only costs $1 for the transaction. I will let you know if someone purchases the future and if so at what price so that you can see if the market increased or decreased the price and if you are correct or not. HAHA
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
As soon as there's a futures market there's a reason to manipulate supply levels beyond conservation efforts.
Soooooo, should we not allow people to own water or purchase water either? If I own water doesn't that inherently mean I am interested in the future value of my asset and may have a reason to manipulate the supply? Again I'm not seeing how a futures market changes that.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
If there's no projected future value water, then there's no reason for me to poison the water supply in Chicago in an effort to profit later on if I have an interest and water prices and value going up in the future. If I do have an interest in that value increasing in the future in the name of the almighty dollar, then who knows, there might be an accident that taints that city's water supply. I may even be a multinational conglomerate who manufactures or produces equipment that can clean that water supply once tainted, allowing me to profit twice.
You don't have to be denser then water below 31 degrees to see why it's a terrible idea.
In fact, a futures market should BENEFIT a business that has costs heavily based in a commodity.
For example, I make beer. I need x volume water to make y volume beer. If I purchase water now, I'll have beer in 3 months. I'd like to sign a contract to sell my beer to someone for the next year, but I am worried that the price of water will go up. So I have to artificially inflate my costs (and therefore prices) in order to ensure that I make money. This might mean I don't get the deal as the buyer chooses to buy beer from someone else.
If, however, I could purchase the right to buy water at a specific price and ensure that I could get water at that price for the next 9 months, I'd be able to make a much more specific (and competitive) bid to sell my beer for the next year. AND my buyer would be benefited because they would know my prices are going to be that much more stable, so THEY can sell my beer.
So, my argument is that the ownership of water needs to be regulated to ensure that people don't abuse it, but at the same time, the futures of water can be very beneficial to consumers of water and water-based products.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
If there's no projected future value water, then there's no reason for me to poison the water supply in Chicago in an effort to profit later on if I have an interest and water prices and value going up in the future. If I do have an interest in that value increasing in the future in the name of the almighty dollar, then who knows, there might be an accident that taints that city's water supply. I may even be a multinational conglomerate who manufactures or produces equipment that can clean that water supply once tainted, allowing me to profit twice.
You don't have to be denser then water below 31 degrees to see why it's a terrible idea.
There is ALWAYS a future value of water even without a futures market but thanks for starting the name-calling.
nocones said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm putting a Short on this transaction. I expect the value of this commodity to continue to Fall.
Water is required to grow plants, convert the plant products into marketable food. Manufacturing on most levels, oh and to live. In times of drought ( and flooding) water is among the first commodity to be acquired.
If you know that there will be no future droughts your thoughts have various lidity. Well except, the population is growing. While potable water is becoming more and more difficult to get.
Do people actually think water is free?
That's not even close to true. Ask a farmer what water costs. Or ask me what the water infrastructure costs on every project I build (which gets absorbed into the project costs). Or ask the water authority who buys water with the taxes of yours they devour.
The cost of water is integrated into every aspect of our lives, and every product we purchase.
Just because you enjoy the cost being largely invisible, doesn't mean anyone gets it for free.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
If there's no projected future value water, then there's no reason for me to poison the water supply in Chicago in an effort to profit later on if I have an interest and water prices and value going up in the future.
This is incorrect. Robbie is right on this one.
There is ALWAYS a future value of water. The only thing the commodities market does is gives me the opportunity to lock in the future price today.
If I own a reservoir and I sell the water to the water authority for distribution to the local community for drinking water, then I may decide poisoning the water in my neighbor's reservoir is a good idea so I can profit later. I don't actually give a damn what Wall Street does.
Water has a value. It has a future value. Commodity pricing only gives investors the ability to speculate on what that future value may be, and to invest accordingly.
My residential water bill is $40 per month. There are about 300,000 households in my area.
That's $144 million dollars annually residential customers are paying directly for water usage in one small town. Excluding infrastructure. Excluding all businesses. Actual consumption is probably 10X that or more.
Gotta love free E36 M3.
I would like to point out that we do have other mechanisms in place intended to prevent mass poisoning of reservoirs already :)
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Oh yeah... I might end up in jail!
My point was there are currently reasons some people would want to try to manipulate the price and value of water, and having a commodities future trading capability doesn't effect that at all.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Oh yeah... I might end up in jail!
Unless it was part of a state sponsored jobs bill that resulted in poisoning the water supply of a locality, then the double edged sword of shutting off the lead based tap water getting your kids taken away and not being able to legally sell your house to move because of the known lead contamination.
We've already seen that once, I have no reason to believe it won't happen again.
Of course water has value. It's the most important resource on earth. Without it we would literally all die, and if we manage it properly there is enough, and if we dont there won't be. So I would appreciate it if advanced stage capitalism didn't berkeley it up like it has for everything else that it's got its grubby little claws on.
SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Oh yeah... I might end up in jail!
My point was there are currently reasons some people would want to try to manipulate the price and value of water, and having a commodities future trading capability doesn't effect that at all.
Agreed. If you're the sort of person who will poison the waterhole for profit, you're already doing it.
I believe there is a meaningful distinction between speculating on the evolving cost of a thing you will in the future need for its intrinsic functionality, and encouraging speculation on the market value without specific concern for the intrinsic value of the thing.
I'm going to change my opinion to agreeing with Robbie. I did not think through this fully/correctly.
Who needs water when you have Brawndo!
We are on a well, however there is a bottling company pulling from the same aquifer up the road. Maybe with a long enough drought that would cause a problem? Not sure but I don't want to find out.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
I'm going to change my opinion to agreeing with Robbie. I did not think through this fully/correctly.
Hold the phone! Stop the press! Mark your calendar!
An argument on the internet changed someone's mind!
![Run_Away [FS]](https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/prod.mm.com/cache/a7/4f/a74f2e8e40f86e321caa31c4389ed316.jpg)
