Cp's questions to Adam Smith

[AdamSmith]

Oil has surged above $76 a barrel, its highest price in nearly a year. That follows fresh violence in Nigeria, where the main militant group in Niger Delta has just called off a month-long ceasefire.
Gunmen attacked a drilling rig and have kidnapped five oil workers. In August last year oil briefly reached $78.65, which was an all time record.

Traders says right now supply is tight and demand continues strong. Ray Carbone at the New York Mercantile Exchange: "OPEC producing countries cannot produce enough petrol - gasoline - to satisfy their own demand, and so I think that is very supportive over the long term for oil prices. I think we're going higher. I would not be surprised at all."

As well as OPEC cutting the amount of crude it pumps, Nigeria's output is being disrupted by militants who want more of the country's oil wealth spent on the impoverished region where much of the industry is based. They have stepped up their attacks in the last year and a half.

In addition, in the US demand for fuel will increase during the summer driving season and as refineries come on line, after a spate of lengthy, unplanned maintenance shutdowns.

-------------------------------------

"Traders says right now supply is tight and demand continues strong."

What a retard, eh cotton? talking about supply and demand, and a trader at the Merc to boot.

-------------------------------------
And this, it's a couple of years old but it clearly shows how retarded these opec ministers are.

OPEC says
it has lost control
of oil prices
Cartel producers say they can't
keep up with strong global demand

By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Updated: 4:13 p.m. CT March 16, 2005
Despite a pledge by OPEC ministers to increase oil production, don't expect much of a break on oil prices. With crude oil prices hitting a record $56 a barrel Wednesday, OPEC ministers meeting in Iran have been grappling with a problem they haven’t confronted in the cartel’s 45-year history. In the past, OPEC tried to cool overheated prices by pumping more when supplies got too tight. But most OPEC producers say they’re already pumping as fast as they can. And despite the high cost of a barrel of crude, world demand shows no signs of slowing.

To help stop the surge in prices, OPEC ministers agreed to pump an extra half million barrels of oil a day beginning April 1. OPEC said it would consider pumping more later if the extra oil doesn't push prices lower.

But even before the decision was announced, some ministers had openly expressed doubts that the move will do any good, saying they’ve run out of options in trying to rein in the price of crude. Global oil demand has taken up most of the slack in extra OPEC capacity. Consumption is now believed by many analysts to be pressing up against the limits of what the world can produce.

[wd9]

Hey Lifer, how's it going? We haven't chatted in a while, huh?

[cottonpicken]

Ok so we got Adam,fran,just wondering on the 1:higher
2:lower

We got Cottonpicken
1:lower
2:higher

IAMTHEMOLE:?
Lifer:learning(sorry lifer i thought you were being combative)

Simple,simple questions, weres everyone else?Scared,of painting yourselfs into a corner and losing all credibility.(although your loyalty to adam is admiral-whos the borg now)

Please dont try and label me a baiter,these are legitimate questions.

[TOM4CWB]

CP,

Stabilised prices do not mean "Higher" automatically.

It can mean a general trend (usually up) to meet cost of replacement.

If technology decreases the cost of replacing reserves, it will be in the best interests of the group to lower prices... to prevent alternative replacements from taking away market share and causing a breakdown like the 1998 to $10/barrel.

Supply and demand in a "free market" system is an interesting study... those who understand the effects and respect the disciplines/variables that create the market moves... can forcast future markets much better than folks who don't!

A company that lowers the price on a product that will to come off patient... to ramp up demand and prevent replacement supplies from competition being created... are smart business mangers! Knowing true cost of inventory... is key to a strategy of profit and prosperity! Most reasonable people buying offer a fair price for a good product! Cost matters to them to!

[AdamSmith]

Hey fran and just wondering, how about a salute!

I'm an Admiral!

Woo-Hoo!

Go Navy!

[Incognito]

Single desk selling works on paper because they are believed to be disciplined sellers. Disciplined sellers.

Disciplined does not translate into dropping your pants, showing the world your woody and making a sale of HARD wheat.

At least in the old days of Forrest Commisioner Gump, he got a woody after the sale - and at his age it must have been semi-hard wheat.

You have a bunch of kids as salespeople itching for the woody - not real conducive to higher grain prices.

CP, since you are beholding to the single desk notion, why is Portland SELLING price $1.00 a bushel over the PRO?

Why is the CWB selling 2 CWRS 13.5 at $245.00 FOB VC last week?

Quick track the IP before my alter-egos reply.

[AdamSmith]

CP, since you are beholding to the single desk notion, why is Portland SELLING price $1.00 a bushel over the PRO?

Results don't matter, facts don't matter, reality is meaningless.

It's all about the theory, the intended purpose.

His questions are a valid as me asking the following:

There are over 1200 homes for sale in Orange County California, there are over 1000 Real Estate agents in Orange County California,

Would homes sell for a higher price or a lower price if there were less Real Estate agents in Orange County California?

The answer is so painfully simple, by the way.

[chaffmeister]

Ok – it’s my turn.

<i>Do more sellers command a higher market price or lower?</i>

When you’re dealing with a commodity like grain, price is determined by supply and demand, not the number of sellers. By your argument CP, you must also believe that more buyers mean higher prices. As a fundamental trader, I track supply and demand; I care very little about how many players are in the sandbox.

So my answer is <b>no – to both</b>.
And since you are asking this question as it relates to the CWB debate, my ancillary answer is <b>I’m afraid you haven’t been listening.</b>

The CWB does indeed distort prices but not the way you think.
(1) There is concrete evidence that the CWB undercuts competition - it can because it doesn't have to compete for the grain from the farmer.
(2) Whenever a buyer buys wheat from grain companies, these graincos buy cash grain or futures to cover their new sale. The market feels the buying interest. However, whenever a buyer buys wheat from the CWB, the CWB does nothing in cash or futures markets to cover. The market doesn't feel a thing - no support, no rally. End-users can cover huge amounts of wheat without sending as much as a ripple through the markets. And guess what - they take advantage of this fact all the time, screwing you and every other wheat farmer out there out of demand driven rallies.

The power of one - working for you. Now CP, let me ask you, does one seller command a higher market price or lower?



<i>Do the members of opec belong to the organization to get a higher price of oil or lower?</i>

OPEC controls (or attempts to control) the <b>production or output</b> of its members. By doing this, they are attempting to reduce the available supply to support prices. <b>Note they are not reducing the number of suppliers – all OPEC members continue to sell independently of each other, hoping to gain from the artificial price support.</b> And of course we know that this doesn’t always work.

So my answer is <b>higher (if they can) and more stable. But they don’t do it by becoming fewer sellers.</b>

[cottonpicken]

First off this isnt a cwb specific question.
Second off i told you guys EXACTLY how to destroy the cwb several times with the response of "thats just that idiot cottonpicken talkin about markets and such".
Ive never disputed(or personally investigated)the allegations made against the board.Its not my area or interest.(granted maybe it should be being a farmer and all)
But the philosophy is sound(perhaps not economically moral).I can except the arguement that its burecatic blunder of biblical porportions like most things governments touch but i can not tolerate the blind rage filled arguements that either side puts forth.Isnt it possible for both to be right/both to be wrong?

Proponents argue that collectively marketing provides an advantage in the markets(which it does).
Oponents say its a giant cluster **** with no direction,control or accountability(which it is).

So there it is a correct philosophy against a correct situation,no wonder there is such a debate.

Which leads me to the question of do commision rates of orange county realators rise or fall with the number of realators in the markets?

The answer is so painfully simple by the way.

[cottonpicken]

So chaff if china drops out of the grain buying market the price isnt effected?
If the ukraine stops exporting grain the price isnt effected?
If opec or any other marketing group cut supply the price isnt effected?
If you have ten plumbers in town compared to one prices are the same?

AS a fundamental trader myself i do care about the number of buyers and sellers in a market(where the hell does supply/demand come from?)

Good luck in the markets,you'll need it.