http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wo...-architects-carbon-derivatives-which-would-be
After reading one of the other threads it came to me that the same people that think global warming is bad also think credit derivatives are bad. So just wondering what you think since the same crowd is pushing both?
I personally think that two adults should have the freedom to enter into whatever contracts they choose but I know the majority on here do not so this would be interesting to me to kinda figure out why.
The whole Cap and Trade thing is nothing but a global investment architecture and has been from the get go. If you build an investment model off the existence of a commodity, in this case CO2, would it make sense to invest either way into a resource that the goal is to completely deplete from existence? But therein lay the rub and the gimmick, CO2 can not be eliminated and I dare say if you create an investment vehicle, you'll create the market place and more of the resource to fill that market demand. Is not the goal of any good business to grow in size and revenue?
Google Al Gore, David Blood, Generation Investment Management and also Goldman Sachs>Cap and Trade market which Goldman owns 10% of the Chicago Market which will have exclusive rights to trade global carbon credits and see what you can datamine. And imagine that, more Goldman Sachs and what President is tight with Goldman Sachs and who just took Air Force 1 for a spin to promote Cap and Trade? Even the Russians and the infamous Pravda News is seriously questioning the whole global warming thingy.
I completely agree about the right of 2 individuals to freely contract, even bet on the outcome of 2 ants walking down the road and to market this product (if you want to call it such) to others who might want to engage in such lunacy. Where I have a problem in our Statist Capitialism world is when the business end of these enterprises go to gov't for special treatment, incentives and failsafe backing (including various judgement proofing of personal liability) which in turn gives the impression to the masses that these activities are safe because the gov't will uh let's tell the truth here, the taxpayer is on the hook to bail out the morons who invest. There's no risk so there's gonna be more morons!
Let these companies stand on their own including the dissolving of their State granted corp. charters which in many cases protects the individuals within the enterprise personally from liability and then let them go out into the market place in a true free market fashion on equal plane with the consumer and then conduct those free market contracts of buyer and seller both of equal status and at equal risk. Remember, in a true free market where 2 people are free to contract, both buyer and seller come in as equals. In State Capitialism, the corporation holds special priviledge of reduced liability that the buyer does not enjoy as a priviledge of the State and thus not true free market captialism as one side enjoys gov't privilege. That is mercantilism.
I'll bet the removal of the corporate safety net of personal liabilty itself would be enough to remove a ton of monkey play from the markets and a lot of those investment vehicles we see now would be way to risky for the seller to market in a true free market system. The buyer could go directly after the seller and all his associates personally down the company chain if a fraud was discovered. A self regulating market if you will!