The Trucker wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:47:37 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> The Trucker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:56:00 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Speculative bets on shortages, or creating
>>> shortages do absolutely nothing to enhance production. They, in fact,
>>> impede production. The use of "savings" in this way is not an example of
>>> capital.
>>>
>> 1) Speculation isn't particularly "capitalist" - it does not
>> involve technological development of the means of production.
>
> This part is correct.
>
>> 2) Without speculation, transactions become all but
>> impossible. Speculation is the means by which price
>> signalling occurs. Longs and shorts both take
>> positions, the buyers steer towards one or the other.
>
> This part may also be correct. But the problem is that it has little to
> do with real research and development.
That is for sure.
> The university grant system for
> the development of new pharmaceuticals or for the development of new
> fuels or new engineering is an example of technological innovation outside
> of SPECULATION as we see it, say, in commodities or in stock markets.
>
To an extent - although Vioxx and the various "found to do nothing"
medicines make it begin to look suspiciously like rent-seeking.
I guess they can't win them all.
> Outside of IPO stuff, it is really doubtful that speculation accomplishes
> a damned thing.
>
I'd agree, outside of commodities, where the short/long mechanism
prevails. And IPOs ain't what they used to be - since when is
Facebook a business model? Then again, electronics has been done
for a while...
--
Les Cargill
