Curb Oil Speculation Act (#COSA)

Ban Margin Trading in Oil

sponsored by aGREATER.US • co-sponsors: (1)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Economy
secondary topics: Financial Regulation

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
86%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Free markets are great. Free markets on steroids—not so much.

Momentum trading in stocks is all the rage. Instead of buying low when everyone is scared, and selling high when everyone is greedy, the game plan now is to ride, or push, a trend. Get in and get out before the music stops.

The price of oil acts as a tax on the People. A free market should allow investors to find the "right" price for oil. But huge numbers of traders going into the margin, borrowing against their portfolio to "juice" returns and exaggerate the moves, is abusing the public.

If you want to trade in oil related stocks do so with your own money. Not leveraged against your portfolio and our fellow citizens.*

This should be a worldwide effort with the U.S. showing leadership by going first. Oil price volatility will be reduced, not eliminated, as will pressure on the family budget.

In essence, if this were not to pass, traders will continue to have the ability to "tax" the American People. That can't be what the founders had in mind.

*This would also ban double and triple, long and short ETFs in the oil market.

Op-eds

Oil Only?

by David Itkin on 07/17/12

I'm dubious about the idea of singling one commodity market out for this treatment. Why oil, for instance, but not the sugar, market. Traders speculating there affect the price of most food we buy. We don't all drive, but we all eat.

Why not silver or gold? Surely speculation in these markets has long enriched traders at the expense of everyday Americans.

For that matter, why not currency speculation? Is there a market where trader-induced volitility has benefitted the haves, to the detriment of the have-nots, more than in currency speculation?

At least higher-priced oil encourages conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.

I'm persuadable. But, at first blush, this proposal does not seem like a good idea to me.

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here