Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Commodity Trading

(44) Commodity Trading
I am a salesman. I have been a proud salesman for over thirty years. Salesmen are, quite definitively, capitalists. Not that we are “laissez-faire” capitalists, but salesman usually believe in the power of the profit motive and, as well, the value of being aggressively “one-up” on your competition. Most salesmen believe that the value of their services lie in their ability to meet the needs of their customers and to provide value on a continuing basis. Industrial equipment salesmen, such as myself, intensely pursue repeat customers. Towards that end, it is particularly important to be able to show one’s customers how effectively we are able to satisfy their needs. The continued success of such a salesman can not be based upon privilege or fleeting interests, but rather upon respect for the customer and his priorities, and the respectful treatment of their individual interests. Making a sale because the customer has been forced to buy from you, for whatever reason, is not considered a valuable or permanently successful pursuit.
When I observe the general business climate around me, I am always contemptuous of opportunities generated by privilege, where the seller offers no real service to his customer, other than being there.
Personally I have always viewed the commodities market with suspicion. I do not understand of what use a commodities trader could be. He does not add any value whatsoever to the products or businesses in which he chooses to participate. His “investment” does not benefit or strengthen the market in which he is active. His activity, in my opinion, most resembles that of a gambler. Instead of staking his ”bet” on the roll of the dice, the strength of a poker hand or the spin of a roulette wheel, the commodities trader bets upon the changes in value of vital commodities. Commodities upon which our livelihood and prosperity depends, even those of non-traders. It seems that such activities have been established and sanctioned for the sole benefit of the Chicago Board of Trade and their patrons. We have seen this commercial activity used for the personal gain of public officials, corruptly and against the public interest. Food items and vital industrial raw materials have traditionally been traded in this manner. To my knowledge, these activities do nothing but drive up the costs of goods and services which are necessary to individuals and to industry. Profits generated in this manner are most similar to the profits generated by organized crime, a tax which everyone pays through added costs and which, in themselves, add no value to the products affected or to society. If we oppose organized crime on that basis, why, then, don’t we oppose commodity trading? That is because we have allowed commodity trading to masquerade as a legitimate business activity instead of recognizing it as the parasitic opportunistic activity which it actually represents.I have now experienced a change of heart. I have “discovered” a commodity, not currently in trade, which could generate an untold windfall for the fortunate. Consumables (food) are traded on the commodities market. Raw materials (precious and valuable metals) are also traded in that manner. If farm products and minerals can be subject to such speculation, despite the vital need for these commodities, then I suggest that we now include a“new” commodity------ water!
Water is a naturally occurring substance which we extract from the earth, like precious and industrial metals. Water is a consumable, vital for human survival, like foodstuffs such as oranges( and juice), pork, cattle, wheat, eggs and many others. Water rights, like mineral rights, are under the control of the property owner. Most of all, water is a valuable commodity in finite and diminishing supply.
To me, it is obviously similar to these other commodities which are now in trade. We could open up trading in water futures so that politicians and other “old boys” can benefit in the fluctuations in its value while the little people die of thirst. If that is consistent with true capitalist principles, then why stop there? Why not conduct trading in other vital commodities, such as air? Surely, with the right profit motive, we could concoct a method of attributing ownership to the air for these purposes.
There is however one group of commodities which, I am certain, will never be subject to organized trading, regardless of their clear title or their vitality. That group consists of human blood and body parts. The reason for my belief is that these commodities are owned, exclusively, by mere, common individuals, and if traded publicly, could never come under the control of any hierarchy or oligarchy, such as the Chicago Board of Trade.
Water and air, however, are another story. Boy, do I need a drink! Go call your local trader- GASP

3 comments:

  1. This concept brings to mind the movie "Total Recall", where things like air, and even dreams and memories are bought and sold at a premium. Philip K. Dick seemed to think the world might be headed in that direction as well...

    I, for one, hope that's not the case, but if it does go that way, I'd like to get in on the ground floor of your air and water trading business! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Body parts are already traded on the black market... no reason the trade can't be legitimized. As soon as the restrictions on stem cell research are lifted (or the process is perfected in a more forward thinking society) we'll see body part farms sprouting up all over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Water markets - by extension of water rights and demand that already outstrips supply - already exist. Talk to folks in Nevada, Colorado, and California about water markets. Talk to the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego about water markets. It's not just the States. Canada's in quite an uproar over an emerging water market in Alberta.

    It's an inherently "western" concept... the capitalization and marketization of things like water, land, air, ideas, etc. Right now we're talking about water... how long ago were folks here agog that newcomers thought they could (and should!) "own" land.

    Kevin mentioned Philip K. Dick. I'll mention Neal Stephenson. In _The Diamond Age_, he posits that what the West values most is cleverness, while the East most values virtue. He envisions cleverness corrupting all other value systems leading to a great, global downfall... followed by redemption in the form of the return of virtue.

    We can claim to respect and wholly value our resources, or we can marketize and capitalize them... but it seems to me we can't do both.

    ReplyDelete