Limits to speculation?

Capitalism thrives through the development of speculation, buying something you can't use, hoping it will be worth more to sell later than you paid for it.

Gold and precious metals are the classic example of speculation, although it can extend to everything. Probably the best best speculation is on property, undeveloped property that is located where future development is going to occur.

I have a hard time seeing much virtue in speculation, although the existence of appreciation means people will naturally benefit by good fortune of owning something you later done need that someone will buy from you.

Given benefits WILL come to some, whether they intended it or not, why not support speculators to use their clever predictions and foresight to try to make a profit?

I suppose one of the oldest forms of speculation was "trading". Distant markets have different resources, different products, different costs. A good trader travels to distant markets, strategically purchases what is undervalued in the other market, and transports it to buyers who are not as adventureous to travel themselves. It is a risky job. Sellers might find others who are in other markets with even higher profits than you can get. You might lose your merchandize if there's lawlessness on the road. And lastly your merchandize might become devalued and not allow you to make a sufficient profit in your sale price.

Part of me is angry at those "flippers" who bought homes from impatient sellers, and turning it around immediately to sell at a higher price. Of course the risk-side got its revenge now that the market slows, and the mark-ups may not allow them to make back their investment, especially given upkeep costs while you wait to sell again.

Overall, not too much risk of me becoming a speculator, since I'll only buy things that I can USE, even if there's the possibility they might be worth more in the future.

Well, to my title, limits to speculation, mostly I mean the question whether/if/how ought society offer moderation or restrictions on speculation.

Speculation is a sort of unrespectable occupation, at least by the fact that buyers are not always willing as much as desparate. Even the act of selling something to the "highest bidder" is unrespectable since there may be poorer bidders who are more in need than the highest one.

I suppose its no worse than the general inequality of wealth, at least going beyond speculation in truly vital resources like food.

One case you might imagine that mixes luxury with food. You might imagine a time and place where wealthy people purchase large quanties of grain or corn or something that could be used for food, and converting it into biofuels. I've read one tank of ethanol can have the calorie content of a year's supply of food for a person. If wealth disaparity is great enough, smart markers can make "value added products", converting to biofuel and selling to those wealthy enough to afford it, and creating food shortages, pulling prices above what the poor can afford.

I suppose all examples are too simplicitic, although it is interesting morality. It can be judged moral to use fossil fuels to increase your wealth, different only because there's no direct food that is taken.

I really don't well see how governments can moderate capitalism of speculation, EXCEPT perhaps by making it illegal to own something - like the U.S. Government took gold reserves from citizens in the 1930's, exchanging them for U.S. monetary notes.

Similarly farmland could be declared public property, under conditions of conservation or protection of some sort, again reimbursed at a price the government chooses. Private property of any sort is held under the whim of government policy.

Well, no deep thoughts. I might say it is outrageous to imagine "my property" can be taken, and I'd never say a person ought to surrender without any fight, but I guess I acknowledge that my rights as an individual are supported by the power of the state, and the individuals that support it.

I like the cute saying from Jesus "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar." in regards to taxes.

Well, all this shows limits to speculation perhaps, although much more complicated by international relations. It's scary to think of all the "unequal trading agreements" being done out there. The side with power, wielded knowingly or not, can exploit others with much less than you.

Should illegal immigrants be grateful for whatever black market work they can get? Libertarians LOVE to protect freedom, and liberals live to protect the weak from exploitation. I suppose this is a divergent problem.

If labor costs too much, I will lower my ambitions, take longer to get something done perhaps, and a worker goes without work or any pay at all.

At least on one level, I see a minimum wage itself is a contradiction with illegal labor, which has no minimum wage.

Anyway, I have no answers, but more on the liberal than libertarian side. Pay people a fair wage - people get paid by the quality of their work, not the status of their citizenship.

And it comes back to speculation. To speculate, you have to have wealth, something to bargain with. Those with wealth and power have more responsibility to the needs of others. I can't force this responsibility on them, only point it out.

I admit besides paying down my mortgage, which I'm grateful to be able to do, and living expenses, I'm uninspired by wealth, even "retirement wealth". I'd be a socialist if I could - rather pay 60% of my income in taxes, and trust good people would rise to power and use it well.

America seems a sad place, so easy to blame the government for problems. I acccept there's weaknesses to too much security. We all have many things we want, and can't possibly offer a saintly level of devotion to helping others, but I'm glad some do!

Speculation to me is just such a wasted effort to me, creating nothing, just gambling and playing self interest to the limit. So small.