Why was the law against onion futures passed in the first place? Couldn’t the same scheme be done with garlic, or sweet potatoes, or turnips or something?
No because none of these things have futures traded on a major exchange. Agricultural commodities whose futures are traded on major exchanges are very few. Now of course your question will be couldn’t the same be done with a commodity whose futures are traded, such as corn or wheat.
The answer is it is difficult to say. One thing anyone cornering the market has to consider is government intervention. In this respect onions are perfect. They are merely a condiment. Nobody is going to starve for lack of onions if the rest of the food supply is intact. Thus any government official rushing in to intervene in a cornering of the onion market will look a little foolish and thus think twice about it.
If someone tried to corner the wheat market the government is likely to step in, confiscate his goods and pay him a fair price for his wheat which will be much lower than the cornered price. The cornerer will then lose money.
I suspect the congressman that passed the legislation did his research and talked to all potentially affected parties. I suspect the farmers and ranchers producing the other traded commodities said that this was not really a concern for them and that they would prefer that their commodities continue to be traded.
Wait a minute, are onions just condiments to people? You can cook a ton of different dishes with onions, I was thinking about the many recipes I've tried for onion soup.
Because American lawmakers are weirdly specific brainless creatures. This is how you get all those laws named after individuals like Megan, and my other specific fave, the Video Rental Records Privacy Act.
Shall we address the general question of privacy, or just close the particular breach that affected a congressman? You know it's going to be the latter.
narrowly scoped laws limit the blast radius of a stupid law without the political price of opposing a law in the aftermath of a disaster that law would have prevented. imagine if they had banned commodities trading in general!
I would not be so quick to call people brainless. Generally speaking, I would prefer that congressmen be specific with their legislation and, like a good doctor, try to first do no harm or as little harm as possible and address the problem before them specifically without causing unintended consequences.
As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread I am sure the congressman that passed the law discussed the issue with farmers and ranchers producing all traded commodities and the ones that were not growing onions did not think there was a significant risk of a corner and they preferred to have their goods traded.
Although I do agree with you that privacy protections should be broader. As far as Megan’s law I am sure you realize that it is intended to protect everyone from sex criminals not just people named Megan.
The particular brainless lawmaker behind this act went on to become President. I think that shows Americans love and reward brainless lawmakers for creating these brainless laws.
I'm pretty sure that he was loved and rewarded for being the star football player at the University of Michigan when they were the undefeated national champions two years in a row.
No, it is because onions (and potatoes) occupy this very weird middle ground in terms of perishability, the seasonality of the harvest, and the size of the domestic production and consumption market, which makes them uniquely vulnerable to market manipulation. A commodity has to be storable enough and/or regularly harvested enough to create a predictable futures market, but when inventory is small, highly seasonal, geographically constrained, and slowly and often unpredictably non-linearly degrading, then it's pretty easy for a big player to squeeze the market.
It is a lot harder to corner the market when you have very non-perishable or very perishable goods and/or much larger domestic and global markets with harvests that vary across geography and time, like wheat and frozen orange juice concentrate. Most goods traded via futures have those properties. Onions is right on the edge of even making sense as a futures commodity, and because of that, it's a recipe for manipulation.
And there were calls to regulate potatoes the same way in the fallout of the onion market manipulation, but those didn't pass, and in 1976 the potato market was almost cornered in the same way.
But what I’m saying is, why did they only cover onions? I don’t think there’s anything stopping someone from cornering the market in other commodities just as easily
Because the size of the market was/is so small that you're actually able to corner it. Oil or Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.
> Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.
Well, you'd think, but squeezing the CTD bond was completely accepted practice well into the noughties until PIMCO flew too close to the sun and faced regulatory wrath.
The point is that it's silly that the law is specific to onions, and the explanation "it's because onion market was small enough to be cornered" is unsatisfactory because there are other small markets too
Just like solving math or programming in a general sense is much harder than a specific solution , so is passing a broader law.
We don’t complain about switch cases in code when there is two or three switches we start refactoring once it starts to proliferate.
The law is no different , passing a wider ban would not get the votes easily or quickly and the interested parties the onion industry have no reason to push for it neither does the lawmaker acting on their interests.
If said small markets also had exceptions passed seeing the onion one there could have been case to be broad.
It would premature optimization to otherwise, based on just need for elegance , code or law has to work first even if dirty .
