[benj111]

There seems to have been some wider failures in the market here. The article states that prices rose elsewhere, whilst crashing in Chicago. Why did no one arbitrage. Why did the farmers feel pressured to buy the oversupply. Cornering the market like this /shouldn't/ have worked.

I'm actually kind of surprised there isn't some law somewhere banning primary producers buying their own product. Think about a mine buying in raw ore and then selling it, could make the mine look more successful than I actually was. Considering investment by the elite before the 19th century would have been direct into these kinds of operations, I'm surprised enough weren't burned to push for a law change.

[golergka]

How do you differentiate between a producer and a consumer? What if a mine is bought by a vertically integrated company that both mines the ore and then processes is as well - and because of, say, some unpredicted difficulties in different parts of it business, has sometimes buy additional ore (to keep smelters running), and sometimes has to sell it because it mined too much?

[benj111]

How do you differentiate between a patent troll and a company just trying to protect its IP? You do make a good point though.

I'm not suggesting the legislation would be a good idea, certainly not in the modern day. It just occurred to me that this would be an indicator of fraud, and from what I know about the history of publicly traded companies and the class of people who were investing in companies etc, I'm surprised this wasn't a law.

The article states that traders thought there was a glut because the onions were shipped out and back in again, in the 1950s. It would have been even easier 50-100 years earlier.