My post was not arguing against the specific relevance investors had on food prices, but rather the attitude that just because something is legal/allowed that any parties partaking in the action bear no responsibility.
I see what you mean. I am just not sure the banks are fairly blamed here. It is still possible that they are simply conducting their business of helping to establish correct prices for goods.
Attempts to fix prices for food usually backfire - then producers have no incentive to produce food anymore if production costs are higher than the allowed maximum price.
Also, isn't bankers buying food futures at too high prices equivalent to abandoning food futures? It means the bakery can not afford to buy a food future anymore (because banks drove the prices for futures up too much). So they'll have to do without the futures and simply buy at market rate once they need the wheat.
The allegation is that banks would never actually buy the food they have the futures for (they don't have silos for storing the food).
So the most damage they can do is destroy the utility of food futures. I don't see how introducing laws against food futures would help against that...
Attempts to fix prices for food usually backfire - then producers have no incentive to produce food anymore if production costs are higher than the allowed maximum price.
Also, isn't bankers buying food futures at too high prices equivalent to abandoning food futures? It means the bakery can not afford to buy a food future anymore (because banks drove the prices for futures up too much). So they'll have to do without the futures and simply buy at market rate once they need the wheat.
The allegation is that banks would never actually buy the food they have the futures for (they don't have silos for storing the food).
So the most damage they can do is destroy the utility of food futures. I don't see how introducing laws against food futures would help against that...