[lbotos]

Your viewpoint here is kinda weird?

The more something trades, the more likely we will have the right price. When things don't trade as much, we don't actually know what that thing is worth.

This concept is a benefit to society as many things are interconnected and correlated, so the more accurate we can quickly find the current price (and expected future price) the more we can evaluate value.

(Also, they aren't "siphoning money" really it's "value" because the contract isn't actually money)

[dataflow]

Just because you've improved the accuracy of a price for something, that doesn't mean whatever you're doing to achieve this is a net benefit to society, right? Surely the idea that this logic doesn't follow isn't weird?

Is the idea that society gets a net benefit from price distortions like minimum wage, subsidies, taxes, etc. also "weird"? These also make it hard to discover the "right price" for goods, therefore it's... weird to have them?

[lbotos]

My point about being "weird" was related to this bit:

> but then a bunch of unrelated parties come in and siphoning money from the existing parties.

I think you are trying to argue that markets mean that the value of a purchased contract changes, and that's only if you want to sell the contract again. If you buy the contract you'll get delivery of what you bought at that price? the market moving only affects you if you want to sell again. If I buy a 2009 used dodge charger with 100k miles for 10k, and then the next day someone sells another 2009 dodge charger with 100k miles for 9k, are those unrelated parties siphoning money away from me?

You could go straight to your local wheat farmer and cut a deal directly with them, but they are gonna say "what's the going rate for wheat" and call some friends and look at market data to determine if they want to accept your deal or not.

----

If you believe that futures markets are harming society, then what is your proposed solution as to how a buyer and seller should agree on a fair price for wheat?