That’s not “a whole documentary”, it’s a spectacular documentary.
Documentary films are like nonfiction books: any subject can be fascinating when done well, any subject can be awful and banal when done poorly. I’m not even a huge non-fiction / documentary fan but I’ll die on the hill that telling true stories with depth and passion is much harder than doing great fiction.
My point was not aimed at the documentary itself, but rather the over glorification of things, in this case typefaces as the OP was referring to.
Jiro Dreams of Sushi was a beautiful documentary as well, but clearly sushi was being put on some divine pedestal. That is the 'over-the-top' part I am referring to.
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point of these documentaries.
Both Helvetica and Jiro Dreams of Sushi are trying to communicate, to you, the passion that these other people feel for the work they do.
They're not telling you that you should care that much about fonts or sushi. There is no claim if divinity. They're honestly trying to give you a 90 minute glimpse of the interior life of other people.
There are other documentaries that are much more neutral or even dismissive of their subjects, if that's more your taste. Hospital and City Hall are great examples with no editorial cast. Riligulous and Roger & Me are great examples of a documentarian trying hard to have no empathy.
it's people just trying to be smart here. You are either acquired (bought for mostly the product, whoever wants to leave is inconsequential), or acquihired (bought also to absorb the talent pool, so it is contingent on some personnel staying on).
All this other stuff people are trying to make up falls under those two when a company buys another.
So what was the furore about when that Ring/Amazon superbowl ad happened. They have to promise and they should be able to be held liable if that promise is not kept.
Is there any evidence of those competitors pushing political biases? (Actual biases, not facts like Trump losing the 2020 election and staging an attempted coup)
I looked up onions, lettuce and tomatoes (because burgers), and the volatility actually looks very similar. Am I missing something or looking at the wrong things?
Lettuce and Tomatoes don't keep well, which adds more seasonal variability and reduces the ability of a futures market to smooth prices.
Compare with potatoes, which keep about as well an onions, and are farmed in the same areas. Look at onions and potatoes over a 5-year time span (because the default all-data time span is silly for this). It doesn't give enough control of the Y axis to make the comparison easy - for potatoes it shows me Y=40-320, for a range of 280; for onions it shows me Y=120-440, for a range of 320. This means that potatoes are more "zoomed in" and it's graph will exaggerate volatility relative to onions, but qualitatively, I'd say the potato graph looks smother just the same. This is exactly what economic theory says a futures market should do to the price.
> Lettuce and Tomatoes don't keep well, which adds more seasonal variability
The more durable a produce is, the easier it is to transport over a large area, which will always smoothen price fluctuations. This alone could explain why lettuce and tomatoes have higher volatility than onions, which have higher volatility than potatoes, which have higher volatility than corn and weat.
At least that's the null hypothesis that the hypothetical effect of futures should be compared to.
I know nothing about logistics of the food supply chain and how they preserve food at scale, but at least at home I'd say that potatoes are close to twice as durable as onions.
Or to bring it back to the original context... Reducing volatility would be reducing the impact of bad weather on your harvest, absorbing volatility is finding someone to cover your losses. (presumably by giving up some profits on the good years. It's like a financial low pass filter)
Volatility is a natural consequence of weather, blight, etc., etc.
To reduce volatility you would need to actually stabilize the supply of onions.
What futures do is allow traders to shift risk from the future to the present. By pricing that risk, it's possible for people who depend on onions to pay a little more now in exchange for a guarantee about the future.
It's not magically going to make onions less volatile (although high risk prices can spur investment which might) but it can reduce disruptions caused by volatility.
The classic example of this is futures on jet fuel which allow airlines to weather random wars in the middle east, OPEC shenanigans, etc. Ticket prices are higher this way, but the existential threat of being forced to cancel a bunch of flights is gone.
For speculators yes. But for a farmer and the consumer of the goods they would rather lock in a margin for their goods and run their business than risk guessing what the price will be at harvest time or consumption time. It’s called hedging.
How many farmers do you imagine are in this thread?
And consumers neither lock in margins nor run a business because consumers buy at retail…
Ok charitably, maybe you use “consumer” in a special sense of businesses that consume raw materials such as owners of onion ring factories. In those cases, future prices (as opposed futures prices) are typically negotiated directly into contracts with producers of those commodities…and how many of those are in this thread?
In the vast majority of cases, futures are traded speculatively and physical delivery of goods and chattles is an extreme exception.
People are willing to lose a small but predictable amount of money to avoid occasionally and unpredictably losing a massive amount of money. The former is a loss they can plan for and absorb. The latter might kill their business.
Traders are often happy to take the other side of that trade because they can trade against many counterparties, collect a small premium from each one, and try to ensure their counterparties won’t all fail in a correlated way.
You may have liabilities or income that exist outside of financial markets e.g. if I have 500t of wheat due to be harvested I might want to hedge enough to guarantee I can pay my staff - ive locked in the price of wheat, I might make less money as a result but my risk is lower.
reply