I hope this guy's kidding. Personally I don't think Liebermann is the idiot he sometimes puts himself out to be. However, this suggestion is like trying to stuff a giraffe into a suitcase. If pension funds are prohibited from investing in commodities directly (whether it's the actual underlying physical asset or otherwise a proxy derivative instrument) then they could just as easily invest in commodities through a 3rd party such as buying a stake in a company, any company, which does deal in commodities. It could even go one step further by establishing a Special Purpose Entity/Vehicle as an independent subsidiary, load it with cash and let that appendage do the commodity trading. That oughta put Joey's nose outta joint, unless he bans pension funds from investing in any companies or ventures with direct or indirect interests in commodities. I'm curious as to how legislation in that matter would pan out - more food on the table for lawyers I guess.

In the not too distant past, people had the habit of staying silent if there's nothing worthwhile to say. It seems the case these days that politicians, with an irresistible propensity to appear as if they're representing their voters, will let loose anything from their blowhole just for the sake of it. I doubt the American audience would notice the difference or even take note given their election turnouts.

Unless our benevolent leaders have bought their own packed lunches to the convention and are accommodated in straw dung huts lit by candlelight then any amount of conferring will only add to the global taxpayer's energy bill.

"The transparency and regulation of financial markets should be improved through measures to capture more data on index fund activity and to examine cross-exchange interactions in the crude market."

To me the word 'transparency' has lost all its nominal connotations. The only things transparent are (1) a clean glass window pane and (2) the 2008 Winter Edition Victoria's Secrets undergarment range. Transparency sucks because we all have something to hide and leave buried - especially people of perceived repute and prestige whom are held in esteem by the vast sea of nobodies. In fact, it is an insult to the 'practice what you preach' principle. I see there being two prospective approaches towards opaqueness, ie. plausible 'shut yo mouth' non-disclosure. One is to stay silent and deny everything - the old 'no comment' gimmick. The other involves mutilating the fundamentally straightforward and dead simple (like getting what you paid for) into something that's paradoxically unfathomable (like not knowing what you've bought with money that's not yours extended via credit secured against your house whose real owners are of obscure origins somewhere on the other side of the Pacific). The former is a preferred measure amongst idiot leaders (GWB take heed); the latter is weapon of choice for slightly more educated morons.