mically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No

World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraq today.

They all pale by comparison to what could be. I am not talking about military conflagration or Al-Queda. I am taking about RUNAWAY PRICING by certain segments of the US economy.

We have seen dramatic movies indicating that greed is good. Others that show what can happen when a specific company wants some economic benefit and bribes OR ASSASSINATES government bodies so that an end consequence is that the economic body [private or public company] gets what it wants. [The movie, "The Pelican Brief" is a good example].

Let me lay a ground work of information so that we understand the logic to this article. In pure capitalism, a supplier can charge whatever he can get from his marketplace. This assumes that what he produces does not harm the environment and is safe to use as instructed. This also assumes that the company is not protected in any way or that limits exist on whom the public can buy from. [Utilities have protection and thus, have some modicum of restriction to protect the consumer from harmful goods, poor service or runaway prices.]

USUALLY, companies compete for the consumer's dollar based on many factors; limited resources, location, and equal product competitors, among others.

The average John will not pay $10.00 for a loaf of bread because the market place has other identical quality/quantity suppliers who will provide that same loaf for $1.50. Thus, only those in Northern Alaska, or a distant Hawaiian island will pay more than $1.50 for that loaf of bread. If, for some odd reason, the national wheat harvest was harmed in any way, that same loaf of bread could sell for $2.00 or more, since there would be simply fewer resources for the raw materials.

About 20 years ago, two brothers in Texas, tried to "Corner" the silver market by buying up billions of dollars worth-- and they almost succeeded but were caught in a sloppy side activity that was illegal and they were jailed and lost everything-or the market changed and they lost everything.

Thus, we know that some products have very few suppliers and others have dozens [JUST IN ONE COUNTRY]!

Within the science of purchasing is the field of economics. Goods are either elastic or inelastic and that can be devastating to a society. While 90% of all goods In this case, gasoline.

While commodities' traders and oil company stock holders are having a huge party, the rest of the world is suffering.

Up until just before the Iraq "War", gas was selling for about 95 cents a gallon.

[The world gas companies have agreements with each oil supplying nation regarding the amount these gas companies will pay for that oil Those prices are decade long contracts which assure both sides of continuous profits.]

Also, American producers have their own domestic oil wells--thus--the wells outside America [Saudi, Venezuela, and elsewhere that oil firms have contracts] cover only 35% of its demand!

Simple math shows that even a barrel price of $100 instead of at $20, [$80 differential], covers only 35% of the price we pay at the pump. The highest price oil has gotten has been at $60. A $40 differential for 35% of the price we pay is not the current differential of $2.50, it would be way less!

Next bit of data that you need to know about is; The "Sherman Anti-trust law." It basically says that competing companies may not price fix. Meaning, that a company may set its price based on its analysis of the market to see how the market reacts. Almost always, as demonstrated in the 1950's and 60's, when one company reduced its price, its competitor reduced its price hours later. Instead of earning 50% profit margins, they accepted a 45% margin to entice customers to return to their pumps if a neighbor reduced his.

In the 70's, they were all sued for price fixing when the prices reversed and started climbing. Since they almost all pay the same prices for oil and since the cost of oil had not changed for 50 yrs, the first one who raised his price lost customers to the others who stayed "flat" --at a glorious profit margin.

Right after the US invaded Iraq, ILLEGALLY it turned out, the price of oil spiked. This makes no sense since the cost to produce did not change. Bush realized something was askew but since Halliburton was part of the price fixing group and his VP would be indicted for this change if investigated [Halliburton was later found guilty], nothing was done. The main claim was/is "We can't take the focus off the troops" [no matter who gets economically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No

SUALLY, companies compete for the consumer's dollar based on many factors; limited resources, location, and equal product competitors, among others.

The average John will not pay $10.00 for a loaf of bread because the market place has other identical quality/quantity suppliers who will provide that same loaf for $1.50. Thus, only those in Northern Alaska, or a distant Hawaiian island will pay more than $1.50 for that loaf of bread. If, for some odd reason, the national wheat harvest was harmed in any way, that same loaf of bread could sell for $2.00 or more, since there would be simply fewer resources for the raw materials.

About 20 years ago, two brothers in Texas, tried to "Corner" the silver market by buying up billions of dollars worth-- and they almost succeeded but were caught in a sloppy side activity that was illegal and they were jailed and lost everything-or the market changed and they lost everything.

Thus, we know that some products have very few suppliers and others have dozens [JUST IN ONE COUNTRY]!

Within the science of purchasing is the field of economics. Goods are either elastic or inelastic and that can be devastating to a society. While 90% of all goods In this case, gasoline.

While commodities' traders and oil company stock holders are having a huge party, the rest of the world is suffering.

Up until just before the Iraq "War", gas was selling for about 95 cents a gallon.

[The world gas companies have agreements with each oil supplying nation regarding the amount these gas companies will pay for that oil Those prices are decade long contracts which assure both sides of continuous profits.]

Also, American producers have their own domestic oil wells--thus--the wells outside America [Saudi, Venezuela, and elsewhere that oil firms have contracts] cover only 35% of its demand!

Simple math shows that even a barrel price of $100 instead of at $20, [$80 differential], covers only 35% of the price we pay at the pump. The highest price oil has gotten has been at $60. A $40 differential for 35% of the price we pay is not the current differential of $2.50, it would be way less!

Next bit of data that you need to know about is; The "Sherman Anti-trust law." It basically says that competing companies may not price fix. Meaning, that a company may set its price based on its analysis of the market to see how the market reacts. Almost always, as demonstrated in the 1950's and 60's, when one company reduced its price, its competitor reduced its price hours later. Instead of earning 50% profit margins, they accepted a 45% margin to entice customers to return to their pumps if a neighbor reduced his.

In the 70's, they were all sued for price fixing when the prices reversed and started climbing. Since they almost all pay the same prices for oil and since the cost of oil had not changed for 50 yrs, the first one who raised his price lost customers to the others who stayed "flat" --at a glorious profit margin.

Right after the US invaded Iraq, ILLEGALLY it turned out, the price of oil spiked. This makes no sense since the cost to produce did not change. Bush realized something was askew but since Halliburton was part of the price fixing group and his VP would be indicted for this change if investigated [Halliburton was later found guilty], nothing was done. The main claim was/is "We can't take the focus off the troops" [no matter who gets economically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No

at can be devastating to a society. While 90% of all goods In this case, gasoline.

While commodities' traders and oil company stock holders are having a huge party, the rest of the world is suffering.

Up until just before the Iraq "War", gas was selling for about 95 cents a gallon.

[The world gas companies have agreements with each oil supplying nation regarding the amount these gas companies will pay for that oil Those prices are decade long contracts which assure both sides of continuous profits.]

Also, American producers have their own domestic oil wells--thus--the wells outside America [Saudi, Venezuela, and elsewhere that oil firms have contracts] cover only 35% of its demand!

Simple math shows that even a barrel price of $100 instead of at $20, [$80 differential], covers only 35% of the price we pay at the pump. The highest price oil has gotten has been at $60. A $40 differential for 35% of the price we pay is not the current differential of $2.50, it would be way less!

Next bit of data that you need to know about is; The "Sherman Anti-trust law." It basically says that competing companies may not price fix. Meaning, that a company may set its price based on its analysis of the market to see how the market reacts. Almost always, as demonstrated in the 1950's and 60's, when one company reduced its price, its competitor reduced its price hours later. Instead of earning 50% profit margins, they accepted a 45% margin to entice customers to return to their pumps if a neighbor reduced his.

In the 70's, they were all sued for price fixing when the prices reversed and started climbing. Since they almost all pay the same prices for oil and since the cost of oil had not changed for 50 yrs, the first one who raised his price lost customers to the others who stayed "flat" --at a glorious profit margin.

Right after the US invaded Iraq, ILLEGALLY it turned out, the price of oil spiked. This makes no sense since the cost to produce did not change. Bush realized something was askew but since Halliburton was part of the price fixing group and his VP would be indicted for this change if investigated [Halliburton was later found guilty], nothing was done. The main claim was/is "We can't take the focus off the troops" [no matter who gets economically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No

ice fix. Meaning, that a company may set its price based on its analysis of the market to see how the market reacts. Almost always, as demonstrated in the 1950's and 60's, when one company reduced its price, its competitor reduced its price hours later. Instead of earning 50% profit margins, they accepted a 45% margin to entice customers to return to their pumps if a neighbor reduced his.

In the 70's, they were all sued for price fixing when the prices reversed and started climbing. Since they almost all pay the same prices for oil and since the cost of oil had not changed for 50 yrs, the first one who raised his price lost customers to the others who stayed "flat" --at a glorious profit margin.

Right after the US invaded Iraq, ILLEGALLY it turned out, the price of oil spiked. This makes no sense since the cost to produce did not change. Bush realized something was askew but since Halliburton was part of the price fixing group and his VP would be indicted for this change if investigated [Halliburton was later found guilty], nothing was done. The main claim was/is "We can't take the focus off the troops" [no matter who gets economically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No

mically screwed in the mean time.] The only spin so far that the oil companies can put on their price gouging is that they have extraordinary costs. LAME.

The consequent problem of the cost of gas is not so simple. It is creating a precedence. In law, when a situation is new to the law books and thus, the courts, the judge responsible [or the jury] has to, in short, create a law to decide something [like spam on the internet.]

It was expected that the horrendous rise in the price of gas would cost such a blow to the national economy, that shortly, consumers would stop buying and choose alternatives. For the first time in history, this did not occur.

Why is this behavior on the part of consumers such an accident and horrendous choice? It informs any company that "While we don't like it, we really have enough discretionary cash and resources so that we can simply re-direct our lives to accommodate any price you demand from us. WOW! This is how Europe got $5 and $6 dollar a gallon [litre] gas- indifference. If a consumer says "We would rather bitch about a price than change our life-style" it tells ALL producers of goods, "No matter what you charge, we will pay it." Thus, instead of a gradual multi-year climb in pricing so as not to "Gouge" customers, many suppliers of goods will simply say "Let's accept the bitching of the consumer" and go for the gold. If enough suppliers did this, in short order, everything you buy today could go up in price 100-200-300-400+% in price within 30 days! WHY NOT? You, the consumer, will simply ask for a pay raise, and you will buy a lit bit less from some goods' suppliers and the same amount from others!

IS that what you want? It DOES have a name; Runaway inflation. It occurs frequently in many nations! In some nations, when a worker goes to work, a loaf of bread sells at the US equivalent of $1.00. When he returns home and goes next door to buy some bread, it is $2.00. The next night, it is $3.00.

Some nations don't have bread because of this.

Do you want $10 per loaf bread?