These gas prices can be summed up with one word, SPECULATORS!! It's wrong and something should be done!!
How about something like you cannot purchase bulk fuel without having the storage capacity and completing the exchange by taking delivery.
How does this following argument sound.. too extreme?
I don't exactly take this position but what about it as an argument?
"...something like that would still be freemarket if you take the position that buying something without intent to take delivery is fraud.
The seller might actually care where his fuel is going and brokering it through speculators deprives the seller of his right to chose who receives his product and deprives the customer of their right to chose which producer they buy from.
A free market doesn't mean a blind anonymous market and I always take the position that unnaturally separating the customer from the producer through creation of tertiary markets implemented or protected by legislation is a fraud.
It is an abandonment of governments primary purpose... to protect people, property, commerce, and establish universal measures and standards.... Not to create or assist in tiping the scales of justice.
Markets of commercial paper that are not markets of products... specifically designed to drive a wedge between customer and producer for the sole purpose of enabling a party that doesn't produce, consume, warehouse or transport items of commerce are derivative markets
Derivative markets don't physically trade property. they trade property on paper never actually taking possession, never actually delivering.
The financial derivative markets are simply an extension of commercial derivative markets such as futures and brokerage.
It's high time the law represents that contracts and finance are instruments of commerce.
The purpose of contracts and finance is to facilitate the relationship between buyer and seller.
The contract are agreements between and belong to the active parties in the commerce.
The government has been given the mandate to create usury free currency for us to use as money and facilitate transfer of value between buyer and seller.
Commerce is the bona fide transfer of tangible items and performed services between a producer or service provider, and a consumer.
The force and effect and protections of commerce have been unethically extended to parties not involved in the transaction. The definition of the transaction itself has thus been changed.
The routing of commerce through 3rd party artifices by contract or by force and effect of law isn't business...it's monkey business....corruption
another impurity in the legal system"
sooo...does that sound whacked or does it sound ethical...
Where does this argument protect the right to brokerage while protecting active parties in commerce from exploitation by uninvolved 3rd parties?