"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

-Maggie Thatcher ... hell of a broad.

Titus, just when you are on the brink of lucidity you go and drop a ripe turd in the punch bowl ...

"I simply fail to see where you can decry the actions of someone like Chavez, who wants to manage and control every aspect of his nation's economy by removing the ability of free-market principles to dictate cost and availability... but you'll let a very small and exclusive and CLOSED group of investors dictate and manipulate market price through speculation. To me, it seems six of one and half-a-dozen of another. You are replacing a socialist government's manipulation for the manipulation of corporate interests ..."

Really? Must I really go through the paces of why that's so utterly ridiculous?

First off, Chavez's control comes at the end of a gun, actually the guns of an entire army. Secondly, he controls every aspect of his nation's petro from the moment Venezuelan earth is disturbed until Raoul unscrews his gas cap. Chavez seized control like so many despots before him, like a petty thug. Futures traders are merely playing by the rules of the road as prescribed by a freely elected government. And as far as I know, at the conclusion of this post you could pick up the phone, establish an account with a brokerage house, and jump in the crude futures market yourself. Its hardly some secret society of men whom resemble the Monopoly guy, meeting in clandestine locales whose ominous hand, much like their pipe smoke, billows above the economy, untouchable, answering to no man nor law.

It is just these type off flippant analogies which lend themselves to the notion capitalism is "bad," and their most successful practitioners EVIL. And worst of all its a distraction from your thesis.

Now as to that . . . a couple points. I am not , as of yet, arguing pro or con the Reagan era policy you are so fond of. I am simply acknowledging that I have a bias (a justifiable one I'd argue) towards discouraging government interventionism, while taking into consideration that there are extremes in which that bias could land me on the wrong side of an argument (and history), but I feel comfortable they are few and far between given one must go to nukes and military grade weaponry before a clear line is drawn. That being said, if President Titus were to forbid crude future's speculation, and it ceased in the mid-West, would it not reemerge in the Mid-East? (I like that one). In other words, isn't that genie already out of the bottle? If Chicago is shut down as the world's oil speculation "capitol", wouldn't London, Moscow, or Riyadh simply take its' place given there are investors with everything from their livelihood to expendable capital invested in that market? And wouldn't speculation, even thosands of miles relocated, effect the price of a truly global commodity, and thus US "at the pump" price, just the same?

In addition, you claim the sole (or primary) reason behind wild and high price fluctuations at the pump is these bad, bad, men, led by Mr. Smithers, speculating in the dark of night, rubbing their bony fingers together, for the sole purpose of keeping themselves in $500 cognac and Cuban cigars. But isn't the fact that India's energy demands have gone up by 1000% in the last 15 years, not to mention China's and the free market wave sweeping the Eastern Bloc all factoring into demand, and thus price? And (minus Carter's malaise) it isn't as if gas was wildly fluctuating or at $5 a gallon prior to the Reagan, say in the 50's & 60's. If crude futures speculation was legal and applied then, why were these deleterious effects you lay at the feet of speculators not occurring then? Oil was damn cheap in 1955.

Again, I'm not necessarily decided on this, but I'm trying to ask simple, common sense questions as to your position, rather then assail it in our traditional style.

I shall continue - the news on Greece (something I warned about in the Bund many months ago), is dangerous, and possibly catastrophic. In the cradle of Western civilization, the birth place of man's first dalliances with liberty, the entire nation may melt down over cradle to grave social expenditures. The country is broke, the riots are real (as unions accustomed to lavish state benefits feel the pinch of empty coffers hey have taken to the streets in violent protest). In fact The IMF, European banking syndicates, and yes the US have put together a $1 Trillion bailout package for Greece, and wink, wink, Portugal and Spain. The assumption is as markets consider the plausibility that sovereign debt may not be honored, a domino effect may occur - as goes Greece so goes Spain, Portugal, Italy, perhaps even Germany. So we are engaged in yet another bail out before the cash has even finished falling from the helicopters in our own nation. Unconscionable. I'm not one prone to conspiracy theories (outside of being screwed out of my e.o.), but if Continental Europe collapses, enter a US (read: Obama) opportunity to advocate a single world currency.

At any rate, if you read the article detailing this potential catastrophe: $1 Trillion To Save Europe, you will find that the primary act of this money is to shore up the Euro. And the real panic is that before that can happen currency speculators will short the Euro and precipitate its' demise before the bailout money can do its intended job (they'll call it a "loan", but then so was the quasi-nationalization of GM). So that got me thinking - you noted that oil was too vital, too precious for "typical" free market activity to be allowed, such as future's speculation. The US dollar, the Euro, the Pound, do they not all meet the "vital" threshold? Surely you would concede that our very currency is within the realm of "too vital" to fail less catastrophic economic consequences ensue. And that is a "commodity" in which the government's intervention (i.e. it prints the stuff) isn't even in question. Hence, would you not advocate various governments (including our own) summarily outlawing all currency speculation? Entire nations throughout Western Europe (and in theory the US) may go under if such speculation persists, surely that falls under your "too vital" clause. And the slope gets just a little more slick . . . ay?