Follow up to Pete's thread below
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Too funny. Speculators never hold the physical!
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think you should do some reading on how the futures market operates.
I think you should take care not to get entangled in the finer details of terminology. We are talking about macroeconomics here.
73Zeppelin wrote:
jhwurmbach wrote: That speculators do not hold the physical commodity is as irrelevant Uh, no it's not - it's a fundamental principle on which futures markets are built.
Sure. Its easier to understand with the classical text-book example "apples-market". The apples are not even growing on the tree, but still may have been sold several times. And the apple farmer is speculating that he will get at least as much apple as he has sole futures for. But he needs the money *now* to pay the beemaster, and later to pay the pluckers.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's why speculators exist and operate in the market
They do that to earn money. And they found a way to parasite on values created elsewhere by others.
Let's think
jhwurmbach wrote:
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
Speculation does not affect oil prices. A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical. It does not induce demand for the underlying. Furthermore, what you describe is normal market behaviour. But that behaviour does not affect the price level. Also, "contango" is not normal (except for gold). The oil market is backwardated about 95% of the time and thus contango (for the oil contract) is most definitely NOT normal. If I enter into a futures contract and three days before it expires I roll over my position into another contract, where is the demand for physical oil? I can do this indefinitely. Let's say I do it for a year. At the end of 1 year I have bought, say, 12 futures contracts of 1 month maturity yet not once did I take possession of any oil. Why do you believe that represents demand (demand is demand for the underlying; the physical commodity)? How do you think that drives up the price of oil? Why, as a speculator, would I be willing to bid up the price of a futures contract when I know I could possibly lose if the future spot price is less than the futures price at
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
but that's because they don't understand the mechanics of the futures market.
And you alone got the understanding, and know what is to do...Oh well. You are right or not, that much is certain.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
73Zeppelin: but that's because they don't understand the mechanics of the futures market. jhwurmbach: And you alone got the understanding, and know what is to do...Oh well. You are right or not, that much is certain.
Isn't it such a bummer when the sort of "reasoning" one so typically employs comes home? ;)
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
but that's because they don't understand the mechanics of the futures market.
And you alone got the understanding, and know what is to do...Oh well. You are right or not, that much is certain.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
And you alone got the understanding
I never suggested that at all. I am, however, directly involved with the futures market so I happen to know how it works.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which is kinda weird, because I thought he'd be the first person to give me a 5.
Well, of course, because he never (what never? Well, hardly ever) gives 1's. He posted to that effect. For him to give 1's out now would be *dishonest.* I am sure you are simply imagining a correlation. As is Christian; as am I. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
He posted to that effect.
Someone is quite misrepresenting what "he" said. But then, Someone does that sort of thing. Why, if Someone couldn't [spend his time] misrepresenting what others have said, there'd be no point in living, would there?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculators trade the contract, not the physical. Since there is no intention to take possession there is no physical demand. The position can be rolled over at the end of the month and a new contract entered into without any oil ever changing hands....
Why would speculators agree to pay an amount for the contract to acquire oil, when they would not anticipate rising oil prices?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
Why would speculators agree to pay an amount for the contract to acquire oil, when they would not anticipate rising oil prices?
Speculators agree to buy futures contracts in order to earn the risk premium - the difference between expected future spot price and the price of the futures contract at maturity. If expected future spot price exceeds the futures contract price at maturity, the speculators pocket the difference and thus profit. If the expected future spot price is less than the futures price at maturity they lose. It's a gamble and has less to do with rising oil prices than it has to do with the difference between the spot price and the contract price at maturity. Do you understand how a futures contract works?
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
Speculation does not affect oil prices. A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical. It does not induce demand for the underlying. Furthermore, what you describe is normal market behaviour. But that behaviour does not affect the price level. Also, "contango" is not normal (except for gold). The oil market is backwardated about 95% of the time and thus contango (for the oil contract) is most definitely NOT normal. If I enter into a futures contract and three days before it expires I roll over my position into another contract, where is the demand for physical oil? I can do this indefinitely. Let's say I do it for a year. At the end of 1 year I have bought, say, 12 futures contracts of 1 month maturity yet not once did I take possession of any oil. Why do you believe that represents demand (demand is demand for the underlying; the physical commodity)? How do you think that drives up the price of oil? Why, as a speculator, would I be willing to bid up the price of a futures contract when I know I could possibly lose if the future spot price is less than the futures price at
73Zeppelin wrote:
A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical.
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you. In case of the backwardation benefit being higher than the rolling over costs, no one would buy new, longer contracts. And the physical oil will make its way from the tanker to the refinery to the customer unhindered. For sure no one will try to unload his crude-oil-truck into your garden.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation is not parasitation. Speculation is necessary in order for the futures market to exist.
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market. It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter. It then institutionalized. But it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
jhwurmbach wrote:
So what? Banker never get some of the dollars you earn, but they nonetheless will take your house when you do not pay the mortgage. Oil speculation is one of two things: The trader agrees to sell the amount X of oil (he does not own by now) at the price Y. The trader hopes the prices will fall and he can acquire the oil he agreed to sell for less than Y. The trader agrees to buy the amount X of oil (he does not want physically) at the price of Y. The trader hopes for rising prices, so he can sell the oil for more than Y. During all that time, the physical oil is on the way through pipeline, tanker, refinery into the storage. It may change owner any number of times. And the mechanism that has on the spotmarket is simply: The oil a speculator has a contract on *now* is not going to be on the market in 3 Months, reducing supply. When all oil-producer have already sold their oil for September for A Dollars, you would have to pay more than A Dollars to get something. "backwardation" (beyond a very tiny amount for the costs) occurs when the supply is insecure. Normal would be "contango", but the costs for transport, storage and refining are relativly stable and are integrated into the price.
Speculation does not affect oil prices. A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical. It does not induce demand for the underlying. Furthermore, what you describe is normal market behaviour. But that behaviour does not affect the price level. Also, "contango" is not normal (except for gold). The oil market is backwardated about 95% of the time and thus contango (for the oil contract) is most definitely NOT normal. If I enter into a futures contract and three days before it expires I roll over my position into another contract, where is the demand for physical oil? I can do this indefinitely. Let's say I do it for a year. At the end of 1 year I have bought, say, 12 futures contracts of 1 month maturity yet not once did I take possession of any oil. Why do you believe that represents demand (demand is demand for the underlying; the physical commodity)? How do you think that drives up the price of oil? Why, as a speculator, would I be willing to bid up the price of a futures contract when I know I could possibly lose if the future spot price is less than the futures price at
73Zeppelin wrote:
The only thing I will agree to is that speculators can affect price volatility but NOT price LEVEL.
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up? They do want to take physical delivery of the oil they buy and they are, for all intentes and purposes, bidding against each other and thus bidding the price up. I'm told that America West has hedged oil scheduled for delivery through 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*?
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you? Think about it, why didn't other petrol stations raise their prices? Why did the petrol station in question reduce their prices after a bit of criticism? If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
It depends a lot on # of stations in an area, and transpertation costs, taxes and fees. If you don't like the price you are free to choose other stations, at least here in USA you can.
MrPlankton
-
True, but in this case they were the first and only petrol station to do so :)
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
first and only petrol station to do so
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
MrPlankton
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
A futures contract does not represent demand for the physical - I can indefinitely roll-over a futures contract for 10 years if I wanted to and never, ever, never take possession of the physical.
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you. In case of the backwardation benefit being higher than the rolling over costs, no one would buy new, longer contracts. And the physical oil will make its way from the tanker to the refinery to the customer unhindered. For sure no one will try to unload his crude-oil-truck into your garden.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation is not parasitation. Speculation is necessary in order for the futures market to exist.
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market. It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter. It then institutionalized. But it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you.
That's not what "rolling-over" means. Rolling-over a position means that I sell the expiring futures contract and buy a new futures contract. If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market.
:wtf: WHAT? What are you talking about? The futures market mitigates risk! It's vital!
jhwurmbach wrote:
It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter.
No it didn't! It was originally developed to protect farmers against bad harvests! I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's wrong. Wrong, unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing... :~
jhwurmbach wrote:
it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The futures market reduces risk - reduces risk of price fluctuation and benefits all: you, me, Africans, everyone. Without it the world would be subject to huge and uncontrolled price spikes.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
[Message Deleted]
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
"rolling over", that is exchanging you contract for oil due *soon* for one due *later*, would have ruined you.
That's not what "rolling-over" means. Rolling-over a position means that I sell the expiring futures contract and buy a new futures contract. If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Thats the point: We don't need the futures market.
:wtf: WHAT? What are you talking about? The futures market mitigates risk! It's vital!
jhwurmbach wrote:
It once came out of the sheer information deficit, in times when information where not faster than the physical matter.
No it didn't! It was originally developed to protect farmers against bad harvests! I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's wrong. Wrong, unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing... :~
jhwurmbach wrote:
it does not do anything good which could not better be done in other ways.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The futures market reduces risk - reduces risk of price fluctuation and benefits all: you, me, Africans, everyone. Without it the world would be subject to huge and uncontrolled price spikes.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
No. But you have a binding agreement of someone, to sell you a fixed amount of oil for a fixed price at a fixed date. The oil may come from whereever.
73Zeppelin wrote:
unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The only thing I will agree to is that speculators can affect price volatility but NOT price LEVEL.
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up? They do want to take physical delivery of the oil they buy and they are, for all intentes and purposes, bidding against each other and thus bidding the price up. I'm told that America West has hedged oil scheduled for delivery through 2012.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Zep, is it true that it is the hedgers who are driving the price up?
Hedgers, speculators...I've heard it all. I've analyzed the Commitment of Traders (CoT) data and I really don't see any effects. There was a report to Congress regarding speculation in the oil market, but that report (I read it and it's publicly available) was flawed in methodology. The problem is that the CoT data is highly aggregated (it's not daily data - it's bi-monthly - i.e. every two weeks) and the classifications are not concrete. As I explained in this thread it is not in the interest of speculators to self-classify as "speculative". As a result the data is also fairly noisy. That being said, I don't think it's either the hedgers or the speculators. I truly believe it's fundamentals: production, supply, demand, inventories and uncertainty regarding in-the-ground oil reserves. The problem is that the data on in-the-ground reserves is dirty and completely unreliable. In some cases these Gulf countries lie about how much oil is left. This works its way into the market along with everything else including the weakness of the dollar, and the fundamentals I mentioned above. I don't see much evidence of a bidding war - the bid-ask spread is relatively stable. I think high oil prices are due to the factors I mentioned. I think politicians like to look for scapegoats in times when commodity prices are soaring because it gets them votes. Nothing hits the average tax-payers pocket like expensive commodities and so a good way to curry favour is to start pointing fingers and you don't point fingers at the constituents... I also don't think the schedule is that well-hedged until 2012. The long-term contracts (more than 1 year) are not very liquid (meaning not highly traded) and if there was that much hedging demand (until 2012) it would be easy to see that kind of activity. I do think producers have a well-defined production schedule though.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If I speculate the oil market, I never take possession of oil.
No. But you have a binding agreement of someone, to sell you a fixed amount of oil for a fixed price at a fixed date. The oil may come from whereever.
73Zeppelin wrote:
unless, of course, you think communism is a "good" thing
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
I like the underlined one. :-D I'll have to remember that one. As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea. That's why there are few communist countries left (although part of China's success is it's open-mindedness towards capital markets) in the world and the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets. I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Phannon wrote:
first and only petrol station to do so
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
MrPlankton
MrPlankton wrote:
So they will be punished by the market. People simply go somewhere else.
*Rational* people go elsewhere ... assuming, of course, that the stock of "non-greedy" stations hasn't been depleted by other people "just getting their share" (i.e. panic-buying and therefore buying considerably more that they normally would). *Irrational* people react by throwing a hissy-fit and tossing around silly accusations of greed and of other moral deficiencies.
-
**Ilion:**Listen to you! All emotion, no reason. The first article[^] backs up what I've said. But, you, and those who "think" like you, don't want to *see* reality as it really is; don't want to deal with what *is,* as opposed to what you collectively imagine *ought* to be. MOREOVER, you're actually hypocritical in your "arguments." For instance, we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford. **Ravel:**You can *say* whatever you wish. In this case, it isn't true; but it's quite to be expected, because you are *not* an intellectually honest person.
You kiddies love to resort to this kind of blatant *habitual* dishonesty when you *know* I'm right (hint: I always am). I am *very* close to complaining to Chris Maunder again.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
Are you talking about the communism as the utopia written by Marx, the one implemented in the Soviet union, the GDR or Kampuchea, the one implemeted in modern China or the one defined by the US Republicans (e.g. anything not being vicious capitalism)?
I like the underlined one. :-D I'll have to remember that one. As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea. That's why there are few communist countries left (although part of China's success is it's open-mindedness towards capital markets) in the world and the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets. I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
As far as communism goes, any kind of centrally planned economy where the state dictates the distribution of wealth is a bad, bad idea.
Ancient Egypt and the ancient Mesopotamian states (and probably China as well) came out of a system for planned and systematical distribution of food and general wealth. That is the first and foremost reason for humans forming a state. A state that does not guarantee that is failing.
73Zeppelin wrote:
the "successful" countries are the ones that embrace capital markets.
There is a very strong pressure to comply with the US definition of correct economics and politics. Venezuela feels that. The World-bank is the institutionalization of it.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't believe communism is a viable ideology - communist states are short-lived.
Communism as defined by Marx and the military dictatorship implemented by Lenin and later Stalin has failed completely. Marx has a lot of correct points in his analysis of capitalism, but his utopic communist society is incompatible with actual humans. Therefore "orthodox" communism tends to associate with violence and oppression. Not that both are specific for communist states and unknown to capitalistic states.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Your post would suggest the following: Only those who can afford to buy the petrol at those prices, should do so, everyone else who needs the petrol yet can't afford it, must suffer. And yes, there are people who need it, not everyone has a viable alternative method of travel to work. Do you think it morally acceptable to price people off the road? With that kind of thinking, you should be a Labour MP!
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
there are people who need it
there are people who need healthcare, there are people who need food, there are people who need a home. what you're suggesting phannon is that price shouldn't climb with demand because people need things. if you are reliant on gas to "get to work" well you should see the writing on the wall by now.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
Ilíon wrote:
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*?
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you? Think about it, why didn't other petrol stations raise their prices? Why did the petrol station in question reduce their prices after a bit of criticism? If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you?
yea because it's good business to stay comparative. in this case, it was better business to raise prises.
Phannon wrote:
If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
they are right to do just about whatever they want with product they purchase and choose to resell or not resell.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford