I noticed how he pulled back on using the word “manipulation” later on in the interview, and I don’t know why. Was he afraid of being sued for using this word “mainpulation”, which he went on to say was a strong word?

He said that JPM and GS, being financial houses, were not using the oil, not refining it nor transporting it, and yet they governed the price that the rest of us have to pay at the pumps. My definition of manipulate would say that they are “managing to influence, especially unfairly”. So, why did he retract on this word, which is an allegation?

I suppose it’s academic in that the US government will never in a million years enact legislation to prevent this price manipulation. I think we’ll have to wait until a new era dawns when moral rectitude is the norm and is enforced by miraculous means, perhaps.

Nothing new here, folks.

It’s the same ol’ “commodities con-game” that the Wall St. banks have been playing for years, while the US government turns their head the other way. All commodities are manipulated up, then manipulated down. Some (e.g. oil, silver, copper, gold, cocoa, coffee to name a few) are manipulated more than others. These banks make their billions on volatility.

For those who wonder why the government does nothing, take a quick look at how much money Wall St. banks give to politicians. Last year, the total was over $500 million; that amount of money ensures that the squeaky wheels of DC are well greased for the ensuing year.

And on it goes!

Obewon, would you call this “commodities con-game” corruption?

I ask this because it seems to me that we have easy-to-assess evidence that global finances are based on corruption, because they are based on commodities, perhaps, more than anything else.

We tend to think of third world leaders as being corrupt, and I don’t think anyone would dispute this with their foreign bank accounts, hanging on to political power and the continuing misery of the people they govern.

Perhaps we don’t think of first world finance as being corrupt partly because we have grown up with it and in it, received an education as to what is going on and are biassed against believing that our financial governors could possibly come into the same category, namely that of corrupt, as third world leaders.

I can’t think of any man-made alternative to current world financial behaviour so I’m not a revolutionary. It’s of intellectual interest, particularly as a comment on the nature which is human.

@ John Mark:

It’s pure corruption, but these folks on Wall St. (or the London Metals Exchange, the London Bullion Market Association, etc.) have been doing it for so long that their policies, practices and procedures (including payoffs to politicians, etc.) have become “acceptable behaviour” among themselves, among politicians, and among many of the general population.

There are a number of passions in life (e.g. lust, anger, greed, etc.) which we, as humans, have to learn to control. Sometimes, we are placed into situations where the temptation to give in to these passions is overwhelming, and when we think we can “take advantage” of others and get away with it. Two examples here:
a) a country’s dictator who lusts for absolute power, and
b) a very large and greedy “investment” bank which can throw its weight around, in order to control the world’s supply of cotton, or silver, etc.

The alternative is a system of checks and balances, where there is complete transparency. But governments (whether federal or local), politicians, and banks don’t like nor want transparency, because it complicates their egregious actions … actions which favor the “very few” and which are not in the best interests of the general population.

Your despair at being able to do anything significant about it mirrors mine and, in a way, makes Fadel Gheit’s allegation of manipulation futile.

This corruption wouldn’t matter nearly so much if food and oil (for agriculture) were not included in it. When food prices rise and people begin to starve as a result of the corruption of banks based in democratic countries, it becomes important, at the least, morally important.

I suppose that if the democracies were mature ones, they would do everything to put the “demos” first including financial stability and fairness. Maybe there is a gradual process of moving towards more effective regulation in the banking-investment industry, but whether there is time to achieve anything much with America’s huge national debt and the exponentially rising world population, I am doubtful.

I am enjoying your idea of “pure” corruption. Something oxy-moronic about these two words being juxtaposed.

Yeah, that was an oxymoron.

But I’m rather surprised that you believe the US is still a democracy, rather than a fascist state where the financial elite control big government, which, in turn, controls the general population and intimidates the so-called “free” press.