There is a vast difference between what Enron did in California, and managing to have a big impact on a global commodity that trades on an enormous scale.

I mean no disrespect here. I follow your contributions avidly. But I disagree. California is something like the 10th largest economy in the world. The scale of market manipulation there was profound... and it went on for a long while. During which... it was denied by very experienced finance professionals.

In the recent Amaranth case, Bloomberg reported that Hunter (the trader) had purchased, in some cases, 20% of the market's available positions. Nymex NG, though not global, is not a small market either. My point is that the technology, the leverages and the access to many, many billions of $$$ does exist. My disagreement has nothing to do with gasoline going up or down, it has to do with your assertion that oil is too big a commodity to manipulate. Nate Hagens reminds us twice a week that's it's the marginal barrel that prices the market.

It would be interesting to know how Goldman-Sachs traded the market in the run-up to reducing that allocation <g>.

The reason people believe presidents have some power over the economy is that presidents have been claiming the power to do so for generations, and personally take the credit for good times in order to get reelected.

Of course this can backfire, as when the very good engineer and humanitarian Herbert Hoover tried to get reelected.