Im your friend. https://youtube/watch?v=FjtEYt6l2Cs Luke - TopicsExpress

Im your friend. https://youtube/watch?v=FjtEYt6l2Cs Luke 6:31New International Version (NIV) Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31. Gas Chamber Price Checking Simple Elements Element 1: A combination of acts … by two … persons; Element 2: (e) To…enter an…obligation … of any kind …, by which they; Element 3: Unite any interest … connected with the sale of any commodity, that its price might in any manner be affected. Gas chains entered a “within a few points overall” agreement to fix prices at artificially lifted and locked levels, the revenues from which were allocated based on “market share” assignments. The market share allocations operate by a “within a few points” cushion of flexibility. Such pricing schedules or policies, crafted by very top executives and monitored by lower level staff. Their very policies constitute directly forbidden “agreements” not to compete. This is apparent from the fact that when firms sharing profits are the only main firms in a market, each will receive the same portion of the total profits whether it cuts regular prices, invests in improving its products or services, or does nothing to win customers from the other firms; the result of this lack of competitive pressure is the high likelihood that prices rise towards monopoly levels or fail to fall with the same effect. It is for these reasons that the Supreme Court has said that pooling of profits pursuant to an inflexible ratio is a §1 violation that is plain beyond peradventure. Citizen Publg, 394 U.S. at 135-36.5 This effect has been well understood for many years, and was ably explained well over a hundred years ago by the Kentucky Court of Appeal, then the highest court in that state, in the following discussion of a profit sharing arrangement between two steamboat companies: There was a strong stimulation to increase the net profits by means other than that of popular favor springing out of efficient … facilities and close attention to the business of service … for reasonable charges and courteous attention to clients … at reasonable fare prices. . . . It is the competition, or fear of competition, that makes these sellers … efficient, attentive, polite, and reasonable in charges. Remove competition, or the fear of it, and they become extortionate, inattentive, impolite, and negligent. . . . It is said that neither was bound to charge the same as the other. That [might be] …true; but either could extort with impunity, and the other would be an equal recipient of the fruit of the extortion. . . . It is true that their contract did not, in so many words, bind them to any given charges; but it made it to the interest of each, not only to charge, but to encourage and sustain the other in charges that would amount to confiscation. . . . This combination was more than that of a combination not to take freight or passengers at less than certain prices. In such case, the combiners have to furnish adequate means of transportation, and efficient and polite officers, and confine themselves as nearly as possible to the sum agreed upon, in order to secure the trade, or a reasonable portion of it; but here, by reason of the agreement . . . . inefficient means of transportation, unskilled or inattentive officials, are no drawback to either boat. Its share of the profits come notwithstanding. Anderson v. Jett, 89 Ky. 375, 12 S.W. 670, 671, 11 Ky. L. Rptr. 570 (Ky. 1889).