Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 2: America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

Posted on February 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, Business, Crime, Economics, History, Medicine, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Science, Unions, Videos, Violence, Wisdom | Tags: 29 February 2012, Fructose, Pronk Pops Show 64, Segment 2, Sugar |

Segment 2: America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

The Archies – Sugar Sugar (’69)

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

I just can’t believe the loveliness of loving you.

(I just can’t believe it’s true).

I just can’t believe the wonder of this feeling too.

(I just can’t believe it’s true).

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

When I kissed you girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be.

(I know how sweet a kiss can be)

Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me.

(Pour your sweetness over me).

Oh pour little sugar on me honey (sugar)

Pour little sugar on me baby (honey honey)

When you make love so sweet (Yeah Yeah Yeah.)

Pour little sugar on me (oh yeah)

Pour little sugar on me honey

Pour little sugar on me baby I’m gonna make love so sweet (hey hey hey)

Pour little sugar on me honey.

Ah sugar. Oh honey, honey.

You are my candy, girl, and you got me wanting you.

Oh honey (honey, honey, sugar, sugar)

Sugar, sugar You are my candy girl.

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Robert “Sugar: Bitter Truth” Lustig on ABCNews

Big Sugar

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-sugar/

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 1 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 2 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 3 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 4 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 5 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 6 of 6 – Documentary

The Politics of Obesity – Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig

Sugar: The Bitter Truth- March 24, 2011

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (The SHORT Version)

Are You a Sugar Addict?

DEATH BY SUGAR by Jorge Cruise

The Sugar Epidemic: Policy versus Politics

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 1 of 3)

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 2 of 3)

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 3 of 3)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 1 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 2 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 3 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 4 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 5 of 5)

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #1

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #2

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #3

Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #4

SWEET SUICIDE: OR HOW SUGAR RUINS YOUR HEALTH

Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Truth, Still Not Sexy, HFCS

How much sugar does the average american consume?

The Great Sugar Shaft

Sugar Daddy: Taubes tells all

Larry Graham, Chairman of the Coalition for Sugar Reform, Discusses Need to Reform the Sugar Program

Fran Smith, Board Member & Adjunct Fellow at CEI, on the Economic Impact of the Sugar Program

The Case Against the Sugar Program on CNBC Squawk Box

Sugar

“…Sugar is a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose,^[1] characterized by a sweet flavor.

Sucrose in its refined form primarily comes from sugar cane and sugar beet. It and the other sugars are present in natural and refined forms in many foods, and the refined forms are also added to many food preparations.

The world produced about 168 million tonnes of sugar in 2011.^[2] The world consumed an average of 24 kilograms of sugar for every human being of all ages, equivalent to over 260 food calories per day per human being.^[3]

In food, “sugars” refer to all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols,^[4] while in its singular form, “sugar” normally refers to sucrose. The other sugars are usually known by more specific names — glucose, fructose or fruit sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc.

Sugar production and trade has influenced human history in many ways. In modern times, sugar influenced the formation of colonies, perpetuation of slavery, transition to indentured labor, migration and abuse of people, wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations, ethnic composition and political structure of the new world.^[5]^[6]

Ancient times and Middle Ages

Sugar has been produced in the Indian subcontinent^[7] since ancient times. It was not plentiful or cheap in early times—honey was more often used for sweetening in most parts of the world.

Amongst the ancient manuscripts of China, dated to be from the eight century BC, one of the earliest historical mention of sugar cane is included along with the fact that their knowledge of sugar cane was derived from India.^[8] It appears that in about 500 BC, residents of present-day India began making sugar syrup and cooling it in large flat bowls to make crystals that were easier to store and transport. In the local Indian language, these crystals were called khanda (खण्ड), which is the source of the word candy.^[9]

Originally, people chewed sugarcane raw to extract its sweetness. Sugarcane was a native of tropical South Asia and Southeast Asia.^[10] Different species likely originated in different locations with Saccharum barberi originating in India and S. edule and S. officinarum coming from New Guinea.^[10]^[11]

Sugar remained relatively unimportant until the Indians discovered methods of turning sugarcane juice into granulated crystals that were easier to store and to transport.^[12] Crystallized sugar was discovered by the time of the Imperial Guptas, around 5th century AD.^[12] Indian sailors, consumers of clarified butter and sugar, carried sugar by various trade routes.^[12] Traveling Buddhist monks brought sugar crystallization methods to China.^[13] During the reign of Harsha (r. 606–647) in North India, Indian envoys in Tang China taught sugarcane cultivation methods after Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 626–649) made his interest in sugar known, and China soon established its first sugarcane cultivation in the seventh century.^[14] Chinese documents confirm at least two missions to India, initiated in 647 AD, for obtaining technology for sugar-refining.^[15] In South Asia, the Middle East and China, sugar became a staple of cooking and desserts.

The triumphant progress of Alexander the Great was halted on the banks of river Indus by the refusal of his troops to go further east. They saw people in the Indian subcontinent growing sugarcane and making granulated, salt-like sweet powder, locally called साखर, pronounced as saccharum (ζάκχαρι). On their return journey, the Macedonian soldiers carried the “honey bearing reeds.” Sugarcane remained a limited crop for over a millennium, sugar a rare commodity, and traders of sugar wealthy. Venice, at the height of its financial power, was the chief sugar-distributing center of Europe.^[8]

Crusaders brought sugar home with them to Europe after their campaigns in the Holy Land, where they encountered caravans carrying “sweet salt”. Early in the 12th century, Venice acquired some villages near Tyre and set up estates to produce sugar for export to Europe, where it supplemented honey as the only other available sweetener.^[16] Crusade chronicler William of Tyre, writing in the late 12th century, described sugar as “very necessary for the use and health of mankind”.^[17]

Modern history

In August 1492, Christopher Columbus stopped at La Gomera in the Canary Islands, for wine and water, intending to stay only four days. He became romantically involved with the Governor of the island, Beatriz de Bobadilla y Ossorio, and stayed a month. When he finally sailed she gave him cuttings of sugarcane, which became the first to reach the New World.

Sugar was a luxury in Europe prior to 18th century. It became widely popular in 18th century, then graduated to becoming a necessity in the 19th century. This evolution of taste and demand for sugar as an essential food ingredient unleashed major economic and social changes.^[5] It drove, in part, colonization of tropical islands and nations where labor-intensive sugarcane plantations and sugar manufacturing could thrive. The demand for cheap and docile labor for harsh inhumane work, in part, first drove slave trade from Africa (in particular West Africa), followed by indentured labor trade from South Asia (in particular India).^[6]^[18]^[19] Millions of slave and indentured laborers were brought into the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Islands, East Africa, Natal, north and eastern parts of South America, and southeast Asia. The modern ethnic mix of many nations, settled in last two centuries, has been influenced by sugar.^[20]^[21]^[22]

Sugar also led to some industrialization of former colonies. For example, Lieutenant J. Paterson, of the Bengal establishment, persuaded British government that sugar cane could be cultivated in British India with many advantages, and at less expense than in the West Indies. As a result, a number of sugar factories were established in Bihar in British India.^[23]

More recently it is manufactured in very large quantities in many countries, largely from sugarcane and sugar beet. In processed foods it has increasingly been supplanted by corn syrup.

Etymology

The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity. The English word “sugar”^[24] originates from the Arabic word سكر sukkar, itself from the Persian shakar,^[25] itself derived from Sanskrit शर्करा sharkara.^[26] It most probably came to England by way of Italian merchants. The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre – contemporary French sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris).^[27]^[28] A satisfactory pedigree explaining the spread of the word has yet to be done. Note that the English word jaggery (meaning “coarse brown Indian sugar”) has similar ultimate etymological origins (presumably in Sanskrit).

Production

The five largest producers of sugar in 2010 were Brazil, India, European Union, China and Thailand. The largest exporters in 2010 were Brazil, Thailand, Australia and India; while the largest importers were EU-27, United States and Indonesia. Currently, Brazil is the highest per capita consumer of sugar, followed by Australia, Thailand and EU-27.^[29]^[30]

Consumption

The per capita consumption of refined sugar in America has varied between 27 to 46 kilograms in the last 40 years. In 2008, American per capita total consumption of sugar and sweeteners – exclusive of artificial sweeteners – equaled 61.9 kilograms per year (136.2 pounds).^[31]^[32]

Sugar is an important component of human food balance. According to FAO, about 24 kilograms of sugar – equivalent to over 260 food calories per day – was, on average, consumed annually per human being of all ages in the world in 1999. Even with rising human population, sugar consumption is expected to increase to 25.1 kilograms per human being by 2015.^[3]

Health effects

Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms ^[33] and since most studies do not use a population who are not consuming any “free sugars” at all, the baseline is effectively flawed (or as the report puts it, the studies are “limited”). Hence there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that said in 2008, “Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example.”^[34] though the article does continue to discuss other health impacts of sugar. Other articles and studies refer to the increasing evidence supporting the links to hyperactivity.^[35] The WHO FAO meta-study suggests that such results are expected when some studies do not effectively segregate or control for free sugars as opposed to sugars still in their natural form (entirely unrefined) while others do.

Blood glucose levels

Sugar, because of its simpler chemical structure, may raise blood glucose levels more quickly than starch. This finding suggests that this basic differentiation between starch and sugar is insufficient reason to segregate these two substances for controlling blood glucose levels in diabetics, the idea behind carbohydrate counting.^[36] A more effective distinction could use that suggested by multiple meta-studies between free sugars and naturally-occurring sugars which do suggest different impacts on health.^[33]^[37]

Obesity and diabetes

Studies appear to conflict with some suggesting eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may increase the risk of diabetes,^[38]^[39]^[39]^[40]^[41]^[42]^[42]^[43] while others show links between refined sugar (free sugar) consumption and the onset of diabetes, and negative correlation with the consumption of fiber^[44]^[45]^[46]^[47] including a 2010 meta-analysis of eleven studies involving 310,819 participants and 15,043 cases of type 2 diabetes^[48] that found that “SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) may increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes not only through obesity but also by increasing dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, and inflammation”. As an overview to consumption related to chronic disease and obesity, the World Health Organization’s independent meta-studies specifically distinguish free sugars (“all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices”) from sugars naturally present in food. The reports prior to 2000 set the limits for free sugars at a maximum of 10% of carbohydrate intake, measured by energy, rather than mass, and since 2002 ^[33] have aimed for a level across the entire population at less than 10%. The consultation committee recognized that this goal is “controversial. However, the Consultation considered that the studies showing no effect of free sugars on excess weight have limitations.” (p. 57).

Cardiovascular disease

A number of studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysregulation. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.^[49] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.^[50]

Switching saturated fatty acids for carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically significant positive association with the risk of myocardial infarction.^[51]

Other studies have found links between high fat and high glycemic index carbohydrates accelerates the development of cardiac pathology and pump dysfunction in hypertension despite no signs of diabetes and only a modest level of obesity, suggesting that the link between obesity and coronary heart disease should be shifted towards macronutrients and the high glycemic load typical of the “junk-food” diet.^[52]

The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.^[53]

Studies are suggesting the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant that the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.^[54]^[55]

A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) consumption can substantially increase the risk for heart- and vascular diseases. According to a new Swedish study from Lund University and Malmö University College of 4301 persons, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood fat with a high level of small and medium LDL and reduced HDL blood fat. However the amount of fat intake didn’t affect the blood fats. As a side note, moderate quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to the good HDL blood fat.^[56]

Alzheimer disease

It is suggested that Alzheimer Disease is linked with the western diet, characterised by excessive dietary intake of sugar, refined carbohydrates (with a high glycaemic index) and animal products (with a high content of saturated fats) and decreased intake of unrefined seeds. There are also prevention hypotheses that address the diet issue with mono-supplements of specific vitamins or drugs that do not show appreciable results.^[57]

Dietary pattern analysis, which considers overall eating patterns comparing those with Alzheimer’s disease as compared to healthy controls using factor analysis, gives a major eating pattern for those with Alzheimer’s characterised by a high intake of meat, butter, high-fat dairy products, eggs and refined sugar, while the other major eating pattern for those without Alzheimer’s was characterised by a high intake of grains and vegetables.^[58]

One group of experimenters compared a normal rodent diet (19% protein, 5% fat and 60% complex carbohydrate) with free water access against the same diet but with free access to a 10% sucrose solution. Their data underscore the potential role of dietary sugar in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease and suggest that controlling the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may be an effective way to curtail the risk of developing Alzheimer disease.^[59]

Macular degeneration

There are links between free sugar consumption and macular degeneration in older age.^[60]

Tooth decay

In regard to contributions to tooth decay, the role of free sugars is also recommended to be below an absolute maximum of 10% of energy intake, with a minimum of zero. There is “convincing evidence from human intervention studies, epidemiological studies, animal studies and experimental studies, for an association between the amount and frequency of free sugars intake and dental caries” while other sugars (complex carbohydrate) consumption is normally associated with a lower rate of dental caries.^[37] Lower rates of tooth decay have been seen in individuals with hereditary fructose intolerance.^[61]

Terminology

The term sugar usually refers to sucrose, which is also called “table sugar” or “saccharose.” Sucrose is a white crystalline disaccharide. It is often obtained from sugar cane or sugar beet.^[62] Sucrose is the most popular of the various sugars for flavoring, as well as properties (such as mouthfeel, preservation, and texture) of beverages and food.

Chemical

“Sugar” can also be used to refer to water-soluble crystalline carbohydrates with varying sweetness. Sugars include monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, galactose), disaccharides (e.g., sucrose, lactose, maltose), trisaccharides, and oligosaccharides,^[63] in contrast to complex carbohydrates such as polysaccharides. Corn syrup, dextrose, crystalline fructose, and maltose, for example, are used in manufacturing and preparing food.

Baking weight/mass volume relationship

Different culinary sugars have different densities due to differences in particle size and inclusion of moisture.

The Domino Sugar Company has established the following volume to weight conversions:

Brown sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 195 g = 6.88 oz
Granular sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 200 g = 7.06 oz
Powdered sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 120 g = 4.23 oz

Bulk density^[64]

Dextrose sugar 0.62 g/mL
Granulated sugar 0.70 g/mL
Powdered sugar 0.56 g/mL
Beet sugar 0.80 g/mL

Purity standards

The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar.^[65]

Chemistry

Sucrose: a disaccharide of glucose (left) and fructose (right), important molecules in the body.

Main article: Carbohydrate

Scientifically, sugar loosely refers to a number of carbohydrates, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, or oligosaccharides. Monosaccharides are also called “simple sugars,” the most important being glucose. Almost all sugars have the formula C_nH_2nO_n (n is between 3 and 7). Glucose has the molecular formula C₆H₁₂O₆. The names of typical sugars end with “-ose,” as in “glucose”, “dextrose”, and “fructose”. Sometimes such words may also refer to any types of carbohydrates soluble in water. The acyclic mono- and disaccharides contain either aldehyde groups or ketone groups. These carbon-oxygen double bonds (C=O) are the reactive centers. All saccharides with more than one ring in their structure result from two or more monosaccharides joined by glycosidic bonds with the resultant loss of a molecule of water (H₂O) per bond.

Monosaccharides in a closed-chain form can form glycosidic bonds with other monosaccharides, creating disaccharides (such as sucrose) and polysaccharides (such as starch). Enzymes must hydrolyze or otherwise break these glycosidic bonds before such compounds become metabolized. After digestion and absorption the principal monosaccharides present in the blood and internal tissues include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Many pentoses and hexoses can form ring structures. In these closed-chain forms, the aldehyde or ketone group remains non-free, so many of the reactions typical of these groups cannot occur. Glucose in solution exists mostly in the ring form at equilibrium, with less than 0.1% of the molecules in the open-chain form.

Natural polymers of sugars

Biopolymers of sugars are common in nature. Through photosynthesis plants produce glucose, which has the formula C₆H₁₂O₆, and convert it for storage as an energy reserve in the form of other carbohydrates such as starch, or (as in cane and beet) as sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose has the chemical formula C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁. Starch, consisting of two different polymers of glucose, is a readily degradable chemical energy stored by cells, convertible to other types of energy.

Cellulose is a polymer of glucose used by plants as structural component.

DNA and RNA are built up of the sugars ribose and deoxyribose. The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, and has the formula C₅H₁₀O₄.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar

High-fructose corn syrup

“…High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—also called glucose-fructose syrup^[1]^[2] in the UK, glucose/fructose^[3] in Canada, and high-fructose maize syrup in other countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. In the United States, consumer foods and products typically use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. It has become very common in processed foods and beverages in the U.S., including breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments.^[4]

According to the USDA, HFCS consists of 24% water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.^[5]^[6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.^[7]

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions^[8] , and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.^[9]^[10] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.^[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose”, but welcome further independent research on the subject.^[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,^[13] diabetes,^[14] and metabolic syndrome,^[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.^{[dubious – discuss]} HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.^[15]

Use as a replacement for sugar

HFCS replaces sugar in various processed foods in the United States.^[16]^[17] The main reasons for this switch are:

Per relative sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.^[18]
High-fructose corn syrup HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose; HFCS 42 is less sweet than sucrose.
HFCS is cheaper in the United States as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.^[19] Since the mid 1990s, the United States federal government has subsidized corn growers by $40 billion.^[20]^[21]
HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.^[22]

Comparison to other sweeteners

High-fructose corn syrup
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy	1,176 kJ (281 kcal)
Carbohydrates	76 g
– Dietary fiber	0 g
Fat	0 g
Protein	0 g
Water	24 g
Riboflavin (vit. B₂)	0.019 mg (2%)
Niacin (vit. B₃)	0 mg (0%)
Pantothenic acid (B₅)	0.011 mg (0%)
Vitamin B₆	0.024 mg (2%)
Folate (vit. B₉)	0 μg (0%)
Vitamin C	0 mg (0%)
Calcium	6 mg (1%)
Iron	0.42 mg (3%)
Magnesium	2 mg (1%)
Phosphorus	4 mg (1%)
Potassium	0 mg (0%)
Sodium	2 mg (0%)
Zinc	0.22 mg (2%)
Shown is for 100 g, roughly 5.25 tbsp. Percentages are relative to US recommendations for adults. Source: USDA Nutrient Database

Cane and beet sugar

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆) plus a molecule of fructose (also C₆H₁₂O₆ — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion.^[23] Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.^[24]

Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by a different mechanism than that for glucose. Glucose stimulates insulin release from the isolated pancreas, but fructose does not. Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Once inside the liver cell, fructose can enter the pathways that provide glycerol, the backbone for triacylglycerol. The growing dietary amount of fructose that is derived from sucrose or HFCS has raised questions about how children and adults respond to fructose alone or when it is accompanied by glucose.^[25]

Honey

Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars. Like HFCS, honey contains water and has approximately 3 kcal per gram. Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to “stretch” honey. As a result, checks for adulteration of honey no longer test for higher-than-normal levels of sucrose, which HFCS does not contain, but instead test for small quantities of proteins that can be used to differentiate between HFCS and honey. Consumers should be aware, however, that some honey available in supermarkets contain HFCS or utilized HFCS in its production. Consumer awareness through label-reading is important for those aiming to avoid high-fructose corn syrup. ^[26]

Production

HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production.^[27] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Y. Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. Dr. Y. Takasaki is known to many as the creator of HFCS. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.

High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The enzyme process that changes the 100% glucose corn syrup into HFCS 42 is as follows:

Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called oligosaccharides.
Glucoamylase – which is produced by Aspergillus, species of mold, in a fermentation vat — breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.
Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.

While inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry and used only once, the more costly xylose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it, allowing it to be used repeatedly until it loses its activity. This 42–43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step, where the fructose is enriched to about 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product. Most manufacturers use carbon adsorption for impurity removal. Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.

The units of measurement for sucrose is degrees Brix (symbol °Bx). Brix is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved sucrose to water in a liquid. A 25 °Bx solution has 25 grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution (25% w/w). Or, to put it another way, there are 25 grams of sucrose and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of solution. The Brix measurement was introduced by Antoine Brix.

A more universal measurement of sugars, including HFCS, is called dry solids. Dry solids is defined as the mass ratio of dry sugars to the total weight of the sugar solution. Since Brix is based on the refractive index of light against a sucrose molecule it is not accurate when measuring other sugars such as glucose, maltose, and fructose.

When an infrared Brix sensor is used, it measures the vibrational frequency of the sucrose molecules, giving a Brix degrees measurement. This will not be the same measurement as Brix degrees using a density or refractive index measurement, because it will specifically measure dissolved sugar concentration instead of all dissolved solids. When a refractometer is used, it is correct to report the result as “refractometric dried substance” (RDS). One might speak of a liquid as being 20 °Bx RDS. This is a measure of percent by weight of total dried solids and, although not technically the same as Brix degrees determined through an infrared method, renders an accurate measurement of sucrose content, since the majority of dried solids are in fact sucrose.

Recently, an isotopic method for quantifying sweeteners derived from corn and sugar cane was developed which permits measurement of corn syrup- and cane sugar-derived sweeteners in humans, thus allowing dietary assessment of the intake of these substances relative to total intake.^[28]

Sweetener consumption patterns

Historical

Before the mass production of fructose since 1957^{[citation needed]}, human beings had little dietary exposure to fructose. Fructose was limited to only a few items such as honey, dates, raisins, grapes and apples. The staples of most early diets, meats and most vegetables, contain no fructose.^[29]

United States

US sweetener consumption, 1966-2009, in dry pounds. It is apparent from this graph that overall sweetener consumption, and in particular glucose-fructose mixtures, has increased since the introduction of HFCS. Thus, the amount of fructose consumed in the United States has increased since the early 1980s. This would be true whether the added sweetener was HFCS, table sugar, or any other glucose-fructose mixture.^[30]

A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. prices of sugar are twice the global price^[31] and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers.^[32]^[33]

HFCS became an attractive substitute, and is preferred over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. and Canada in 1984.^[34] Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.^[35]

Other countries, including Mexico typically use sugar in soft drinks. Some Americans seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries, because they prefer the taste compared to Coke made with HFCS.^[36]^[37] Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. around the Jewish holiday also uses sucrose rather than HFCS and is also highly sought after by people who prefer the original taste.^[38]

The average American consumed approximately 37.8 lb (17.1 kg) of HFCS in 2008, versus 46.7 lb (21.2 kg) of sucrose.^[39] In countries where HFCS is not used or rarely used, sucrose consumption per person may be higher than in the USA; sucrose consumption per person from various locations is shown below (2002):^[40]

USA: 32.4 kg (71 lb)
EU: 40.1 kg (88 lb)
Brazil: 59.7 kg (132 lb)
Australia: 56.2 kg (124 lb)

Of course, in terms of total sugars consumed, the figures from countries where HFCS is not used should be compared to the sum of the sucrose and HFCS figures from countries where HFCS consumption is significant.

European Union

In the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tons; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tons of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.^[41] Wide scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in the EU.

Japan

In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.^[42]

Health effects

Main article: Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

Health concerns have been raised about high fructose corn syrup, which allege contribution to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by John S White who is a Consultant in sweeteners, HFCS and sucrose for the Food and Beverage Industry and also has a professional association with the Corn Refiners Association, rejects the HFCS-obesity hypothesis and finds that “[a]lthough examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same.”^[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 0: Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 1: I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 1: I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Posted on February 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Climate Change, Coal, Economics, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Science, Security, Solar, Success, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War | Tags: 29 February 2012, Gasoline Prices, Iran, Oil, Pronk Pops Show 64, Segment 1 |

Pronk Pops Show 64: February 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 63: February 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 62: February 15, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 61: February 8, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 60:February 1, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Government Theft May 1, 1933

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Quantitative Easing Explained

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1826-the-long-goodbye-the-declining-purchasing-power-of-the-dollar

U.S. Inflation Calculator

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Ron Paul: The Worst Thing You Can Do For A People Is Purposely Devalue The Dollar

Obama’s Got America Singin’ the Blues

As Gas Prices Rise, White House Goes on Offensive, Defensive

Ron Paul tells the real reason for the oil prices in 2007 and today

END FED: Bernanke Explains How To Devalue the Dollar, Quantitative Easing AKA Asset Purchase

Glenn Beck – Devaluing The Dollar

Beck: Devaluing the Dollar

Iran Sanctions, War, Israel & Gas Prices

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Why Gas Prices Are Rising

Playing the oil prices money game

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

The Price Of Oil

Bill Black: What I’d Demand of the Fed

Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros.

END FED: Goldman Sachs To Blame For Global Food-Oil Price Crisis; Speculators Outnumber Hedgers

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Oil Supply and Demand and the Next Oil Price Spike

Bio-fuels, Speculation, Land Grabs = Food Crisis

Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets

Food, Speculation and Parasitical Trading

Speculation Drives Up Coffee Prices

Food Speculation

Oil Speculators

Oil speculation and oil prices

The Real TRUTH Behind The OIL PRICES

Banks Behind High Gas Prices?

Rising Gas Prices Slowing Economy

Gas Prices Soaring

Ripple Effect Of Rising Gas Prices Hits Consumers

Krauthammer: Obama’s “war on fossil fuels” causes rising gas prices

Obama Wanted High Gas Prices…Gradually (2008 Election Campaign)

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2008

Can We Stop A War With Iran?

Obama admits his intentions are to skyrocket oil prices

Ford O’Connell On Fox News – February 24, 2012

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2007

Obama gas prices

A Coincidence Over High Gasoline Prices- MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon

Obama Admits the Truth: He Can’t Do Much about Gas Prices

James Grant

Jim Grant – Bloomberg Interview (30/6/11)

Government Theft 2012

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke

Seven Bucks A Gallon For Gas!

2012 Energy Prices

Ed Wallace

“…That’s right, we not only reduced our overall gasoline use in America, reversing a century-long trend, but in 2011 we dropped our demand for gasoline once again. This likely explains why in December WTI oil jumped by close to $7 a barrel, but the futures market for gasoline barely budged, moving just a few cents in either direction.

Another way to look at it is in the percentage of utilization of our refineries for this time of year. According to the government’s data, the last week of December our refineries ran at 84.2 percent of capacity. But if one compares that week to the same week in the boom years, 2003 to 2007, our refineries were running at 91.7 percent, 94.2 percent, 88.9 percent, 90.9 percent and 89.4 percent. For those who have forgotten, that last figure in that chain, marking the last week of December 2007, also denotes the month we officially slipped into a recession. Interestingly, data released by the International Energy Agency in September of 2008 showed oil and fuel demand falling worldwide starting in August of 2007.

And yet with our refinery utilization running at far below normal, we managed to have the all-time-record year for the exportation of refined fuels. While the media speculation on where oil’s price is going is almost solely based on “Asian Demand” or the prospect of a total embargo on Iranian oil, the real problem is something completely different.

What is it? It’s refiners trying to find ways to get the price of gasoline on the futures market more in line with the high price of oil. To this end it appears that three refineries in the Northeast, including Sunoco’s Marcus Hook and Philadelphia refinery, along with Conoco’s Trainer unit, will be closed. To be sure, both Conoco and Sunoco claim their first choice is to sell those refineries, but failing that they will be closed.

What does that mean to you and me?

Dow Jones Newswire quoted Gene McGillian, an energy analyst with Tradition Energy, as saying, “Gasoline futures prices are based on New York Harbor prices. When you start to see disruptions in that Northeast market, it’s definitely reflected in gasoline futures.”

Translation: Close refineries and you can bump the futures price of gasoline – and by extension the retail price – regardless of where the price of oil is.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/06/3639690/2012-energy-prices.html

How does oil speculation raise gas prices?

by Josh Clark

“…An oil futureis simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case oil — at a fixed price

. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.

As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word "bet" and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. In the 21st century it was oil. Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. While demand rose, supply kept pace. Yet, prices still skyrocketed. This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. Instead, an artificial market developed.

Artificial markets are volatile; they’re difficult to predict and can turn on a dime. As a result of the artificial oil market, the average price per barrel of crude oil increased from $31.61 in July 2004 to $137.11 in July 2008 . The average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the United States grew from $1.93 to $4.09 over the same period .

So what happened? …"

"…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called <strong>derivatives</strong>. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, "[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact" . A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone .

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40 . And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …"

<a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm">http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4></h4>
<h4>It’s no secret that speculators are driving up fuel prices. The surprise? It’s the Fed’s fault, writes Ed Wallace</h4>
<h4>"…The Fed’s Cheap Liquidity Flood</h4>
The problem starts with Ben Bernanke, no matter how many of his Fed presidents claim they are not to blame for the high price of oil. The fact is that when you flood the market with far too much liquidity at virtually no interest, funny things happen in commodities and equities. It was true in the 1920s, it was true in the last decade, and it’s still true today.

When Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, spoke in Germany late in March, Reuters quoted him as saying: "We are seeing speculative activity that may be exacerbating price rises in commodities such as oil." Fisher added that he was seeing the signs of the same speculative trading that had fueled the first financial meltdown.

Here Fisher is in good company. Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, who has been a vocal critic of the current Fed policy of zero interest and high liquidity, has suggested that markets don’t function correctly under those circumstances. And David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, recently wrote a scathing article for MarketWatch, "Federal Reserve’s Path of Destruction," in which he criticizes current Fed policy even more pointedly. Stockman wrote: "This destruction is namely the exploitation of middle-class savers; the current severe food and energy squeeze on lower income households … and the next round of bursting bubbles building up among the risk asset classes."

Let’s not kid ourselves. Oil in today’s world is worth far more than the $25 a barrel it sold for over a decade ago. But the ability of markets to function properly, based on real supply and demand equations, has been destroyed by allowing ridiculous leverage and the unlimited ability to borrow the leverage at historically low interest rates.

Fortunately for our elected officials, they’ve got the public convinced that the biggest threat from government is taxation and deficits. In reality the public should be infuriated with the rising costs of nondiscretionary items such as food and gasoline, which current Fed policy actively enables. …"

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2011/pi20110419_786652_page_2.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2011/pi20110419_786652_page_2.htm</a>

<strong>Price of petroleum</strong>

"…The <strong>price of petroleum</strong> as quoted in news generally refers to the spot price per barrel (159 liters) of either WTI/light crude as traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma, or of Brent as traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE, into which the International Petroleum Exchange has been incorporated) for delivery at Sullom Voe.

The price of a barrel of oil is highly dependent on both its grade, determined by factors such as its specific gravity or API and its sulphur content, and its location. Other important benchmarks include Dubai, Tapis, and the OPEC basket. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses the imported refiner acquisition cost, the weighted average cost of all oil imported into the US, as its "world oil price".

The demand for oil is highly dependent on global macroeconomic conditions. According to the International Energy Agency, high oil prices generally have a large negative impact on the global economic growth.<sup>[1]</sup>

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed in 1960<sup>[2]</sup> to try and counter the oil companies cartel, which had been controlling posted prices since the so-called 1927 Red Line Agreement and 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, and had achieved a high level of price stability until 1972.

The price of oil underwent a significant decrease after the record peak of US$145 it reached in July 2008. On December 23, 2008, WTI crude oil spot price fell to US$30.28 a barrel, the lowest since the financial crisis of 2007–2010 began, and traded at between US$35 a barrel and US$82 a barrel in 2009.<sup>[3]</sup> On 31 January 2011, the Brent price hit $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, on concerns about the political unrest in Egypt.<sup>[4]</sup>

Price history before 2003

A low point was reached in January 1999 of 17 USD per barrel, after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian Financial Crisis, which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40–50 by September 2004.<sup>[5]</sup>
<h3>Price history from 2003 onwards</h3>
<div>Main article: 2003 to 2011 world oil market chronology</div>
<div>Further information: 2000s energy crisis</div>
<h4>Benchmark pricing</h4>
<div>Main article: Benchmark (crude oil)</div>
After the collapse of the OPEC-administered pricing system in 1985, and a short lived experiment with netback pricing, oil-exporting countries adopted a market-linked pricing mechanism.<sup>[6]</sup> First adopted by PEMEX in 1986, market-linked pricing received wide acceptance and by 1988 became and still is the main method for pricing crude oil in international trade.<sup>[6]</sup> The current reference, or pricing markers, are Brent, WTI, and Dubai/Oman.<sup>[6]</sup>
<h4>Market listings</h4>
<div>Main article: Commodities markets</div>
Oil is marketed among other products in commodities markets. See above for details. Widely traded oil futures, and related natural gas futures, include:<sup>[7]</sup>
<ul>
<li>Petroleum
<ul>
<li>Nymex Crude Future</li>
<li>Dated Brent Spot</li>
<li>WTI Cushing Spot</li>
<li>Nymex Heating Oil Future</li>
<li>Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Natural gas
<ul>
<li>Nymex Henry Hub Future</li>
<li>Henry Hub Spot</li>
<li>New York City Gate Spot</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Most of the above oil futures have delivery dates in all 12 months of the year.<sup>[8]</sup>
<h4>Speculation</h4>
The surge in oil prices in the past several years has led some commentators to argue that at least some of the rise is due to speculation in the futures markets.<sup>[9]</sup>
<h4>Future price changes</h4>
In 2009, Seismic Micro-Technology conducted a survey of geophysicists and geologists about the future of crude oil. Of the survey participants 80 percent predicted the price for a barrel of oil will rise to be somewhere between $50 and $100 per barrel by June 2010.<sup>[10]</sup> Another 50 percent saying it will rise even further to $100 to $150 a barrel in the next five years.<sup>[10]</sup>

Oil prices could go to $200- $300 a barrel if the world’s top crude exporter Saudi Arabia is hit by serious political unrest, according to former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani. Yamani has said that underlying discontent remained unresolved in Saudi Arabia. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia it will go to $200 to $300. I don’t expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?" Yamani told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference of the Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES) which he chaired on April 5th 2011.<sup>[11]</sup>
<h4>CFTC investigation</h4>
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced "Multiple Energy Market Initiatives" on May 29, 2008. Part 1 is "Expanded International Surveillance Information for Crude Oil Trading." The CFTC announcement stated it has joined with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and ICE Futures Europe in order to expand surveillance and information sharing of various futures contracts.<sup>[12]</sup> This announcement has received wide coverage in the financial press, with speculation about oil futures price manipulation.<sup>[13]</sup><sup>[14]</sup><sup>[15]</sup>

The interim report by the Interagency Task Force, released in July, found that speculation had not caused significant changes in oil prices and that fundamental supply and demand factors provide the best explanation for the crude oil price increases. The report found that the primary reason for the price increases was that the world economy had expanded at its fastest pace in decades, resulting in substantial increases in the demand for oil, while the oil production grew sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls in oil-exporting countries.

The report stated that as a result of the imbalance and low price elasticity, very large price increases occurred as the market attempted to balance scarce supply against growing demand, particularly in the last three years. The report forecast that this imbalance would persist in the future, leading to continued upward pressure on oil prices, and that large or rapid movements in oil prices are likely to occur even in the absence of activity by speculators. The task force continues to analyze commodity markets and intends to issue further findings later in the year.
<h4>Future projections</h4>
<div>Main article: Oil depletion</div>
<div>Main article: Peak oil</div>
Peak oil is the period when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. It relates to a long term decline in the available supply of petroleum. This, combined with increasing demand, will significantly increase the worldwide prices of petroleum derived products. Most significant will be the availability and price of liquid fuel for transportation.

The US Department of Energy in the Hirsch report indicates that “The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little guidance.”<sup>[16] …"</sup>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum</a>

<strong>Gas prices soar on dollar devaluation even as consumption drops to 10-year lows </strong>

<strong>Written By Kenneth Schortgen Jr on Monday, February 13, 2012</strong>

"…One of the biggest misnomers in finance and economics today is that prices work according to supply and demand. This was true when America performed in actual capitalist system, but since we moved to both fascism and crony capitalism, where corporations, banks, and government all work together at the betterment of themselves and not society, prices are fixed due to other factors such as dollar devaluation.
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>U.S. drivers used 2.8 percent less motor gasoline last year and consumed the smallest amount since 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Officials credited the decrease to more fuel-efficient cars and an aging population taking few trips.</em></strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>Meanwhile, U.S. domestic oil production increased by more than 2 percent last year to 5.6 million barrels per day. – </em></strong><a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120209/BUSINESS/302090065/-1/TERMSOFSERVICE/Gas-consumption-lowest-since-1999"><strong><em>Des Moines Register</em></strong></a></div>
So… if consumption is way down, and production is actually up, should not gasoline prices be falling? They should, except if you take into consideration the amount of money printing and currency devaluation being done by the Federal Reserve over the past four years, the amount of inflation is being created by our own banking system, and not by a lack of products, or by higher demand.
In the end, Americans are being deceived by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. …"

<a href="http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2012/02/gas-prices-soar-on-dollar-devaluation.html">http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2012/02/gas-prices-soar-on-dollar-devaluation.html</a>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling</h3>
<strong><a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/louiswoodhill/">Louis Woodhill</a></strong>

"…Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-boehner/">John Boehner</a> are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social <a href="http://www.forbes.com/security/">Security</a> tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.

Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.

What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.

As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices. …"

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/</a>

<strong>Why Gas Prices Are Actually Falling </strong>
<div><strong>By Gary Gibson</strong></div>
"…It’s not gold and silver prices that are volatile. Those have been incredibly consistent for thousands of years in terms of commodities they could buy. And because of the increasing standard of living being raised by free market economies, in a very real sense these eternal monies actually buy more. It’s the dollar that has been erratic in its overall declining trend ever since it’s been cut loose from gold (and silver).

Again, people looking at the cost of a gallon of gas, or of milk, or the cost of a nice suit, or rent from behind their piles of gold and silver are finding very little to worry about. In fact, to them, prices are lower than normal and declining.

Also the price of oil has tended to track the price of silver awfully closely for about as long as oil has been industrially useful. And so it’s no mistake that you can still get a gallon of gas for about about $0.20…as long as that $0.20 is composed of a pre-1964 90% silver dimes. …"

"…You see, the pre-1965 quarter is worth $6.38 as I type this. The pre-1965 dime is worth $2.55. These coins hail from a time when the dollar was still tied to gold (at the official price of $35 per ounce prior to Nixon nixing the gold standard). The dollar was still as good as gold — even though Americans themselves were forbidden to own gold bullion from 1933 till 1974 — and there was actual silver in the coinage until that content was reduced in 1964 and eliminated in 1965.

Those old silver coins shine the harsh light on the strength of the currency and the abuse that currency suffers from the feds and the Federal Reserve.

If you’d been saving in gold, then from your point of view gas prices have been coming down for the past few years. If you’d been saving in that old “junk” silver (pre-1965 quarters, dimes and half dollars), then gas prices are a downright bargain, too. …"

<a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/">http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/</a>
<h4><strong>Consequences to Expect if the U.S. Invades Iran </strong></h4>
<h4><strong>By Whiskey Contributor<small>Feb 22nd, 2012</small></strong></h4>
<h4><strong>Exploding Oil Prices</strong></h4>
The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market. This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world. Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.

"…In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/" target="_blank">$10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.</a>

This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread. Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions. This alone is causing oil to spike today. A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping. If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>War Domino Effect</strong>

In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled <a href="http://www.alt-market.com/neithercorp/press/2010/01/will-globalists-trigger-yet-another-world-war/" target="_blank">“Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War</a>“. In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse.

In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention. Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria. An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers. If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>Dollar Collapse</strong>

Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy. Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process. If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will. Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not. We simply CANNOT afford it. America is bankrupt. Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air. Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise. …"

<a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/consequences-to-expect-if-the-u-s-invades-iran/">http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/consequences-to-expect-if-the-u-s-invades-iran/</a>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">Background Articles and Videos</h1>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Introduction to Futures</h4>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">What is a Future?</h4>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Investopedia Video: How Do Futures Contracts Work?</h4>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Commodity futures margin accounts</h4>

<div><strong> Security Futures—Know Your Risks, or Risk Your Future</strong></div>
<div>
<strong>"…Margin & Leverage</strong>

When a brokerage firm lends you part of the funds needed to purchase a security, such as common stock, the term "margin" refers to the amount of cash, or down payment, the customer is required to deposit. By contrast, a security futures contract is an obligation not an asset and has no value as collateral for a loan. When you enter into a security futures contract, you are required to make a payment referred to as a "margin payment" or "performance bond" to cover potential losses.

For a relatively small amount of money (the margin requirement), a futures contract worth several times as much can be bought or sold. The smaller the margin requirement in relation to the underlying value of the futures contract, the greater the leverage. Because of this leverage, small changes in price can result in large gains and losses in a short period of time.

<strong>Example:</strong> Assuming a security futures contract is for 100 shares of stock, if a security futures contract is established at a contract price of $50, the contract has a nominal value of $5,000 (see definition below). The margin requirement may be as low as 20 percent, which would require a margin deposit of $1,000. Assume the contract price rises from $50 to $52 (a $200 increase in the nominal value). This represents a $200 profit to the buyer of the futures contract, and a 20 percent return on the $1,000 deposited as margin.

The reverse would be true if the contract price decreased from $50 to $48. This represents a $200 loss to the buyer, or 20 percent of the $1,000 deposited as margin. Thus, leverage can either benefit or harm an investor.
Note that a 4 percent decrease in the value of the contract resulted in a loss of 20 percent of the margin deposited. A 20 percent decrease in the contract price ($50 to $40) would mean a drop in the nominal value of the contract from $5,000 to $4,000, thereby wiping out 100 percent of the margin deposited on the security futures contract. …"</div>
<div><a href="http://www.finra.org/Investors/InvestmentChoices/P005912">http://www.finra.org/Investors/InvestmentChoices/P005912</a></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<h4>Futures Margins</h4>
<!– google_ad_section_start –>Participants in a futures contract are required to post performance bond margins in order to open and maintain a futures position.

Futures margin requirements are set by the exchanges and are typically only 2 to 10 percent of the full value of the futures contract.

Margins are financial guarantees required of both buyers and sellers of futures contracts to ensure that they fulfill their futures contract obligations.
<h4>Initial Margin</h4>
Before a futures position can be opened, there must be enough available balance in the futures trader’s margin account to meet the initial margin requirement. Upon opening the futures position, an amount equal to the initial margin requirement will be deducted from the trader’s margin account and transferred to the exchange’s clearing firm. This money is held by the exchange clearinghouse as long as the futures position remains open.
<h4>Maintenance Margin</h4>
The maintenance margin is the minimum amount a futures trader is required to maintain in his margin account in order to hold a futures position. The maintenance margin level is usually slightly below the initial margin.

If the balance in the futures trader’s margin account falls below the maintenance margin level, he or she will receive a margin call to top up his margin account so as to meet the initial margin requirement.
<h4>Example</h4>
Let’s assume we have a speculator who has $10000 in his trading account. He decides to buy August Crude Oil at $40 per barrel. Each Crude Oil futures contract represents 1000 barrels and requires an initial margin of $9000 and has a maintenance margin level set at $6500.

Since his account is $10000, which is more than the initial margin requirement, he can therefore open up one August Crude Oil futures position.

One day later, the price of August Crude Oil drops to $38 a barrel. Our speculator has suffered an open position loss of $2000 ($2 x 1000 barrels) and thus his account balance drops to $8000.

Although his balance is now lower than the initial margin requirement, he did not get the margin call as it is still above the maintenance level of $6500.

Unfortunately, on the very next day, the price of August Crude Oil crashed further to $35, leading to an additional $3000 loss on his open Crude Oil position. With only $5000 left in his trading account, which is below the maintenance level of $6500, he received a call from his broker asking him to top up his trading account back to the initial level of $9000 in order to maintain his open Crude Oil position.

This means that if the speculator wishes to stay in the position, he will need to deposit an additional $4000 into his trading account.

Otherwise, if he decides to quit the position, the remaining $5000 in his account will be available to use for trading once again. …"
<a href="http://www.theoptionsguide.com/futures-margin.aspx">http://www.theoptionsguide.com/futures-margin.aspx</a></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div><strong>Federal Regulation of Margin in the Commodities Futures Industry: History and Theory</strong></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<h4><a href="http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf">http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/markham_margin.pdf</a></h4>
<h4></h4>
<h4></h4>
<h4>How does oil speculation raise gas prices?</h4>
<h4>by Josh Clark</h4>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div align="left">
"…The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/debt-management/foreclosure.htm">foreclosed</a> houses you’ll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much interrelated. Before most people were even aware there was an <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/government-bailout.htm">economic crisis</a>, investment managers abandoned failing <a href="http://money.howstuffworks.com/mortgage-backed-security.htm">mortgage-backed securities</a> and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.

An <strong>oil future</strong> is simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining.htm">oil</a>– at a fixed price

“…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called derivatives. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40

. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …”

http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm

Weekly Petroleum Status Report

Highlights

“…U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged just under 14.9 million barrels per

day during the week ending February 17, 170 thousand barrels per day

above the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 85.5 percent

of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production increased

last week, averaging nearly 9.0 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel

production decreased last week, averaging just under 4.3 million barrels

per day.

U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 9.1 million barrels per day last

week, up by 335 thousand barrels per day from the previous week. Over

the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged about 8.8 million

barrels per day, 211 thousand barrels per day above the same four-week

period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished

gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged 845

thousand barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged 122 thousand

barrels per day last week.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve) increased by 1.6 million barrels from the previous

week. At 340.7 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the

upper limit of the average range for this time of year. Total motor

gasoline inventories decreased by 0.6 million barrels last week and are

in the upper limit of the average range. Finished gasoline inventories

decreased while blending components inventories increased last week.

Distillate fuel inventories decreased by 0.2 million barrels last week and

are in the middle of the average range for this time of year. Propane/

propylene inventories decreased by 1.6 million barrels last week and are

above the upper limit of the average range. Total commercial petroleum

inventories increased by 3.3 million barrels last week.

Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged

about 18.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.7 percent compared to

the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline

product supplied has averaged 8.2 million barrels per day, down by 6.1

percent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied

has averaged about 3.6 million barrels per day over the last four weeks,

down by 5.9 percent from the same period last year. Jet fuel product

supplied is 9.1 percent lower over the last four weeks compared to the

same four-week period last year.

WTI was $103.27 per barrel on February 17, 2012, $4.59 more than

last week’s price and $18.24 above a year ago. The spot price for

conventional gasoline in the New York Harbor was $3.023 per gallon,

$0.022 more than last week’s price and $0.483 above last year. The

spot price for No. 2 heating oil in the New York Harbor was $3.185 per

gallon, $0.002 less than last week’s price but $0.474 above a year ago.

The national average retail regular gasoline price increased for the fourth

week in a row to $3.591 per gallon on February 20, 2012, $0.068 per

gallon more than last week and $0.402 above a year ago. The national

average retail diesel fuel price also increased for the fourth straight week

in a row to $3.960 per gallon, $0.017 per gallon more than last week and

$0.387 above a year ago. …”

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/highlights.pdf

Inflation: Calculating the rate of inflation

Historical CPI-U data from 1913 to the present

“…For just current CPI data, see CPI page. The following table provides all the Consumer Price Index data CPI-U from 1913 to the Present.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is based upon a 1982 Base of 100. A Consumer Price Index of 158 indicates 58% inflation since 1982. The commonly quoted inflation rate of say 3% is actually the change in the Consumer Price Index from a year earlier. By looking at the change in the Consumer Price Index we can see that what cost an average of 9.9 cents in 1913 would cost us about $1.82 in 2003 and $2.02 in 2007.

To find Prior Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on this table (back through 1913) click on the date range links below the table.

For Inflation data rather than Consumer Price Index data go to the Historical Inflation page. If you would like to calculate the inflation rate between two dates using the Consumer Price Index data from this chart, use our handy easy to use Inflation calculator or you might prefer to use our Cost of Living Calculator to compare the costs in two cities. You can find links to Inflation and Consumer Price Index data for other countries HERE. A chart of Inflation by decade, Annual Inflation and Confederate Inflation is also available. Menu navigation is available on the menu bar on the left of every page. We have a complete listing of all of our Articles on inflation, including Inflation Definitions, Which is better High or Low Inflation, and How to Calculate Inflation.

You might also be interested in the wide variety of articles on our sister site Financial Trend Forecaster a complete list of the articles on Financial Trend Forecaster is at the FTF Article Archives.

Note Effective January 2007 the BLS began publishing the CPI index to three decimal places (prior to that it was only one decimal place). But InflationData.com is still the only place to get the Inflation Rate calculated to two decimal places.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2012	226.665
2011	220.223	221.309	223.467	224.906	225.964	225.722	225.922	226.545	226.889	226.421	226.230	225.672	224.939
2010	216.687	216.741	217.631	218.009	218.178	217.965	218.011	218.312	218.439	218.711	218.803	219.179	218.056
2009	211.143	212.193	212.709	213.240	213.856	215.693	215.351	215.834	215.969	216.177	216.330	215.949	214.537
2008	211.080	211.693	213.528	214.823	216.632	218.815	219.964	219.086	218.783	216.573	212.425	210.228	215.303
2007	202.416	203.499	205.352	206.686	207.949	208.352	208.299	207.917	208.490	208.936	210.177	210.036	207.342
2006	198.300	198.700	199.800	201.500	202.500	202.900	203.500	203.900	202.900	201.800	201.500	201.800	201.600
2005	190.700	191.800	193.300	194.600	194.400	194.500	195.400	196.400	198.800	199.200	197.600	196.800	195.300
2004	185.200	186.200	187.400	188.000	189.100	189.700	189.400	189.500	189.900	190.900	191.000	190.300	188.900
2003	181.700	183.100	184.200	183.800	183.500	183.700	183.900	184.600	185.200	185.000	184.500	184.300	183.960
2002	177.100	177.800	178.800	179.800	179.800	179.900	180.100	180.700	181.000	181.300	181.300	180.900	179.880
2001	175.100	175.800	176.200	176.900	177.700	178.000	177.500	177.500	178.300	177.700	177.400	176.700	177.100
2000	168.800	169.800	171.200	171.300	171.500	172.400	172.800	172.800	173.700	174.000	174.100	174.000	172.200
1999	164.300	164.500	165.000	166.200	166.200	166.200	166.700	167.100	167.900	168.200	168.300	168.300	166.600
1998	161.600	161.900	162.200	162.500	162.800	163.000	163.200	163.400	163.600	164.000	164.000	163.900	163.000
1997	159.100	159.600	160.000	160.200	160.100	160.300	160.500	160.800	161.200	161.600	161.500	161.300	160.500
1996	154.400	154.900	155.700	156.300	156.600	156.700	157.000	157.300	157.800	158.300	158.600	158.600	156.900
1995	150.300	150.900	151.400	151.900	152.200	152.500	152.500	152.900	153.200	153.700	153.600	153.500	152.400
1994	146.200	146.700	147.200	147.400	147.500	148.000	148.400	149.000	149.400	149.500	149.700	149.700	148.200
1993	142.600	143.100	143.600	144.000	144.200	144.400	144.400	144.800	145.100	145.700	145.800	145.800	144.500
1992	138.100	138.600	139.300	139.500	139.700	140.200	140.500	140.900	141.300	141.800	142.000	141.900	140.300
1991	134.600	134.800	135.000	135.200	135.600	136.000	136.200	136.600	137.200	137.400	137.800	137.900	136.200
1990	127.400	128.000	128.700	128.900	129.200	129.900	130.400	131.600	132.700	133.500	133.800	133.800	130.700
1989	121.100	121.600	122.300	123.100	123.800	124.100	124.400	124.600	125.000	125.600	125.900	126.100	124.000
1988	115.700	116.000	116.500	117.100	117.500	118.000	118.500	119.000	119.800	120.200	120.300	120.500	118.300
1987	111.200	111.600	112.100	112.700	113.100	113.500	113.800	114.400	115.000	115.300	115.400	115.400	113.600
1986	109.600	109.300	108.800	108.600	108.900	109.500	109.500	109.700	110.200	110.300	110.400	110.500	109.600
1985	105.500	106.000	106.400	106.900	107.300	107.600	107.800	108.000	108.300	108.700	109.000	109.300	107.600
1984	101.900	102.400	102.600	103.100	103.400	103.700	104.100	104.500	105.000	105.300	105.300	105.300	103.900
1983	97.800	97.900	97.900	98.600	99.200	99.500	99.900	100.200	100.700	101.000	101.200	101.300	99.600
1982	94.300	94.600	94.500	94.900	95.800	97.000	97.500	97.700	97.900	98.200	98.000	97.600	96.500
1981	87.000	87.900	88.500	89.100	89.800	90.600	91.600	92.300	93.200	93.400	93.700	94.000	90.900
1980	77.800	78.900	80.100	81.000	81.800	82.700	82.700	83.300	84.000	84.800	85.500	86.300	82.400
1979	68.300	69.100	69.800	70.600	71.500	72.300	73.100	73.800	74.600	75.200	75.900	76.700	72.600
1978	62.500	62.900	63.400	63.900	64.500	65.200	65.700	66.000	66.500	67.100	67.400	67.700	65.200
1977	58.500	59.100	59.500	60.000	60.300	60.700	61.000	61.200	61.400	61.600	61.900	62.100	60.600
1976	55.600	55.800	55.900	56.100	56.500	56.800	57.100	57.400	57.600	57.900	58.000	58.200	56.900
1975	52.100	52.500	52.700	52.900	53.200	53.600	54.200	54.300	54.600	54.900	55.300	55.500	53.800
1974	46.600	47.200	47.800	48.000	48.600	49.000	49.400	50.000	50.600	51.100	51.500	51.900	49.300
1973	42.600	42.900	43.300	43.600	43.900	44.200	44.300	45.100	45.200	45.600	45.900	46.200	44.400
1972	41.100	41.300	41.400	41.500	41.600	41.700	41.900	42.000	42.100	42.300	42.400	42.500	41.800
1971	39.800	39.900	40.000	40.100	40.300	40.600	40.700	40.800	40.800	40.900	40.900	41.100	40.500
1970	37.800	38.000	38.200	38.500	38.600	38.800	39.000	39.000	39.200	39.400	39.600	39.800	38.800
1969	35.600	35.800	36.100	36.300	36.400	36.600	36.800	37.000	37.100	37.300	37.500	37.700	36.700
1968	34.100	34.200	34.300	34.400	34.500	34.700	34.900	35.000	35.100	35.300	35.400	35.500	34.800
1967	32.900	32.900	33.000	33.100	33.200	33.300	33.400	33.500	33.600	33.700	33.800	33.900	33.400
1966	31.800	32.000	32.100	32.300	32.300	32.400	32.500	32.700	32.700	32.900	32.900	32.900	32.400
1965	31.200	31.200	31.300	31.400	31.400	31.600	31.600	31.600	31.600	31.700	31.700	31.800	31.500
1964	30.900	30.900	30.900	30.900	30.900	31.000	31.100	31.000	31.100	31.100	31.200	31.200	31.000
1963	30.400	30.400	30.500	30.500	30.500	30.600	30.700	30.700	30.700	30.800	30.800	30.900	30.600
1962	30.000	30.100	30.100	30.200	30.200	30.200	30.300	30.300	30.400	30.400	30.400	30.400	30.200
1961	29.800	29.800	29.800	29.800	29.800	29.800	30.000	29.900	30.000	30.000	30.000	30.000	29.900
1960	29.300	29.400	29.400	29.500	29.500	29.600	29.600	29.600	29.600	29.800	29.800	29.800	29.600
1959	29.000	28.900	28.900	29.000	29.000	29.100	29.200	29.200	29.300	29.400	29.400	29.400	29.100
1958	28.600	28.600	28.800	28.900	28.900	28.900	29.000	28.900	28.900	28.900	29.000	28.900	28.900
1957	27.600	27.700	27.800	27.900	28.000	28.100	28.300	28.300	28.300	28.300	28.400	28.400	28.100
1956	26.800	26.800	26.800	26.900	27.000	27.200	27.400	27.300	27.400	27.500	27.500	27.600	27.200
1955	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.800	26.800	26.900	26.900	26.900	26.800	26.800
1954	26.900	26.900	26.900	26.800	26.900	26.900	26.900	26.900	26.800	26.800	26.800	26.700	26.900
1953	26.600	26.500	26.600	26.600	26.700	26.800	26.800	26.900	26.900	27.000	26.900	26.900	26.700
1952	26.500	26.300	26.300	26.400	26.400	26.500	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.700	26.500
1951	25.400	25.700	25.800	25.800	25.900	25.900	25.900	25.900	26.100	26.200	26.400	26.500	26.000
1950	23.500	23.500	23.600	23.600	23.700	23.800	24.100	24.300	24.400	24.600	24.700	25.000	24.100
1949	24.000	23.800	23.800	23.900	23.800	23.900	23.700	23.800	23.900	23.700	23.800	23.600	23.800
1948	23.700	23.500	23.400	23.800	23.900	24.100	24.400	24.500	24.500	24.400	24.200	24.100	24.100
1947	21.500	21.500	21.900	21.900	21.900	22.000	22.200	22.500	23.000	23.000	23.100	23.400	22.300
1946	18.200	18.100	18.300	18.400	18.500	18.700	19.800	20.200	20.400	20.800	21.300	21.500	19.500
1945	17.800	17.800	17.800	17.800	17.900	18.100	18.100	18.100	18.100	18.100	18.100	18.200	18.000
1944	17.400	17.400	17.400	17.500	17.500	17.600	17.700	17.700	17.700	17.700	17.700	17.800	17.600
1943	16.900	16.900	17.200	17.400	17.500	17.500	17.400	17.300	17.400	17.400	17.400	17.400	17.300
1942	15.700	15.800	16.000	16.100	16.300	16.300	16.400	16.500	16.500	16.700	16.800	16.900	16.300
1941	14.100	14.100	14.200	14.300	14.400	14.700	14.700	14.900	15.100	15.300	15.400	15.500	14.700
1940	13.900	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.100	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.100	14.000
1939	14.000	13.900	13.900	13.800	13.800	13.800	13.800	13.800	14.100	14.000	14.000	14.000	13.900
1938	14.200	14.100	14.100	14.200	14.100	14.100	14.100	14.100	14.100	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.100
1937	14.100	14.100	14.200	14.300	14.400	14.400	14.500	14.500	14.600	14.600	14.500	14.400	14.400
1936	13.800	13.800	13.700	13.700	13.700	13.800	13.900	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.000	14.000	13.900
1935	13.600	13.700	13.700	13.800	13.800	13.700	13.700	13.700	13.700	13.700	13.800	13.800	13.700
1934	13.200	13.300	13.300	13.300	13.300	13.400	13.400	13.400	13.600	13.500	13.500	13.400	13.400
1933	12.900	12.700	12.600	12.600	12.600	12.700	13.100	13.200	13.200	13.200	13.200	13.200	13.000
1932	14.300	14.100	14.000	13.900	13.700	13.600	13.600	13.500	13.400	13.300	13.200	13.100	13.700
1931	15.900	15.700	15.600	15.500	15.300	15.100	15.100	15.100	15.000	14.900	14.700	14.600	15.200
1930	17.100	17.000	16.900	17.000	16.900	16.800	16.600	16.500	16.600	16.500	16.400	16.100	16.700
1929	17.100	17.100	17.000	16.900	17.000	17.100	17.300	17.300	17.300	17.300	17.300	17.200	17.100
1928	17.300	17.100	17.100	17.100	17.200	17.100	17.100	17.100	17.300	17.200	17.200	17.100	17.100
1927	17.500	17.400	17.300	17.300	17.400	17.600	17.300	17.200	17.300	17.400	17.300	17.300	17.400
1926	17.900	17.900	17.800	17.900	17.800	17.700	17.500	17.400	17.500	17.600	17.700	17.700	17.700
1925	17.300	17.200	17.300	17.200	17.300	17.500	17.700	17.700	17.700	17.700	18.000	17.900	17.500
1924	17.300	17.200	17.100	17.000	17.000	17.000	17.100	17.000	17.100	17.200	17.200	17.300	17.100
1923	16.800	16.800	16.800	16.900	16.900	17.000	17.200	17.100	17.200	17.300	17.300	17.300	17.100
1922	16.900	16.900	16.700	16.700	16.700	16.700	16.800	16.600	16.600	16.700	16.800	16.900	16.800
1921	19.000	18.400	18.300	18.100	17.700	17.600	17.700	17.700	17.500	17.500	17.400	17.300	17.900
1920	19.300	19.500	19.700	20.300	20.600	20.900	20.800	20.300	20.000	19.900	19.800	19.400	20.000
1919	16.500	16.200	16.400	16.700	16.900	16.900	17.400	17.700	17.800	18.100	18.500	18.900	17.300
1918	14.000	14.100	14.000	14.200	14.500	14.700	15.100	15.400	15.700	16.000	16.300	16.500	15.100
1917	11.700	12.000	12.000	12.600	12.800	13.000	12.800	13.000	13.300	13.500	13.500	13.700	12.800
1916	10.400	10.400	10.500	10.600	10.700	10.800	10.800	10.900	11.100	11.300	11.500	11.600	10.900
1915	10.100	10.000	9.900	10.000	10.100	10.100	10.100	10.100	10.100	10.200	10.300	10.300	10.100
1914	10.000	9.900	9.900	9.800	9.900	9.900	10.000	10.200	10.200	10.100	10.200	10.100	10.000
1913	9.800	9.800	9.800	9.800	9.700	9.800	9.900	9.900	10.000	10.000	10.100	10.000	9.900

To calculate inflation from a month and year to a later month and year, try our Inflation calculator

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 64, February 29, 2012: Segment 0: Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?–Videos

Posted on February 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: 2012, Arizona, February 29, Michigan, Pronk Pops Show 64, Republican Primary Results |

Pronk Pops Show 64: February 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 63: February 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 62: February 15, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 61: February 8, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 60:February 1, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?–Videos

Expanded, Revised and Updated February 29, 2012

Mitt Romney Wins Michigan and Arizona

Ron Paul: “We’ve Drifted From Original Intent”

Ron Paul Michigan State University speech pt. 1

Romney Wins Maine Caucus – February 11, 2012

Ron Paul speech after 2nd place finish in Maine caucus 2/11/2012

Santorum scores hat-trick in the Republican race

Rick Santorum Sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado Primaries; Mitt Romney Losing Frontrunner Status?

27% Second Place Finish in Minnesota: Ron Paul Breaks through Yet Another Ceiling!

Romney wins Nevada, hanging on to frontrunner status

Romney Triumphs in Florida

Ron Paul Interview on ABC’s ‘This Week’

The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012

Ron Paul ~ I Think We Can Get Out Of Our Mess By Having People Read The Constitution And Obey It

Ron Paul Post FL Primary Speech ~ 1-30-2012

2 Parties vs Ron Paul – Judge Andrew Napolitano

Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?

On Feb.28, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the Michigan and Arizona primaries. Romney with 151 delegates is clearly the front-runner in the race for the 1,144 delegates needed to be nominated the Republican presidential candidate. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is in second place with 58 delegates. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third place with 43 delegates followed close behind by Texas Rep. Ron Paul in fourth place with 35 delegates.

Both Michigan and Arizona were penalized for scheduling their primary early and lost 50 percent of their delegates. Arizona was a closed primary with the statewide winner taking all the 29 delegates. Michigan was an open primary with winner-take-all in each congressional district and proportional for the statewide delegates.

Romney received 216,085 votes or 44.27 percent of the popular vote, thereby winning all of Arizona’s 29 delegates. Santorum received 122,008 votes or 26.62 percent of the popular vote. Gingrich received 74,110 votes or 16.66 percent of the popular vote. Paul received 38,753 votes or 8.45 percent of the popular vote.

Romney defeated Santorum in Michigan’s open primary by over 30,000 vote. Romney received 409,131 votes or 40.07 percent of the popular vote, winning 15 delegates. Santorum received 377, 153 or 37.86 of the popular vote, winning 13 delegates. Paul came in third with 115,778 votes or 11.62percent of the vote and received zero delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 65,007 or 6.53 percent and received zero delegates.

On Feb. 11, Romney narrowly beat Paul in the Maine caucus by just 194 votes. Romney received 2,190 or 39.6 percent of the popular vote, winning eight delegates. Paul received 1,996 or 36.1 percent of the popular vote, winning eight delegates. Santorum came in third with 989 or 17.9 percent of the popular vote, winning four delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 349 or 6.3 percent of the popular vote, winning one delegate.

Since several Maine counties have scheduled their county caucuses after Feb. 11, the vote count will change. Washington County was the only county caucus scheduled for Feb. 11 that was postponed due to a forecasted 3-5-inch snow storm. Washington County was expected to heavily favor Paul over Romney based on the Feb. 7 precinct caucus results.

The voters of Maine are usually accustomed to driving on snow-covered roads. Several counties along Maine’s coastline had the same snow storm forecast including Cumberland County, which includes Portland, where Romney ran ahead of Paul. The Washington County caucus postponement appears politically motivated. Romney’s campaign needed a first-place win in Maine to counter the momentum of Santorum’s three wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Paul was apparently robbed of a first-place finish by Maine’s Republican Party’s decision to postpone the Washington County caucus due to snow.

When all the votes are counted next week, Paul said, “If I were a betting man, I would bet that we will control the Maine caucus when we go to Tampa,” the site of the Republican National Convention.

Romney is still the national front-runner in the race for the Republican Party’s nomination for president with an estimated total of 107 delegates. Santorum is second with 43 delegates, former Speaker of the House Gingrich is third with 42 delegates and Paul is fourth with 36 delegates.

On Feb. 7, Santorum jolted the race for 1,144 delegates and the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination by a three state sweep of first place finishes in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. In his victory speech to his supporters, Santorum said, “Ladies and gentlmen, I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.” His supporters shouted, “We pick Rick.”

Santorum won the Republican open non-binding Minnesota caucus on Feb. 7 with 21,436 or 44.81 percent of the popular vote, winning 17 delegates. Paul came in second with 13,030 or 27.24 percent of the popular vote, winning 10 delegates. Romney came in third with 8,096 or 16.92 percent of the popular vote, winning 6 delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 5,134 or 10.73 percent or 10.73 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates.

No candidate won any of the 52 delegates in the Missouri “straw poll” or non-binding primary on Feb.7. However, Santorum won with the primary with 138,957 or 55.17 percent of the popular vote. Romney came in second with 63,826 or 25.34 percent of the popular vote. Paul came in third with 30,641 or 12.17 percent of the popular vote. Delegates will be selected on the March 7 county caucus.

Santorum also won the Republican closed non-binding Colorado caucus on Feb.7 with 26,372 or 40.24 percent of the populat vote, winning 13 delegates. Romney came in second with 22,875 or 34.91 percent of the popular vote winning 12 delegates. Gingrich came in third with 8,394 or 12.81 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates. Paul came in fourth with 7,713 or 11.77 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates.

Romney won the Republican closed Nevada Caucus on Feb. 5 with 16,486 or 50.10 percent of the popular vote, winning 14 delegates. Romney beat out second place finisher, Gingrich, with 6,956 votes or 21.10 percent of the popular vote, winning 6 delegates. Paul finished third with 6,175 votes or 18.73 percent of the popular vote, winning 5 delegates. Santorum came in fourth with 3,277 votes or 9.94percent of the popular vote. winning 3 delegates.

Romney won the Republican Party’s closed Florida primary on Jan 31 with 774,989 votes or 46.42 percent of the popular vote, thereby winning all of the state’s 50 delegates. Romney beat out second place finisher, Gingrich, with 533,091 votes or 31.93 percent of the popular vote. Santorum came in third with 222,790 votes or 13.34 percent of the popular vote. Paul finished fourth with 117,100 votes or 7.01 percent of the popular vote.

Romney has now won in five states–Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Florida and Nevada–and has a total of 99 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 1,117,894. In second place is Gingrich, with a total of 41delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 837,302. In third place is former Santorum with 39 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 381,793 votes. In fourth place is Paul with 28 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 305,228.

Gingrich will petition the Republican Party of Florida to allocate delegates proportionally rather than on a winner-take-all basis. Republican Party rule 15 (b) (2) clearly states “Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.” This rule was approved by the Republican Party National committee in August 2010 for the 2012 Presidential nominating process. If Gingrich is successful, Romney would receive 23 delegates instead of 50 and Gingrich would receive 16 delegates instead of zero. Gingrich would then have a total of 48 delegates and would be slightly behind Romney with 54 delegates.

The estimated total delegate count is summarized in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012 Estimated Delegate Count By Candidate and State
State	Romney	Gingrich	Santorum	Paul	Totals*
Iowa	6	4	6	6	28
New Hampshire	9	0	0	3	12
South Carolina	2	23	0	0	25
Florida	50	0	0	0	50
Nevada	14	6	3	5	28
Minnesota	6	4	17	10	40
Colorado	12	4	13	4	36
Maine	8	2	4	7	24
Arizona	29	0	0	0	29
Michigan	15	0	15	0	30
Totals	151	43	58	35	302
*Totals include all delegates including those that are available but not pledged to a candidate such as each state’s party leadership delegates or delegates for candidates that have dropped out of the race. Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MO-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R

The estimated popular vote count is set forth in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012 Estimated Popular Vote By Candidate and State
State	Romney	Gingrich	Santorum	Paul	Totals*
Iowa	29,805	16,163	29,839	26,036	121,501
New Hampshire	97,591	23,421	23,432	56,872	248,475
South Carolina	168,152	244,113	102,482	78,362	603,856
Florida	776,159	534,121	223,429	117,461	1,672,634
Nevada	16,486	6,956	3,277	6,175	32,963
Colorado	23,012	8,445	26,614	7,759	66,027
Minnesota	8,222	5,272	21,932	13,228	48,795
Maine	2,269	391	1,052	2,030	5,814
Arizona	216,805	74,110	122,088	38,753	458,631
Michigan	409,120	65,002	377,144	115,778	996,156
Total Popular Vote*	1,747,621	977,994	931,289	462,454	4,254,853
Popular Vote Percentage	41.07%	22.98%	21.88%	10.86%	100.00%
*For all candidates on the ballot and write-ins. Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R

On Feb. 28 the voters of Michigan voted in an open primary.

Results for Michigan Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Feb. 28, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	409,131	40.07%	15
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	377,153	37.86%	13
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	115,778	11.62%	0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	65,007	6.53%	0
Available			2
Totals	996,156	100.00%	30
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R*Michigan would have had a total of 59 delegates consisting of 42 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 4 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Feb. 28 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

On Feb. 28 the voters of Arizona voted in an open primary.

Results for Arizona Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Feb. 28, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	216,805	47.27%	29
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	122,088	26.62%	0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	74,110	16.66%	0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	38,753	8.45%	0
Totals	458,681	100.00%	50
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R#0228*Arizona would have had a total of 58 delegates consisting of 27 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 18 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

From Feb.3-11 the voters of Maine voted in a closed causus.

Results for Maine Republican Caucus U.S. Presidential Feb. 11, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	2,190	39.64%	8
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	1,996	36.13%	8
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	989	17.90%	4
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	349	6.32%	1
Available			3
Totals	5,585	100.00%	24
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R#0211 *Maine has a total of 24 delegates consisting of 6 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 5 bonus delegates. The 24 National Convention delegates are not bound to the candidate.

On Feb. 7 the voters of Minnesota voted in a closed causus.

Results for Minnesota Republican Caucus U.S. Presidential Feb. 7, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	21,436	44.81%	17
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	13,030	27.24%	10
Willard “Mitt” Romney	8,096	16.92%	6
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	5,134	10.73%	4
Available			3
Totals	47,836	100.00%	40
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R#0207 *Minnesota has a total of 40 delegates consisting of 24 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates. The 40 National Convention delegates are proportionally bound to Presidential candidates based on the caucus vote.

On Feb. 7 the voters of Colorado voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Colorado Republican Caucus U.S. Presidential Feb. 7, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	26,372	40.24%	13
Willard “Mitt” Romney	22,875	43.91%	12
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	8,394	12.81%	4
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	7,713	11.77%	4
Available			3
Totals	32,961	100.00%	36
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R#0207 *Colorado has a total of 36 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 2 bonus delegates. The 36 National Convention delegates are are not bound to Presidential candidates.

On Feb.5 the voters of Nevada voted in the second closed caucus state.

Results for Nevada Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Feb. 7, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	16,486	50.02%	14
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	6,956	21.10%	6
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	6,175	18.73%	5
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	3,277	9.94%	3
Totals	32,961	100.00%	28
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R#0204 *Nevada has a total of 28 delegates consisting of 12 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates. The 28 National Convention delegates are proportionally bounf to Presidential candidates based on the caucus vote.

On Jan. 31 the voters of Florida voted in the first closed primary state where the candidate with the most votes statewide receives all of the state’s 50 delegates. Romney won and received all Florida’s 50 delegates.

Results for Florida Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Jan. 31, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	774,989	46.42%	50
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	533,091	31.93%	0
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	222,790	13.34%	0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	117,100	7.01%	0
Totals	1,669,585	100.00%	50
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R *Florida would have had a total of 99 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

On Jan. 21 the voters of South Carolina voted in the second open primary state where the candidate with the most votes statewide receives 11 delegates and the winner in each congressional district receives two delegates. Gingrich won statewide and received 11 delegates and won six congressional districts for additional 12 delegates for a total of 23 delegates. Romney won one congressional district and received two delegates.

Results for South Carolina Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Jan. 21, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	244,113	40.43%	23
Willard “Mitt” Romney	168,152	27.85%	2
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	102,482	16.97%	0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	78,362	12.98%	0
Herman Cain	6,338	1.05%	0
James Richard “Rick” Perry	2,534	0.42%	0
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.	1,173	0.19%	0
Michele M. Bachmann	491	0.03%	0
Totals	603,856	100.00%	25
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R *South Carolina would have had a total of 50 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

On Jan 10 the voters of New Hampshire voted in the first state primary where the states 12 delegates were bound proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.

Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary U.S. Presidential Jan. 10, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Willard “Mitt” Romney	97,591	39.28%	7
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	56,872	22.89%	3
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.	41,964	16.89%	2
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	23,421	9.43%	0
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	23,405	9.42%	0
James Richard “Rick” Perry	1,764	.71%	0
Michele M. Bachmann	350	.14%	0
Available			3
Totals	248,448	100.00%	15
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R *New Hampshire would have had a total of 23 delegates consisting of six district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, three party leader delegates and four bonus delegates. However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 10 and under the rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as nonvoting delegates.

On Jan. 3 the voters of Iowa met in 1,774 precinct caucuses to vote for their choice for the Republican presidential candidate by electing delegates to their county conventions. The 99 county conventions then select delegates to the Iowa Congressional District Convention and the State Convention on June 12. This convention determines the delegates to the Republican National Convention. In 2012 Iowa will send 28 delegates to the nominating convention including 10 at-large, 12 for the four congressional districts (three per district), three party and three bonus. However, unlike other states where delegates are usually bound for the first vote, Iowa delegates are soft-pledged or not bound to vote for a particular candidate.

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus U.S. Presidential Jan. 03, 2012
Candidate	Popular Vote	Percentage	Delegates*
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum	29,839	24.56%	6
Willard “Mitt” Romney	29,805	24.53%	6
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul	26,036	21.43%	6
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich	16,163	13.30%	4
Richard J. “Rick” Perry	12,557	10.33%	3
Michele M. Bachmann	6,046	4.98%	0
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.	739	0.61%	0
Available			3
Totals	121,501	100.000%	28
Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R *Iowa has a total of 28 delegates consisting of 12 district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, three party leader delegates and three bonus delegates. The 25 non- party leader delegates were allocated to the candidates with more than five percent of the popular vote. This is an estimate that will change by the time the state convention meets.

On Super Tuesday, March 6, the greatest number of states hold their primary and caucus elections with the greatest number of national convention delegates, 437, elected on a single date. There are seven primary states–Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia; and three caucus states–Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota holding elections on this date.

A firm date for the Texas open primary is still awaiting a federal court decision by a three-judge panel in San Antonio approving Texas voting maps. The primary will most likely take place on May 29 for 155 delegates.

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

The Archies – Sugar Sugar (’69)

How much sugar does the average american consume?

Modern history

Etymology

Production

Consumption

Health effects

Blood glucose levels

Obesity and diabetes

Cardiovascular disease

Alzheimer disease

Macular degeneration

Tooth decay

Terminology

Popular

Chemical

Baking weight/mass volume relationship

Purity standards

Chemistry

Natural polymers of sugars

High-fructose corn syrup

Comparison to other sweeteners

Cane and beet sugar

Honey

Production

Sweetener consumption patterns

Historical

United States

European Union

Japan

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

U.S. Inflation Calculator

Obama’s Got America Singin’ the Blues

Why Gas Prices Are Rising

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

The Price Of Oil

Bill Black: What I’d Demand of the Fed

Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros.

END FED: Goldman Sachs To Blame For Global Food-Oil Price Crisis; Speculators Outnumber Hedgers

Speculation Drives Up Coffee Prices

Food Speculation

Obama gas prices

A Coincidence Over High Gasoline Prices- MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon

James Grant

Jim Grant – Bloomberg Interview (30/6/11)

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke

Seven Bucks A Gallon For Gas!