I fully understand the facts of the situation. You are just refusing to accept or don't understand basic macroeconomic principals. You are angry because you missed out on a deal and now have to pay more. And instead of blaming yourself, you call people sinister, shady, sleazey, slimy vultures when they are not.
1. Straight Talk sells their ATT SIM cards for 14.95
And since people will buy them off of ebay at $90 a pop, that means ST underpriced their SIM cards given the value of their monthly fees.
2. They have a contractual dispute with ATT and the creation of the ATT SIMs stop.
Contractual dispute understates the issue. It sounds like what happened here is that ATT saw the large influx of ST users due to Google underpricing the Nexus 4 and realized that they were underpricing their network capacity and upped the price they charge ST. ST then looked at their costs and decided it wasn't profitable enough for them at that price to continue to take on new subscribers who wanted to use the ATT network.
Call it a contract dispute in the broadest sense, but what it boils down to is trying to accurately determine the price the consumer is willing to pay for use of the ATT network. It's what business do every day - try to accurately price their services to maximize their profits. At least those businesses that have any hope of survival.
3. A few Ebay/Amazon power users get wind of this information, buy out ST's stock of ATT SIMS
4. Now those power users control the value of said SIM cards
Actually, the consumers of those cards control the price. If no one would buy the ST SIMs at $90, the sellers would have to lower the price of the ST SIMs. Moreover, the reason you are willing to pay $90 for the SIM is because $45 a month for the ATT network is underpriced. It is not like ST ATT service is a basic necessity of life that you will die if you can't have. You want it and you have a price that you will pay for it and that price is $45/month + $299 for a Nexus 4 + $90 for a SIM card.
How about if I use an analogy to another non-necessity? Let's say a famous artist, Mr X, dies. While alive he was able to get $5000 for a painting and so prices the paintings in his art gallery at $5000 each. Once he dies, an art collector realizes that Mr. X won't be producing any more paintings and buys all of the paintings in Mr. X's art gallery for $5000 each. The art collector then turns around and offers the paintings for sale for $10,000 each. Is the art collector a sinister, shady, sleazy, slimy vulture?
The SIMs didn't increase in value for any natural, economic reason.
They increased in value because their supply became limited. That is about as basic of an economic reason as you can get. Doesn't get any more basic than that when it comes to economics.
What these vultures did is one step above robbery.
Obviously you have never taken a college Macroeconomics 101 class. If you had, you would realize how ridiculous this statement is.
You are angry because you didn't act fast enough and missed out on a deal that no longer exists. That is what is going on here.
the pointlessness in this type of Capitalism
It's far from pointless. It is how the market forces interact to determine price.