I have to say, that companies set prices "before they put the commodity into the market" doesn't strike me as something profound enough to upend the subject of economics.

The fact is that there has been vast inflation in capital markets--where, as noted in the article, the money from QE went. That inflation has created a vortex of hyper-prosperity that is largely separate from the rest of the economy--in true 'trickle-down' fashion. In those markets increasing prices can increase demand, rather than diminishing it.

The best way to look at inflation in consumer goods is, I think, the 'ratchet model', caused by the asymmetry in the movement of prices: they go up easier than they come down (for the simple reason that all sellers throughout the economy are more reluctant to lower prices than they are to raise them). The presence of increasing prices (as a response to insufficient supply--which is way more subject to significant short-term change than demand is) starts the ratchet in motion The 'teeth' of the ratchet grow in size as a response to any continuation of inflation: in seeking to get ahead of generally increasing prices, with each round of price increases the increase is larger than it was in the previous round.

A big part of the process is unproductive speculation in raw materials (purchasing contracts for them for no reason but to sell those contracts for a profit), which is a sector within capital markets. Speculators' demand for contracts for raw materials increases as a response to increasing prices for them, driving up costs of production for those who must purchase those contracts to acquire those materials for the production of goods of all kinds