April 22, 2006
CNN publishes [your emails][1] about how the high price of gas affects you:No effect whatsoever. I drive about 500 miles per year and bicycle the rest. It's fun to see all the agony when I ride past gas stations full of desperate, mortified and angry motorists. Maybe they can go inside and cool down with a nice Slurpee or something. Happy motoring, America! --David Dutra, Tucson, ArizonaOK, so that one made me laugh. Amid all the anguish and the boohooing, David's got the right idea. When insanity seems to be growing in leaps and bounds, you might as well find something to enjoy.The other thing that made me laugh was all the cockamamie economic solutions postulated by CNN's readership. Seems that everyone is an economist these days:If everyone would boycott Exxon, then Exxon would have to lower its prices, and others would follow.Yeah, that's a beauty. Why would Exxon's competitors lower prices when they have more customers than before at the current price? Removing supply has always been a proven price-cutter, hasn't it? Always.Imagine the statement it would make if as many as 1 million angry Americans converged on the Washington Mall or elsewhere, carrying red gas cans?Color me so not surprised that one came from a law student.Maybe we should ... just buy $10.00 at a time and let the gas sit in the holding tanks!Let's imagine everyone bought only $10 (~3 gallons) at a time. Rather than filling up your 15 gallon tank and leaving, you'd get to visit the gas station 5 times for every one you do currently. So would everyone else. Gas lines full of idling vehicles is another proven solution to high gas prices, right?Hey Congress, get over your bloviating and actually do something. I don't want to hear about 10 years from now, I want to hear about 10 minutes from now.I just put that one in because it's so funny. Congress should repeal the laws of physics while they're at it so friction doesn't make our tires wear out, too.While some people had decent ideas (e.g. use less gas, duh) one thing was conspicuous by its absence. The price of everything is going up, not just gas. Housing prices are so high (the median price of a house in LA is now half a million dollars) that Americans [can't afford to live in their own cities anymore][2]. Commodity prices are at record highs with oil at an all-time high, copper at an all-time high (so high the metal in your pre-1982 pennies is worth twice as much melted down as spent), silver and gold at multi-decade highs. Zinc is up 50% this month and nickel sits on an all-time high as well. What have all those prices in common? They are all measured in dollars.But the good thing is that the government is creating so many new dollars for us to spend on these wonderful commodities. Or is that the bad thing? Economics is soooooo confusing... [1]: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/21/feedback.gasprices/index.html [2]: http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/19/real_estate/net_migration_tilts_south/
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...
Finally! Someone else realizes that the laws of physics are unconstitutional.
April 22, 2006 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
In Iowa in the 19th century one legislator introduced a bill to change the value of pi to 3 to make calculations easier. Thankfully, it died a quick death in committee.
But hey, they're just laws, right?
April 22, 2006 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
Bill, do you ever feel like chicken little? I do sometimes.
I keep telling people "We cannot keep spending more then we make/have!" and they look at me like I'm trying to cancel Christmas. I say "If you can't pay cash for it, you can't have it!" and I am treated like Scrooge's half-wit sister. I remind "Most things we buy aren't necessities, they're 'wants'" and I am ignored like the scold I'm becoming.
So I am about to give up trying to sound the alarm.
On gas, I am in a car pool, and looking for an extra rider or two. Got to get to work. But can limit other uses of gas by not being so inefficient on shopping trips and by not going on nearly as much. And that long drive to Dallas is looking less likely. I'd sell the gas guzzling car by husband just bought, if it wouldn't get me lynched.
Even Mr. Chicken Little isn't listening to me.
April 22, 2006 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
Scrooge's half-wit sister asks about the Chicken-little factor:
I suppose, but (and here's a secret) I don't really write it for others; I write what I'm thinking or studying or doing to help me work through it. I have no illusions that I can change the world or make anyone but myself a better person (which is why I'm a libertarian, I suppose, and not a Republican or Democrat). And while I know there are some listening, I know there are more that are not and I'm fine with that. I'm glad for those who are (and I love you both).
There's also the 'false prophet' factor. I could be completely wrong...maybe we can all get rich selling our houses to one another and printing wealth and making $20 an hour to do what a Chinaman will do for $2 and charging our lives on a plastic card. So the reason I lay stuff out in detail to the point of boring my audience is that I don't want people to believe me just because I say so (like I'm some kind of authority) but to look themselves. If they are not convinced, maybe they see something I don't. I certainly don't want anyone (rightly) blaming me if they buy silver on my recommendation and it goes to nothing.
What I do try to do is put the big picture together. People see high house prices and are glad. They see high gas prices and are angry, not realizing that they are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. They see old pictures of gas pumps and say, "Gee, I wish we could still get gas for 30 cents," not realizing that the three silver dimes your dad paid for a gallon of gas will still buy a gallon of gas. Very few put the pieces together, because we have a media and government which - when not completely ignorant themselves - have an incentive to keep people in the dark.
Maybe I'm insane or have a recto-cranial inversion, but I see things coming to a head, which is why I've written more about it lately (since 2002 or so). Oil prices, deficits, Katrina, China, Iraq... we are doing a lot of bad things right now and I expect bad consequences. But I could be wrong, which is why you won't see me on Mass St. with a "Repent! The end is at hand!" sandwich board.
I don't know if the end is at hand (I suspect not). People should repent without that being a factor. But whether they do or not is their business. I have enough mouths to feed without worrying about who's listening to my big one.
April 22, 2006 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
clayhill70 (anonymous) says...
I think the idea behind "boycott exxon/mobil," was to get exxon/mobil to lower their prices at the pump. Which in turn would create a price war. In theory this would work.
The problem is that boycotting exxon/mobil at their branded stations is that you don't effect their sales to unbranded stations.
I work for a small refining company compared to the majors and we sell to Casey's, Kwik Shop,Quick Trip, and many others including branded stations other than our own. Its all a matter of contracts and logistics.
During the 1973 Israeli/Arab war oil was used as a political weapon against the United States. Mandatory conservation measures were introduced by the Nixon administration including a mandatory speed limit of 55 mph on all federal funded highways, a minimum/maximum thermostat setting in all federal buildings, etc., and the states followed suit. If we are at war with the very terrorist who have an effect on gasoline prices why hasn't the Bush administration imposed similar measures? If you don't know the answer to that question you haven't been paying attention.
It's been over thirty years since the oil embargo and today we face the same dilemma. No administration or congress has delt with the real threat to our independance in a truly constructive way. Our representitives have allowed our tax dollars and at times the blood of our youth to secure current and future oil reserves wether it be legislated war or covert action.
American corporations have opened a pandoras box. In their quest for cheaper labor they have ignited the desire for a higher standard of living in these countries most notably China and India.
So much want and only so much oil.
April 22, 2006 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
"I think the idea behind "boycott exxon/mobil," was to get exxon/mobil to lower their prices at the pump. Which in turn would create a price war. In theory this would work."
In both theory and reality, the effect would be the opposite. Look at it this way:
There are three suppliers of gas: x, y and z, and they supply 30 squillion gallons of gas a day (sg/d) or 10 sq/d each. There are 300 squillion consumers who each buy .1 sg/d from them, and all is in balance.
Suddenly, all the consumers, rather than buying 1/3 of their gas from x(xon), try to buy the same amount of gas from y and z plus all the gas they were buying from x. That *may* cause x to lower prices, but that does the consumer no good since they are not buying from x. But the effect on y and z is opposite: since they now have 50% more demand and no more supply, they have to *raise* prices.
A 'price war' only works if suppliers risk losing business to a lower-priced competitor, causing them to lower their own prices. It is the threat of *loss of business* that causes competition, and that can only exist in a market that is oversupplied. In the above example, not only are they not losing business, it's increasing by 50%. The actual result is the same as if 1/3 of the gas (all of x's supply) disappeared from the market.
In other words, it's exactly the opposite of what everyone wants.
The only way to lower the price is to:
a) provide more supply (I'll let cfdxprt pontificate on those prospects; he's the expert);
b) use less gasoline (which is the only thing within the individual's control); or
c) change the currency in which gas is priced. That the dollar is dying before our eyes rachets c against the interests of the consumer continuously, but that's what happens when you try to print yourself rich..
April 22, 2006 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UKept (anonymous) says...
You'll be pleased to know that economists in the UK are still touting the dollar as the economic engine that fuels the world. However, the continually strengthening Euro will soon be in a position to challenge that, and the increased economic stability, geographic expansion, and massive market share of the European Union, and the size of the Amercian trade deficit could make a strong argument for a Euro based world economy. This would become even more compelling if (and when) the UK (the worlds fourth largest economy) switches over to the Euro, joining Germany (the third largest world economy) and France (the fifth, ho ho)
If the Euro were to overtake the dollar as the preferred world currency, suddenly our deficits widen (as we will have to pay to convert our money over to the dominant Euro), and this could have a profound effect on US lifestyle and policy, as we will have to adapt our enviromental and trade policies to ensure they're suitable to Brussels if we want to trade and work with the EU.
In lighter news, the US men's team is ranked 4th in the World Cup, so we can still whoop some Euro ass all up and down the soccer field.
April 24, 2006 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
Yea, that's what counts most, right? Winning at sports?
How long before China owns the USA? And is it better to invest in silver or gold bars? And which would you buy if you could only buy one thing - a generator or guns?
April 24, 2006 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UKept (anonymous) says...
For someone who doesn't get sarcasm, you certainly can wield it. :)
And actually, I think a strong showing at the World Cup can only gain more respect for the U.S. than our current foreign policy.
I think China may be the catalyst for a giant economic power shift, but I don't think it will be the benefactor. If China chooses to shift it's investments from dollars to euros, it could be the definitive move in a global shift to a new currency.
Don't worry about gold or silver, invest in water. That shit's gonna be priceless soon. And I'd buy guns, and then rob the generator store.
April 24, 2006 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alm77 (anonymous) says...
"I keep telling people "We cannot keep spending more then we make/have!" and they look at me like I'm trying to cancel Christmas. I say "If you can't pay cash for it, you can't have it!"
That's exactly what's wrong. People are spending what they don't have and promising to pay it back 'later' over a period of time that costs them 10 times as much.
LL, do you listen to Dave Ramsey? I was given one his books. He has created a multimillion enterprise selling books to teach people what you just said. He's funny and he's right. www.daveramsey.com
My generation can't (read: doesn't) control themselves. We've been taught that "buy now, pay later" is good for us and all that matters is how much per month we can come up with. We've also been told that our credit scores are our most important asset. No one I know actually owns anything. Everything is lent to us from Citimortgage, Visa, MC, Discover or the latest crazy banker that came up with a way for you to have more on a lower monthly payment plan. This includes the ever so brilliant 'GAS CARD'! As if prices weren't high enough , people actually agree to put in on a charge card???
April 24, 2006 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
You are right U-Kept. That crack was snide and snarky. And I sincerely apologize. Guess I've been watching too much ESN lately.... And you are spot on about the guns allowing access to all other things...if necessary.
I guess I worry a little too much (and have for all my life) over what is going to happen when "the piper must be paid". Having read far too much science fiction, the future isn't some distant planet to me.
Alm, I haven't checked out Dave R. but will do so. I am badly frustrated with a lot of spending (mine included) on non-necessities. While I do think it's becoming more prevalent (i.e. each generation becomes less careful about not going into debt), I still see older folks (my age or older) who think they must have certain things in order to live (or be happy). Since when did eating out weekly, having the latest gadget, getting the newest fashions or jewelry or toys, etc. become a necessity? The entire country has a deep seated sense of entitlement. We're all spoiled, and badly. If we do have cut back, we holler and pout just like 2 year olds who just had the candy bar taken from our grasp. My parents taught me that saving was a necessity and the only way to pay for things was in cash (figuratively or literally).
Rainy days always come. Planning ahead for them is not only smart, it's a necessity for survival.
April 24, 2006 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
ESPN not ESN
April 24, 2006 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
"the size of the Amercian trade deficit could make a strong argument for a Euro based world economy..."
Precisely. Our government's abuse of its world currency status has caused the Europeans to create their own reserve currency, one which has just as much claim to reserve status as the dollar. It is both an effect of the dollar decline and a cause.
G-7 came out this weekend and said that Asian currencies must appreciate (i.e. the dollar is going down more) and Wunderkind Bernanke wrote to Congress last week that "If the dollar declined sharply, it would not necessarily disrupt markets." Probably, but not necessarily. That's the financial equivalent of yelling 'fore' when you whack a golf ball at someone. I see the banker boys have their plaid pants on...
April 24, 2006 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cfdxprt (anonymous) says...
"a) provide more supply (I'll let cfdxprt pontificate on those prospects; he's the expert);"
You give me too much credit, I just know some people in the industry.
Increasing the supply, at least in the short-term, is a non-starter. We're not limited by the amount of crude oil we can get into the country, we're limited by the amount of that oil that we can refine into useful products, and we will be for the foreseeable future.
At maximum the industry will run at 92-94% of maximum capacity, mainly because plants do trip and they do have to be shut-down and maintained. Currently we're running at about 85% of refining capacity for a few reasons. First, there are still refineries that haven't come back after the hurricanes. For at least one of them, the prospects for making it back online this year look dim. Second, we reached a point where refineries had to be taken off-line for maintenance for 2 reasons: due to clean air standards the refineries are having to switch over to summer gas which means they have to add more oxygen to it (not worth a darn on pollutants from a fuel injected car with a working oxygen sensor, but it's the law). Also, the decision was made to not take refineries offline for non-critical repairs after the hurricanes, and I'm not pointing fingers on who made the decision or what influence was wielded, but things were done to keep gas artifically low for a while. The non-critical maintenance has now become critical, so they have to take the refineries offline or risk breaking them (read blowing something up and taking a long time to fix).
Why don't we just build more refineries? It's not that the oil companies aren't willing to put up the money, they're currently building 6-8 large refineries in other parts of the world. The primary reason is that it is almost impossible to get a refinery built and permitted for operation in this country anymore due to environmental regulations. The industry standard for a very long time (adjusted for inflation) is that the refiner gets about 5c for every gallon of gas they produce, so they are keen on producing as much gas as possible, if they could.
So other than maybe getting another 7% capacity back online, we're strapped. The only solution at that point becomes either increase the price and burn all we can or decrease the demand. Now I fit into the bike guy's comments when I chuckle at people putting $100 worth of gas into their Navigators, and a car would have been nice today since I'm still drying out from my morning commute, so every solution has its comprimises. Just don't expect a quick fix coming from the oil industry.
April 24, 2006 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Todd (anonymous) says...
I think assets prices are high for a reason. More assets consumed per person. Families have more than one car, tv, phone, houses, etc... Even with micro lawns each house has their own lawn mower, weed eater, etc... People won't walk anywhere.
It takes one trip to the landfill to realise our lifestyle isn't sustainable.
April 24, 2006 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
edie_ (anonymous) says...
I'm not a believer that the Exxon boycott will work, but not for the reasons sited here. El Borak chose to omit essential details of the boycott strategy.
The idea behind the boycott is that if consumers stop buying gas from Exxon, it will be forced to lower prices in order to win back buyers, right?
El Borak: "Yeah, that's a beauty. Why would Exxon's competitors lower prices when they have more customers than before at the current price?"
Because if you're aware of the entire boycott strategy you would realize that the plan doesn't ask buyers to *permanently* boycott Exxon. At the point that Exxon reduces their prices to survive and win back customers, the boycotters will go BACK to buying Exxon gas and Exxon gas ONLY so that the other suppliers will HAVE to reduce prices to compete. That's where the price war comes in.
I wish I could believe that the boycott would work but I don't. Not because the "only way" is to "increase the gasoline supply," etc. It won't work because Exxon is a huge GIANT that wouldn't feel a pinprick from a boycott. That and massive large scale consumer action is the forgotten bastard stepchild of the U.S. consciousness now that people depend on laws to solve all their problems for them.
April 24, 2006 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
"At the point that Exxon reduces their prices to survive and win back customers, the boycotters will go BACK to buying Exxon gas and Exxon gas ONLY so that the other suppliers will HAVE to reduce prices to compete."
Why wouldn't Exxon just raise their prices back up once customers start coming back?
Remember, all the time that Exxon has lost customers, the others have gained exactly that many customers. If those customers go back to Exxon, then the other stations are in precisely the same position they were in before the boycott. Since there is no more or less aggregate supply and no more or less aggregate demand, nothing changes. If the current number of customers is not sufficient to move prices down now, there's simply no reason to believe that the same number of customers will force the price down in the future.
Reduced demand equals reduced price, but a shell game (no pun intended) where customers buy the same gas under a different label will not change anything. The only way to force prices down is to boycott and NOT go somewhere else.
April 24, 2006 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
clayhill70 (anonymous) says...
In 1965 there were six refineries in south central kansas and gas was averaging .17 a gallon. I currently work in the only one left running. EPA regulations have worked out quite well for the major operators. Captive markets, less competition, underfunded regulators, and oil men making energy policy, it dosen't get much worse than that folks. Well until crude reserves peak. And I'll bet those new refineries ship finished product to Indo/Sino markets.
Buckle up America it's going to be a bumpy ride.
April 25, 2006 at 12:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
"EPA regulations have worked out quite well for the major operators."
Government regulation *always* works best for big business. Lots of people think that big business is free-market capitalist. It's not. Big business loves regulation precisely because it raises costs.
That sounds nutty, but there's a perverse logic to it.
The first reason is that because costs rise for everyone, marginal suppliers (think small companies) are killed off resulting in reduced competition which results in more individual company control over markets - oligopoly pricing. The few companies that can afford the big costs want prices high and that's what they get because they now own the market..
The second reason is that government control of the market helps big players because they can afford to buy politicians while little companies can't. That results in policies that favor big companies and which kills off more competition, which results again in higher prices.
The idea that government regulation is creates competition is rubbish. Government regulation results in a marketplace where politically favoured companies get to gouge consumers at their leisure. And big companies couldn't ask more than that for their bottom lines.
"Well (wait?) until crude reserves peak".
Got a feel for when it might be? I don't personally, but I think once it happens, 'bumpy ride' is probably the best we can hope for.
April 25, 2006 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
"Since there is no more or less aggregate supply and no more or less aggregate demand, nothing changes."
One thing I forgot: while the above is true in the long term, in the short term the result is perverse. We both agree that removing X demand from Exxon will cause them to lower prices. But that means that adding the same X demand to other stations must cause (or at least allow) them to raise prices to the same extent.
So all the time we're waiting for Exxon to capitulate, we're paying even higher prices at other stations, while the Chinese can pay Exxon's slightly reduced price for the gas that we apparently don't want..
April 25, 2006 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
edie_ (anonymous) says...
Isn't it time we replaced gasoline altogether as the primary energy source for transportation?
Increasing the supply or building more refineries (or anything for that matter) will not lower prices. Now that the companies have gotten the customers to pay this much, why would they lower the prices when they can keep us paying that much and make more profits?
April 25, 2006 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
Panic time for the GOP:
Wall Street Journal:
"Oil prices hit $75 a barrel last week, while gas has reached a national average of about $2.85 a gallon. The Republican response has been to put on Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi fright wigs and shout about corporate greed and market manipulation."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editori...
CNN:
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has decided to temporarily halt deposits to the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase oil to consumers and to ease pressure on gasoline prices, a senior administration official said Tuesday."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/2...
Now if only you could get your car to run on crude oil, then Bush might be able to help. Until then, it's just as symbolic (read: useless) as everything else the GOP has done. Well, everything that isn't positively harmful, that is...
WSJ says there are "few things less becoming in a political party than desperation." I think there are few things funnier...
April 25, 2006 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
In another life, I was forced to go to utility law classes, for two full weeks up north. They had economic and utility law professors speaking geek to me (and hundreds of others) for 14 straight days. It wasn't the best time in my life, and not a lot of it stuck in my head. However, one of the (few) things I took away from that ordeal were ideas about regulated monopolies (like most utility services). Some of the professors there taught that anything the government regulated had to stay regulated in order for that service/industry to keep operating efficiently. That idea was demostrated by using the deregulation of the airline industry as an example of how a highly regulated service went to hell in a hand-basket after the government got out the business of trying to control the market. The next de-regulated industry being discussed, at the time, were phone services. Going back to the days when the government went from an entity that mainly provided roads, schools, and protection from criminals, fires, and foreign powers, and changed into a source of parental controls over the free market and evil money makers, I can understand and appreciate how the greed evidenced in the industrial age led to things like minimum wage and child labor laws. But, like a lot of good ideas, the attempts to engineer societal values did not stop at a minimum. It has grown over time to a situation where a lot of people's first reaction to any perceived imbalance, inequity, or unfairness in life is a resounding cry to "PASS A NEW LAW!!" Well, take it from one who has seen all too many laws muck up a system worse then it was at the start, you cannot sucessfully legislate common sense nor forced charity.
April 25, 2006 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
Gas prices are high for a myriad of reasons - including supply and demand considerations. But also included in the price structure of any commodity is value added versus government tax/services/regulation. Unnecessary middle men are a cost I could live without. Be that as it may, we are apparently coming (finally and almost predictably) to a point where people are asking themselves if gas (for cars) is really a necessity of life and how can life as we know it continue at these prices. If there is any sure way to stop the bleeding (paying too much for something) it is to stop buying it (as much as possible). To that end, I am adding riders to my car pool and not driving unless it's necessary. I'll buy a bike too if I can. But, until/unless we find an alternative source of fuel for cars, or we all get jobs in our back yard, we can't go without gas completely. So I can't completely stop buying gas.
Much as I would like to see gas prices go down, I even more so do not want the government taking over to force the prices down. That will only delay and worsen the eventual problems of supply and demand for a resource which is limited. Instead, I'll suck it up and cut down on my use, and support any brave attempts to find a new and better PRIVATE way of providing mass transit services!
April 25, 2006 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
Bush and PQ: Separated at birth?
"Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures or the use of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research into deepwater drilling," Bush said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/2...
April 25, 2006 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
clayhill70 (anonymous) says...
Bush has stated many times over that our reliance on imported oil constitutes a national security risk. Yet in 2004 U.S. oil producers exported over 268 million barrels of oil to foriegn markets. He has recently been pushing again for drilling in the ANWR knowing full well the multinational producers will more than likely sell the crude to asian markets keeping U.S. gas prices artificially high.
April 25, 2006 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
Bush appears to be putting the onus to investigate high gas prices on state entities - thus enabling him to say he's doing something when he's actually just passing the buck to individual states (whose powers to intervene or regulate will vary with each state, depending upon that state's specific laws). I am NOT in favor of imposing price controls, at the state or federal level. However, if price gouging is going on (and if it is a violation of federal law to do so) one would think federal investigators/regulators should be the ones doing the heavy lifting....
April 26, 2006 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
The states can't even agree on what price gouging is. In Kansas, we have "unconscionable pricing" which is completely in the eye of the prosecutor...er, beholder. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act doesn't give percentages or numbers or anything objective in relation to gasoline prices...so what usually happens is the AG files charges against stations (see 9/11) and they settle and promise never to commit the undefined crime again. Until the public demands that someone do something again...
April 26, 2006 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
Here's something funny:
Attorney General Carla J. Stovall today announced that she has reached an agreement with a Leavenworth company regarding gasoline and diesel fuel sales that occurred in Kansas on September 11, 2001. The Assurance of Voluntary Compliance was agreed to by the Attorney General and the Charles R. Wood Oil Company, Inc., of Leavenworth...
Wood Oil has agreed to pay $16,500 in penalties and fees for 22 retail stations which charged more than $2.49 per gallon of gasoline in the hours after the terrorist attacks...
http://www.accesskansas.org/ksag/Pres...
So is $2.49 price gouging? And where's Carla when you need her?
April 26, 2006 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )