Defining Gasoline Price 'Gouging'

[W*GS]

See Thomas Sowell's column at

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4473

Excellent, as usual.

The links to the right are also worth persuing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Defining Gasoline Price 'Gouging'

Gasoline customers check prices and leave at a BP station in Stockbridge, Ga., Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005. Gasoline price soared Wednesday toward $3 a gallon in many parts of the country, surpassing that level in some places, such as this station, as key refineries and pipelines remained crippled by Hurricane Katrina, crimping supplies and leading to caps on the amount of fuel delivered to retailers.

http://tinyurl.com/7r7qu

[DBruleU]

Sowell is a genius. I love that guy. A regular Uncle Tom that the entire left can hate for his dead on accuracy of the facts.

I have found over the past couple years of my college education, more and more of my professors are using his books for class assigned reading.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

[...]

Seems BB's definition of "gouging" is "more than I want to pay".

BFD.

[bendog]

Man if you guys get excited about that, bushii must really be in trouble. lol

Seriously, I thought the definition of price gouging was more applicable to individual markets and individual retailers. If station A knows it can buy gas for 1.00, but because nobody else has supply, it can sell it for 3.00. That's illegal under state laws. If you find that leftist, take your views to the voters, and prepare to lose.

The facts are that the gop blocked mileage increases for the past 12 years, and they howled when they went up in bushi's term. Why we'd even want to refine more petroleum is a mystery. Even Ed Harris the gop strategist says the gop's alliance with the oil consumption crowd (nascar to exxon) is economically a drain and handicaps our national for policy.

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences. But the sum of his op eds are less than the numbers he puts in.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by bendog

Seriously, I thought the definition of price gouging was more applicable to individual markets and individual retailers. If station A knows it can buy gas for 1.00, but because nobody else has supply, it can sell it for 3.00. That's illegal under state laws. If you find that leftist, take your views to the voters, and prepare to lose.

The true loss is trying to use the State to game supply and demand to meet some agenda. It never works.

Originally Posted by bendog

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences. But the sum of his op eds are less than the numbers he puts in.

Nice smear. NOT.

[bendog]

The true loss is trying to use the State to game supply and demand to meet some agenda. It never works.
BS. IF forces outside the market place are jacking up either supply or demand, then regulatory mechanisms should be used. See, enron's gaming of the market in Calif. They used computer software to create the very shortages by gaming Calif's decision making in buying power.

Similarly in Miss post Katrina, some gas stations had supply on hand, and greedy managers tried jacking up the retail cost beyond any correlation to cost. They were prosecuted and fined. Futher, the cops took over the gas stations to allocate supply to emergency responders.

My slam on Sowell was he was correct in saying the gas supply todya is NOT price gouging. The fact that gas is 3bucks a gallon (or close) is not a result of gaming the market. But then he does a coulter bait and switch and responds that had the "bad libs" let more refineries be built, gas would be cheap. Bull****. Oil's still over 70bucks a gallon. Gas ain't never gonna be cheap again UNLESS we cut consumption (no new refineries thanks very much) or increse oil extraction.

Moreover, wiht his little deflection he manages to avoid the truth that oil refineries are getting 3x the profit despite not increasing production or decreasing their cost, so by the very definition of a market based pricing, one can see there is no free market involved with the profit margin of the refiners. That's the issue. It's not so much price gouging, as the refiners simply upping the cost they pass on per each gal of gas refined. So the question is whether congress shoudl do something about it.

I assume you and perhaps 2% of the electorate like being raped.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by bendog

BS. IF forces outside the market place are jacking up either supply or demand, then regulatory mechanisms should be used.

"Forces outside the market place" == State interference.

Originally Posted by bendog

Moreover, wiht his little deflection he manages to avoid the truth that oil refineries are getting 3x the profit despite not increasing production or decreasing their cost, so by the very definition of a market based pricing, one can see there is no free market involved with the profit margin of the refiners. That's the issue. It's not so much price gouging, as the refiners simply upping the cost they pass on per each gal of gas refined. So the question is whether congress shoudl do something about it.

I assume you and perhaps 2% of the electorate like being raped.

Up until the last sentence, you were OK. Then you had to toss in that crap.

Almost anything that Congress tries to do with just muck up a mucked-up situation even more. Period. Those who think that a mess can be fixed by adding more mess are truly whacked.

[bendog]

Yes, state interferece is forces outside the market, and they should only be used when the market has already been gamed somehow so it no longer works as a free market. The fact that you, and prooly 2% of voters, don't EVER want state interference is, imo, irrelevant to rationality.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by bendog

Yes, state interferece is forces outside the market, and they should only be used when the market has already been gamed somehow so it no longer works as a free market.

What is "gamed somehow" besides state interference?

Originally Posted by bendog

The fact that you, and prooly 2% of voters, don't EVER want state interference is, imo, irrelevant to rationality.

Likewise, if 98% of voters want Congress to "do something" is also irrelevant to rationality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bendog

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You got something against non-liberal African-Americans?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Defining price gouging...

We are approaching the third anniversary of the Toxic Texan's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech. It's worth remembering that the Bush administration told us that the Iraq war would increase global oil supplies, lower prices and help pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

None of this has happened.

Instead, oil prices are now more than $70 a barrel despite U.S. oil inventories being at their highest levels in eight years.

Instead, oil company profits are at record levels and most of that money is going to the CEOs rather than increasing refining and distribution capacity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush, Lay, Texas tea

It was an unfortunate accident of timing, hatched in the Texas oil patch.

But the juxtaposition yesterday was too striking to ignore.

Here was the former Enron chief, the pasty-faced Ken Lay, pleading for his freedom on a Houston witness stand. And there was former Midland oil man George W. Bush, who never once struck anything but a big dry hole, trying to convince Americans that he too is outraged by $3-a-gallon gasoline.

It wasn't proving an easy sell for either man.

"Americans understand, by and large, that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they do not want and will not accept is manipulation of the market, and neither will I," Bush said.

Now, this tough talk might have been convincing if the man hadn't just presided over five-plus years of a presidency where he gave the oil people everything they desired.

Who could possibly believe the tough talk now?

The polls say hardly anyone.

For his part, Lay was trying desperately to wiggle out of one of the largest financial frauds in American corporate history, a complex web of oil-finance manipulations. Of course, stand-up guy that he is, Lay didn't blame himself for any of this, even though he was chairman of Enron. He blamed his former chief money manager, Andrew Fastow, and a "witch hunt" by The Wall Street Journal.

This was telling. The minute they start blaming the reporters and the underlings, you know they have no real case left.

"We thought The Wall Street Journal was on a witch hunt against Andy Fastow and maybe Enron," Lay whined. "At that time we still didn't have any knowledge Andy Fastow had done anything inappropriate."

All the Enron boys did together was wipe out the investments of tens of thousands of stockholders and the retirement savings of tens of thousands of their own employees.

Thanks, Ken.

Or I guess I should say, "Thanks, Kenny Boy."

That's the nickname Bush gave his "good friend" and generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay.

"Kenny Boy."

That truly is all you need to know about the coziness of the relationship between the Bush administration and oil-and-gas executives who are making such high-flying profits while Americans are trying to figure out who they're going to pay for tomorrow morning's commute.

For more than five years, these Bushies never met an oil guy they didn't like. Wildcatters in Texas. Arctic punchers in Alaska. Oil-futures sharpies like Lay, Jeff Skilling and the rest of the Enron crowd.

Bush trusted these people so thoroughly, he let them draft the administration's energy policy behind closed White House doors. Heck, Bush even hired Dick Cheney to be vice president straight out of Halliburton, the giant energy-services firm.

You don't need to be a conspiracy buff to ask, "Who's representing the drivers of America in there?"

And now, with gasoline shooting past $3 a gallon, look at what all this coziness has done to the president and to the people he is sworn to serve.

They've sunk the president's approval rating into the lower 30s.

They've left an auto-dependent nation steaming mad. And the heavy summer-driving season hasn't even begun.

Yesterday, speaking to an audience of alternative-energy people in Washington, Bush was suddenly sounding mad.

He'll get the gougers, he swore. He'll choke the strategic petroleum reserve. He'll fund alternative energy.

Bush had to acknowledge that none of this will make much immediate difference.

But "every little bit helps," he added, which was about all he could say.

In the old days, we would have had a big debate: Who led us here - Big Oil or Big Government?

But now that the two are nearly indistinguishable, that question is almost moot.

Just ask W.

Or Kenny Boy.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...4881917.column

[Rohirrim]

That's funny. On the way home today I was listening to NPR and one of the things mentioned was that there were some post-Katrina refineries that were ready to go, but the refinery companies figured that if they didn't bring them online, the profits would be better, so they just say they're not ready yet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That's funny. On the way home today I was listening to NPR and one of the things mentioned was that there were some post-Katrina refineries that were ready to go, but the refinery companies figured that if they didn't bring them online, the profits would be better, so they just say they're not ready yet.

Wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened, would it?

But never fear - Oil Boy has promised to find the leakers (I mean gougers.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Those who think that a mess can be fixed by adding more mess are truly whacked.

Those who think a mess can be fixed by doing nothing are part of the worst administration in modern history (my definition of the "truly whacked").

[Spider]

the artical , is full of shít ...... no other way to put it ............ Outside forces ? Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted .............. the merger , controling supply and demand .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted ...............

It's obvious that W*GS would like to do for the CEO of Exxon what Monica did for Bill.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Key Lawmakers Demand Oil Co. Tax Records
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans advocate sending $100 rebate checks to millions of taxpayers, and a Democrat is leading the campaign for a 60-day gasoline tax holiday.

Either way, it seems no one in Congress wants to be without a plan, however symbolic, to attack the election-year spike in gasoline prices.

A vote is possible as early as this week on the Senate GOP approach, which calls for $100 rebate checks for taxpayers to cushion the impact of higher gasoline prices. The measure seems unlikely to prevail, at least initially, since it includes a highly controversial proposal to open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Senate Republicans also favor extending a tax break that manufacturers receive for each hybrid vehicle they make, and want
President Bush to suspend deliveries to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve for six months.

Democrats seemed caught off guard by the GOP maneuvering, but a spokesman said they would have a plan of their own.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has proposed a 60-day suspension in the federal tax on gasoline and diesel, a holiday that he says would cut the cost of gasoline by more than 18 cents a gallon and reduce the price of diesel fuel by more than 24 cents a gallon.

The
Senate Finance Committee provided additional evidence of the lawmakers' scramble to respond. In a rare move, the panel requested tax returns from the country's major oil and gas companies as part of an investigation into industry profits and soaring gasoline costs.

Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said senators were concerned about the "record profits and significant executive compensation in the oil and gas industry."

"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," Grassley said in a statement.

With gasoline prices soaring and oil companies announcing record profits, "it's relevant to know what the real financial picture is for this industry," added Montana Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record), the panel's ranking Democrat.

It's highly unusual for the Senate committee to seek corporate tax records. The last time it made such a request to the IRS it involved the tax records of the bankrupt Enron Corp.

The committee announcement came as Washington scrambled to respond to public anger over soaring gasoline prices — $3 a gallon or more in many parts of the country — and try to contain the political fallout.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/jvolj

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Those who think a mess can be fixed by doing nothing are part of the worst administration in modern history (my definition of the "truly whacked").

What's your proposal, BB? Nixonian price controls and rationing? Why do you think those things would work better now when they failed so miserably then?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

the artical , is full of shít ...... no other way to put it ............ Outside forces ? Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted .............. the merger , controling supply and demand .......

As succinct and content-free as usual, Spider.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

It's obvious that W*GS would like to do for the CEO of Exxon what Monica did for Bill.

There you go bringing in Clinton's sexual activities, again.

For every protestation over the years you've made about other posters bringing up that aspect of Clinton, you've mentioned it many many times more.

What is your obsession, anyway?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What's your proposal, BB? Nixonian price controls and rationing? Why do you think those things would work better now when they failed so miserably then?

I've stated what I'd do, many times. Instead of greasing the oil and gas industry I'd use all those incentives and subsidies and much more to immediately invest in alternate and renewable energy and research technologies. Awarding companies and consumers who move in this direction.

[bendog]

I would guess that the "excess" profits (bad term I know) could be "adjusted" just by ending tax credits the gop extended just last year. However, I am still not at all convinced or trusting that the gas and natl gas and nuke and coal industries have any interest in low cost renewable RandD.