Gas Price Gougers #&@%!

[jinman]

Finally I have power and am back and OK with only minor damages.

Welcome back Dudley. Glad all is becoming normal for you. . . Yikes! Ike! ...well, maybe not normal yet. It's gotta be tough to be livin' in the crosshairs. Maybe Ike will change, but it doesn't look too good right now.

 

[EddieWalker]

Dudley,

Glad to hear your back and nothing serious happened. We were a little worried ourselves with all the predictions of massive rain, but in the end, we had less then an inch after two days of drizzle.

Eddie

 

[LBrown59]

There is nobody holding a gun to your head to make you purchase from any business.

***************
I represent this comment every time I see it.
I view such comments as a cop out & making excuse for those businesses taking unfair advantage of consumers.
**************

 

[tallyho8]

Why don't you just walk (instead of drive - that would use gas) past the businesses that you think are walking over you. There is nobody holding a gun to your head to make you purchase from any business.

It is a little difficult when your town only has one gas station like ours does. It used to have 2 stations but they were bought out (by shrewd mid-easterners) and they closed the second one so they would not have competition. Now there is no more land in town zoned for another gas station. This used to be called a monopoly.

 

[MikePA]

***************
I represent this comment every time I see it.
**************

Pretty funny.

***************
I view such comments as a cop out & making excuse for those businesses taking unfair advantage of consumers.
**************

Then YOU come up with a solution instead of simply complaining about it.

 

[MikePA]

Now there is no more land in town zoned for another gas station.

There's your problem. If enough people voice their concerns about this to the town leaders, they will change the zoning to allow another gas station.

 

[tallyho8]

There's your problem. If enough people voice their concerns about this to the town leaders, they will change the zoning to allow another gas station.

It's amazing how you have all the correct answers for all our problems. Maybe we should call this forum "Dear Mike"?

 

[MikePA]

It's amazing how you have all the correct answers for all our problems.

Not all problems, just the obvious ones. Of course, I didn't see where you posted a solution. Do you have one?

 

[tallyho8]

Not all problems, just the obvious ones. Of course, I didn't see where you posted a solution. Do you have one?

Yes, the first thing I would do is end futures trading on oil which I believe is under consideration. This will end a lot of volatility in the market and let producers sell to refineries which sell to distributors which sell to retailers and leave out the speculators which add no benefit to this product and just drive up the price.

And yes, I believe we should produce oil in other parts of America than just mostly in the gulf south. In Louisiana our offshore wells have never created huge environmental losses as was feared and have created great offshore fishing areas. And this in an area where the rigs are constantly bombarded by hurricanes. Other coastal states could profit from drilling with strict regulations to protect their ecology and help us end our reliance on foreign oil.

I think we should use our corn to make fritos, not gas and quit using our tax dollars to subsidize this uneconomical venture which merely drives up food prices.

If we're going to use subsidies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, then lets subsidize fuel efficient American made autos to the American public and let them save gas while increasing our gross domestic product.

Let's build some more nuclear reactors and free up the oil used to produce electricity to use in our autos.

The next problem is more political in nature and I can not fully explain it as I would like but I will give a short explanation. In the 1950s, most of our citizens lived in urban areas within a mile or 2 of where they worked and could walk, take a bus or make a short drive to work. The social policies of the 60s drove many workers far out into the suburbs where they were faced with long commutes to work requiring huge amounts of oil to be diverted to this purpose. If we could return our workers to homes closer to their workplaces it would save millions of barrels of oil daily. The way to make cities more desirable to our populance is too political for me to get into on this forum.

And in your 11 posts in this thread, besides criticising other posters, the only solution you had was for us to try to get more land zoned commercial in our town so that there will be a future possibility of another gas station opening up here. Now that's a real solution to our problems!

Now, I'm sure, I can sit back and wait for you to tell me why none of these solutions will work...........

 

[MossRoad]

If your community would stop buying gas from the one station in town, he would lower his price or go out of business. But as a community, they won't stop buying gas there, so he has a market, so he will keep selling it for as much as he can. They can stop buying from him, but it is too inconvenient for them to do so. They don't want the hardship of having to go elsewhere for the service he provides or the hardship of doing without. They can, but they choose not to.

 

[MikePA]

Yes...
And in your 11 posts...
Now, I'm sure, I can sit back and wait for you to tell me why none of these solutions will work...........

Dudley, focus, focus. No where in your post, which was a mixture of capitalism and Communism (force people to live closer to their job), was a solution to the most recent problem you complained about, i.e., your local gasoline retailer problem.

BTW, in my posts I simply call whiners out to also come up with solutions and not just complain in all their posts. I call out people who engage in hyperbole and I challenge people to explain the meaning of what they have posted. Apparently, that's criticizing to you.

 

[dmccarty]

There was an article in the WSJ last Thursday that one of the Fed agencies is investigating manipulation of the markets by lying about inventory. The agency was some acronym I had never heard before but it was filing civil actions in court not criminal. The wording in the story was confusing but it looks like Marathon settled the case brought against it. Marathon was the only case that had gone to court. The story as usual for the press was p.... pour in that it did not cover exactly what the case was about and why it was settled. Marathon could have settled since it was cheaper then going to court.

One of the ideas they are investigating is pretty far fetched. The idea is that some oil companies leased tankers to hold oil off shore and those not officially in inventory. This would drive up prices. The problem with this idea is that tankers aint cheap to lease and they don't hold much oil in comparison to the market. But are tax dollars are looking into the allegation.

If the Feds can prove that there was lying going on about inventory that is a big deal. Should be criminal and not civil though.

One station near me has been at 4.39 for diesel for weeks where as most other places are 4.09. 30 cent difference is pretty high. The station sits a good 10 miles from any other store so he has no competition. Has he been gouging all of this time? Is he just getting what the market will bear? Or did he buy the fuel when it was expensive and he has to sell it high or he would loose money? The station was 4.39 late last night. 4.19 early this morning.

Later,
Dan

 

[Bird]

The station sits a good 10 miles from any other store so he has no competition. Has he been gouging all of this time? Is he just getting what the market will bear? Or did he buy the fuel when it was expensive and he has to sell it high or he would loose money?

Or is he in a location in which his supplier charges him more to deliver out there? Or does his supplier charge more for low volume sales than high volume sales (as is the case with most products) and he has to pay more? I sure don't know. Maybe he's "gouging", but I'd have to have more information before I accused someone of something.

 

[tallyho8]

Dudley, focus, focus. No where in your post, which was a mixture of capitalism and Communism (force people to live closer to their job)

Mike, Please do not make up things that I did not say. "The way to make cities more desirable to our populance" so they will want to return is much different than inferrring that I wish to force people to live somewhere they don't want to live, and nowhere does it reek of communism.

 

[dmccarty]

Or is he in a location in which his supplier charges him more to deliver out there? Or does his supplier charge more for low volume sales than high volume sales (as is the case with most products) and he has to pay more? I sure don't know. Maybe he's "gouging", but I'd have to have more information before I accused someone of something.

I would be surprised if he pays more for delivery. The station is an Exxon. I buy at an Exxon 10 miles south. There is a Mobil at that intersection as well. The "expensive" station I think is cheaper to get too from the terminal. OTH, the stations to the south seem to get much more traffic. The "expensive" station gets lots of contractors but does not have a lot of pumps like the two stations to the south. The southern stations might pay less since they sell more?

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

Mike, Please do not make up things that I did not say. "The way to make cities more desirable to our populance" so they will want to return is much different than inferrring that I wish to force people to live somewhere they don't want to live, and nowhere does it reek of communism.

But when one makes statements like this it usually means some big government policies to make people stay in the cities. I for one don't want to live in the city. You/They/Them/Whoever can't entice me back.

I think it was in Washington state area that they are proposing a tax to make it more expensive to live in the burbs to try to make it more desirable to move back to the cities. One of the major reasons that people moved out of the cities was because they wanted more space and cheaper space compared to what they could get in the city. Government can't change those kinds of market requirements unless they take money from one group to give to another.

The cities near me are doing well enough luring people back to down town. Those who want to live there are free to do so. Those like me who choose not to live in the city should not be taxed, like the proposal out west, for social engineering projects.

Later,
Dan

 

[tallyho8]

But when one makes statements like this it usually means some big government policies to make people stay in the cities. I for one don't want to live in the city. You/They/Them/Whoever can't entice me back.

I think it was in Washington state area that they are proposing a tax to make it more expensive to live in the burbs to try to make it more desirable to move back to the cities. One of the major reasons that people moved out of the cities was because they wanted more space and cheaper space compared to what they could get in the city. Government can't change those kinds of market requirements unless they take money from one group to give to another.

The cities near me are doing well enough luring people back to down town. Those who want to live there are free to do so. Those like me who choose not to live in the city should not be taxed, like the proposal out west, for social engineering projects.

Later,
Dan

Dan, I believe I agree with just about everything that you wrote except that taxing the burbs does not make it more desirable to move back to the cities, it just makes it less desirable to live in the burbs.

 

[MikePA]

Mike, Please do not make up things that I did not say. "The way to make cities more desirable to our populance" so they will want to return is much different than inferrring that I wish to force people to live somewhere they don't want to live, and nowhere does it reek of communism.

What I wrote was nothing more than the logical conclusion of what you wrote.

"If we could return our workers to homes closer to their workplaces it would save millions of barrels of oil daily. The way to make cities more desirable to our populance is too political for me to get into on this forum."

• Who is the 'we' who would return our 'workers to homes closer to their workplaces'?
• Who would 'make cities more desirable'?
• Who would define 'more desirable'?
• Who would fund this effort?

Answer: the gummint.

As Dan posted, this is nothing but government sponsored, taxpayer supported social engineering where a socialist bureaucrat has determined the greater good is better served by people moving back to the cities. Whether it's done by taxing people who want to live in the burbs or giving tax credits to people who move into the cities is irrelevant. It's the gummint doing it.

 

[LBrown59]

But when one makes statements like this it usually means some big government policies to make people stay in the cities. I for one don't want to live in the city. You/They/Them/Whoever can't entice me back.

I think it was in Washington state area that they are proposing a tax to make it more expensive to live in the burbs to try to make it more desirable to move back to the cities. One of the major reasons that people moved out of the cities was because they wanted more space and cheaper space compared to what they could get in the city. Government can't change those kinds of market requirements unless they take money from one group to give to another.

The cities near me are doing well enough luring people back to down town. Those who want to live there are free to do so. Those like me who choose not to live in the city should not be taxed, like the proposal out west, for social engineering projects.

Later,
Dan

Some good points made here.

 

[firefighter9208]

One station close to my home here in Alabama raised it's price from $3.65 a gallon to $5.65 a gallon for 87 octane. That's gouging no matter how you look at it. The cheapest I've seen 87 octane here is $4.19 a gallon (post Ike). That's up from the $3.50 range (pre Ike). Also looks like gouging to me.

Chris