Gas Price Gougers #&@%!

[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