<Introducing TOD Local The Oil Drum Oh(phelia), please not again...>

50 comments on The Senate on price gouging

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Glenn on September 7, 2005 - 10:36am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
We live in a free market. Retail gasoline is one of the most competitive markets, with much greater transparency than many other businesses. Just go to the AAA website

Unless there is collusion between all the retailers, I don't see how it is price gouging. If collusion is the cause then I would say we have an anti-trust situation.

Also, no one is putting a gun to your head to buy at any price. If you are not satisfied with $3.50, then forego consumption!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 7, 2005 - 11:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, we don't.  Live in a free market, that is.

I'd challenge you to think about what fraction of the whole oil-transportation equation is actually free, when you consider federal-state-local investment and regulation.  The most recent Highway and Energy bills being obvious cases in point.

Are we really 50% free market?  30%?  Can anyone even know at this point?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on September 7, 2005 - 11:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What I meant was the process of purchasing gas is a relatively free market (within a regulatory framework, of course). By free I mean that I am free to use or not use gas, I'm free to choose whatever station I want, and I have complete transparency in what price I will be expected to pay.

I was not refering to the larger issue of the transportation network and all the various subsidies and incentives in place...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 7, 2005 - 11:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oh, I understand.  And I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm just trying to  remind everyone what "not buying gasoline" means in this day and age.  It means opting out of "the system."  And (as all peak oilers know) the system is based on gasoline.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on September 7, 2005 - 12:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, agreed that few in the country can opt-out of gas consumption directly (except those of us in urban/mass transit areas). Even we have to have most of our food delivered by trucks, so indirectly we all feel the pain. Also, we still have school buses, police/fire emergency vehicles that all need fuel. So I guess unless we go off the grid, we are all in the same system (more or less).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 8, 2005 - 7:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Transport won't make a big difference in the cost of food.

Take lettuce or baked beans as an example.  A semi-load of either might be 60,000 pounds; driven from San Diego CA to Chicago IL (2145 miles) in a semi getting 7 MPG, the load would require 306 gallons of fuel.  Increasing the price of fuel from $2/gallon to $5/gallon costs an additional $918, or an extra 1.53¢/lb.

These fuel costs plummet if the freight can move by rail.  If the railroads aren't looking at ways to run express freights with power for refrigerated containers, they're going to leave a lot of money on the table.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on September 8, 2005 - 8:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The thing is, between increased transportation costs and petroleum fertilizer, not to mention farm vehicles, the cost of food WILL go up. It's not just transport.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

50 comments on The Senate on price gouging

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version