The head of the Federal Trade Commission predicted Thursday that Congress would pass a gasoline price-gouging law despite her warnings that the country doesn't need one and it might cause fuel shortages.

I think this is likely with the new political climate, but this is very short-sighted. What they don't seem to realize is that if prices are frozen during a Katrina-like crisis, then rationing is the only other option. I think most people would prefer to pay more for their gas (rationing by price) than for everyone to be told they are only getting 75% of the gas they would like.

In fact, the same story warns of this:

Testifying in May before the Senate Commerce Committee, Majoras said retailers might let the gas run out rather than raise prices and risk facing prosecution. She noted the price spikes after Hurricane Katrina last year resulted in more fuel getting to market.

Gouge away!!  Gouging is the environment's friend.
Depends what kind of crisis, though. If one looks to be prolonged, as in a major war, people will overwhelmingly prefer rationing.
I would prefer rationing.  Especially if I could sell my unused ration coupons.  :)
Yes, "cap and trade"!
Several years ago the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island implemented a similar scheme to set fixed gas prices for specific periods in an attempt to prevent price "gouging."

The outcome was as described in the RR blockquote. Gas prices did not rise; there was also no gas available anywhere on the island and no plans to import any.

The legislation was repealed.

Cheers!

And I'm sure that if constraints on gasoline price incresases should become law, Big Oil wouldn't mind seeing some serious shortages sort of 'just happen', so as to teach the consumer a good lesson: the lesson being that the Little People shouldn't interfere with Big Oil doing its thing.

In all fairness to Big Oil, though, the Democrats are obviously pandering to the high level of antipathy among the general public toward Big Oil and will milk this issue for all it's worth.  

 There appears to be no sane middle ground: the Republicans are in bed with Big Oil; the Democrats want to paint Big Oil as the Prince of Darkness.

The question that remains to be answered is this: In the long run, will Big Oil be part of the solution or part of the problem? For me, the answer is by no means obvious.

 If Big oil continues to insist that we really don't have an imminent and serious supply problem and that global warming is just a lot of nonsense stirred up by a bunch of granola-crunching nervous-nellies, then they will be part of the problem. But if they start investing their enormous capital in alternative energy (excluding ethanol), then they could be part of the solution.  However, my gut feel tells me that pressure from Wall Street will force them to continue the status quo as long as they possibly can.

The only thing I can be certain of is that it is a very fluid situation.

joule,

Another use of Big Oil's enormous capital would be to return it to the shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. This is in fact what ExxonMobil and perhaps others have been doing with part of their recent windfalls. It is not the worst thing to have happen (it's better than investing in corn ethanol, for example). The returned capital will be reinvested to its best use in the judgment of its owners, and some of it will presumably make its way to alternative energy firms. Nothing wrong with that.

ExxonMobil, by the way, has come in for a lot of criticism for doing this. If I recall correctly, they were admonished at their last congressional grilling to invest their windfall profits in new projects to help increase the fuel supply. Analysts and pundits are also noting that they are returning the money to shareholders because they can't find enough worthwhile projects to fund (e.g. High Profits, Sluggish Investments, by Floyd Norris, New York Times, Feb. 3, 2006).