It's more than hysterical calls about price gouging. Gas station owners are being subpoenaed. They have to show their bill of sale proving that they aren't hiking up the price too much over wholesale.

That means they can't charge the customer what it costs to replace their stock...just what it cost them to buy it.

I can't help but find this funny! (In a black sort of way) Who would have ever thought that the U.S. would become communist under a republican president?* Nationalized insurance companies, re-nationalized mortgage companies, nationalized bad loans... and now they're dictating the price for which people can sell goods. I'll know we've truly arrived when the black market shows up. Why if I had libertarian leanings, I would be swearing I'd never vote for another republican again (I don't have libertarian leanings, but I can appreciate the viewpoint).

Incidentally, according to AAA the price in metro Atlanta is $4.01/gal, which is higher than the national average at least. In Nashville, the average price is higher, $4.06/gal.

*On consideration, maybe it's not so surprising. Look at what Schroeder did in Germany: he was a social democrat (on the left) and he destroyed more of the socialism in Germany than the conservatives have.

It's state law, not national law, that the subpoenas are being issued under.

However, these are all "red" states.

IMO, this is another facet of the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" problem. Most of the "red staters" actually hold views that are closer to the Democratic party than the Republican. They side with workers and consumers, not business. They are against taxes, but many are dependent on the government services and benefits that those taxes pay for. They've been peeled off by the GOP using social/religious issues. Which, oddly, doesn't really match well with the libertarian side of the party, which doesn't care who you are sleeping with, as long as they can make money off it.

For awhile, I thought the Democratic party would fade away, with the two wings of the GOP (Christian conservative and libertarian) becoming our two parties.

The problem with your Republican split is that it doesn't leave room for "big gov't social Republicans". The libertarians want small gov't and few rules, and Christian side wants a socially restrained gov't but also a less invasive one. The big-gov't side is in power right now, and that's the part that feels more like traditional democrat to me.

No, the problem with my Republican split is "imperial overreach." They screwed up. Newt got his chance for small government, and it was a disaster. That basically killed the small government faction in the GOP, aside from lip service.

Two political parties really isn't enough to reflect the entire spectrum of US politics, but that's what we're stuck with, because of the structure of our government. It's not changing unless the constitution changes.

I am plecked off about this bailout, but not at all surprised. I think Tainter is right. We can expect ever bigger and more intrusive government as resources get scarcer.

"imperial overreach" is exactly right. Republicans give lip service only to smaller government. Both Reagan and Bush are spend! Spend! Spend! leaders who try to appease the masses with more bread and circuses. I really wish we could give the Libertarian approach a try - but I think it's too late now. Sadly I agree it looks like more intrusive and bigger government.

Does anyone actually think that government will do a better job of running Freddie and Fannie or the rest of our growing portfolio of zombie companies?

Better job running Fannie and Freddie than who? The guys who turned those companies into zombies?

I don't think they could of done worse, at least they wouldn't have split the mortgages into tranches and sold them as bonds after bribing an underwriter to rate them all "AAA". Even the crooks in the government aren't that creative, it takes Wall St. to turn high finance into felonies.

Screw the libertarian approach. That's the approach that has been used with the financial market. That's why we are where we are now. Libertarian? C'mon. That means doing away with plant managers, ceos, oversight, auditing, traffic rules. Jeezus, you gotta have rules, and you gotta have enforcement of those rules, which require people to occupy a position of responsibility to ensure proper order in society are upheld. BUT, those folks must be held to account, and that's our problem, WE are not holding these people on wall street to account. Email you congress critters and tell them that you will do everything in your power to vote them out next term. Don't bother with telling them you're pissed. They could care less. At least I have Marcy Kaptur. She's the only one standing up to this FUBAR. Libertarianism is an excuse to screw yer neighbor.

Jeff

Yup - militarism and imperialism is an attempt by those at the top to keep the circus going as long as possible. As the news article up above points out - the US military is seeing its future as a 'resource acquisition and protection' business.

"Two political parties really isn't enough to reflect the entire spectrum of US politics.."

You didn't happen to catch the NPR interview with Amedinejad this morning did you? He was being grilled about restrictiveness in their democratic process, and he replied 'Well we have more freedom than you.. at least we have Eight Candidates to your Two!' At which point the NPR Interviewer sidelined it by saying we'd talk about American politics some other time..

Snap!

Bob

Question, if 7 of the candidates have a Ralph Naderesque chance of winning the presidency vs. the other candidate, does it matter how many candidates you have? Also, Mr. Amedinejad is incorrect in any case. There are atleast 5 candidates for president (Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Barack Obama, and John McCain). Just because nobody pays attention to them doesn't mean they aren't running.

Yes, it matters. The two main parties control the entire discourse, which would be challenged with uncomfortable ideas by the 'upstarts' if inclusive debates were part of the program. Then there would be both exposure for the Ignored candidates, and either turnovers or changes in policy-position by the front runners. As it stands the system is stuck because there is no information flow, no active debate of important issues.. just Blah, Blah.

I don't doubt that Ahmedinejad made or makes some factual errors, but his point was clear enough, especially when it's the pot calling the kettle black, as our particular kettle (USA) paints itself as whiter than white at every opportunity.

Total agreement Bob.

Jeff

Please can somebody tell me why raising the price at the pump is illegal 'gouging', while raising the spot price of West Texas Intermediate isn't? Free markets? I don't think so!

Viewed from outside the USA it isn't clear to me why anybody would want to continue to invest in a country where the rules change adversely for investors without warning or consultation.

Because our elected officials decided to cater to the gibbering idiot community.

Imperial overreach is driven by AIPAC and they own both parties, except the most conservative parts of one party and the most liberal of the other.

That's why Paul and Kucinich get marginalized by the media.

While I would never vote for Kucinich, if he were voted in one would get on with life. It wouldn't be utterly unacceptable like the current character.

Hi Mus,

re: "While I would never vote for Kucinich..."

Could you possibly expand upon this?

i.e., how come?

Just curious.

Because I'm what many would call a paleo conservative, opposite end of the spectrum.

There is always some respect for an opponent that states his position clearly and honestly. Sometimes one can negotiate a deal with them.

Can you name any other candidate that was:

- a strong Constitutionalist

- willing to hold the scumbags in Washington accountable

- wants to end the occupation

- is PO aware

- is AGW aware

- has a true history of standing against the crowd and being right

- speaks openly about what we face

Kucinich not getting elected president now is one of the top five stupidest choices the US electorate has ever made. The other four are anything having to do with BuCheney.

Cheers

"Imperial overreach". What ever happened to the good old days when it was just a "lust for power"? As the late, great George Carlin might note, we moved from four syllables to seven, and have buried the human behavior behind jargon.

But, oh, to be in the halcyon days when we could refer to it in a single syllable, "greed". Simpler, happier times.

Like Sec. of the Treasury Paulson referring to "toxic debt" for bad loans. Semantic gymnastics.

"Lust for power" doesn't quite convey what I mean. Both parties lust for power. That's kind of the point of politics.

The Republicans, however, could probably have a lot more power than they currently have, if they hadn't been so arrogant.

Ridiculous.

Christian side wants a socially restrained gov't but also a less invasive one.

They want government imposition of their 'Biblical' world view on the culture despite the fact that they have generally lost out in the free marketplace of cultural ideas since the 1950s. Jesus now. Jesus Forever. Or else.

See the Handmaid's Tale to get a glimpse of the the world Christian Conservatism would like to build.

I'll take the corporate thieves and militant imperialists any day over the the CCs - at least you can logically predict what they'll be for or against given pure, rational self-interest. Greed is predictable. Self-righteous religious radicalism is terrifying - never know what an irrational fanatic will hate and wish to see dead or destroyed on a given day - God has to inform them daily.

And what the hell is a 'paleocon' anyway? Aren't those the Pat Buchanan types who don't like Jews or Blacks?

I agree with you on everything but the militant imperialists. Every militant imperialist government eventually has waged irrational wars at a cost that ruined it. One more war will do it for us if we're not done already.

The Paleocons are not people I like, but at least they can count. They were among the most sensible critics of NAFTA, Bush's invasion of Iraq, America's insane debt and import binge, and the Christian takeover of the Right. But they demand that the benefits of small government be delivered directly to non-urban whites, perhaps more honestly than libertarians. They are utterly the opposite of most libertarians when it comes to immigration and free trade. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan official, has become a most eloquent spokesman for the Paleos and the Constitution.

If I trusted that after the Collapse we modern types could live safely in the cities and trade manufactures for the crops produced by Paleocon farmers, I might consider that acceptable, but the farmers are likely to be theocons who will never rest until they've destroyed all the gays and minorities and gotten their hands on the remaining nukes. The Handmaiden's Tale shows that even 20 years ago an intelligent person could figure out where this movement was headed.

See, maybe we can live in peace after all. We really don't give a shit about what people want to do in the city, as long as they STFU and get on with the program.

Whose program?

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Greek city-states. They all spoke the same language, and in later times we would say they were all part of the Greek nation. Because cities did serve useful functions even in the Bronze Age, a city could control enough land around it to have a baseline economy. Athens, in particular, could trade for the rest. Sparta, notably, refused to have a city but ended up with a fantastically interventionist culture that defies current ideological labels.

However, in practice these different societies did not get along or trade peacefully. They spent all their time trying to invade each other, overthrow their governments, and even collude with non-Greeks to harm Greeks. They also were colonizers, which ultimately means they had a growth economy that would run into limits of some form. Ultimately they were all overrun by their backwoodsy Macedonian cousins who just happened to have the most militarily talented dynasty of all time. Yet the Macedonians aspired to sophistication; Phillip hired Aristotle to tutor Alexander. Clearly whether one was rural or urban, expansionist ideology was always a seduction. Or to put it in Greek terms, theos and neos always defeat paleos.

Which means whether we consider slavery or homosexuality sickening, it's only a matter of time before a demagogue will convince enough of us to go on an armed crusade against its stronghold.

When I find a solution you all will be the first to know. I'm trying to contact Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Hi Prodigal,

re: "Christian side wants a socially restrained gov't but also a less invasive one."

"Ridiculous."

Based on my personal sample of two CC friends, I offer this quote:

"I'm against abortion and gay marriage, so I vote Republican."

Which revealed the extent of her interest in the issues (i.e., all the issues, including these two). Among other things.

"I'm against abortion and gay marriage, so I vote Republican."

I'd say your friends have correctly identified two major differences in the parties, a third one being Republicans generally favor the death penalty, while Dems oppose.
Care to name some others?
Two sides of the same coin.

As far as a socially restrained government goes, don't forget that Roe vs. Wade was a decision handed down by a small group of men.
American citizens never were able to exercise their right to vote on this most significant issue.

They want government imposition of their 'Biblical' world view on the culture....See the Handmaid's Tale to get a glimpse of the the world Christian Conservatism would like to build.

So what do you base this observation on?
The movie or the book?
In case you hadn't noticed they're FICTION!

Self-righteous religious radicalism is terrifying - never know what an irrational fanatic will hate and wish to see dead or destroyed on a given day

Perhaps you are confusing fiction with reality again as I challenge you to provide some evidence of these outlandish claims. At least as it pertains to your prejudiced view of Christianity.

Honestly Leanan, how can you allow such tripe to remain posted?

In case you hadn't noticed they're FICTION!

You say this as if there is something inherently wrong with fiction. In case you hadn't noticed, most of our great literature is fiction.

I said that there is something wrong with ascribing the motives and actions of recognized, responsible group of society to something one saw in a movie or read in a novel.
If Prodigal had made his accusations based on verifiable events, a stated policy or in this case, biblical passages, we would not be having this discussion.

That's right. I was watching a documentary on Andrew Jackson a few nights ago, he and his colleagues created the modern democratic party as "the common people's party" and was opposed to the bank of the united states crowd. It strangely mirrors what's happening now, except instead of the bank of the united states, we've got the financial industry and "the economy" that dictates policy. The republicans have somehow managed to convince a lot of people that they can be the common people's party at the same time they stand up for the mercantilists or corporatists (similar interests to those of the bank of the united states).

It does look like the GOP is having some trouble, from what I could see yesterday Bush and Boehner looked like they weren't able to keep the libertarians in line. Maybe this will be the wedge issue that drives them apart? Doubtful, but the disagreements are in plain view now whereas in the past objections (if there were any, I don't know) were made behind closed doors and the image of a united GOP was presented.

The theme of modern conservatism is "knowing your place". Which is why modern conservatism comes from the South.

It means on bull**** issues you stand up for the prejudices of the little guy, who in turn accepts that your plantation owners have been endowed by God with the sole power to make wise decisions on issues that really affect physical reality.

Put into practical terms, I will never forget what William Tecumseh Sherman told his superiors about how the military occupation of the South should proceed, from his experiences in the South. He said that they should confront the plantation owners with straightforward dictatorship, for the owners would learn to work with it, but that they should rule the common Southerners in the manner of the French bureaucracy, by pretending to consult their prejudices and then doing whatever they pleased. As for the South's violent young men, "we must either kill them or employ them."

I think much of the history of the United States, not just the South, is contained in Sherman's cynical advice.

Fascinating. Sherman the best military mind of the entire Civil War. The first post-Roman Roman.

He was certainly not blinded by a love of democracy or equality. Luckily he recognized that someone with his views needed to stay out of American politics; he stated "if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve."

Ulysses Grant was his best friend in the Army. Years later Mark Twain was Grant's editor. I would certainly have loved to hear a conversation that included Twain and Sherman, because I am perverse and cynical but those two would have blown my mind.

Which, oddly, doesn't really match well with the libertarian side of the party, which doesn't care who you are sleeping with, as long as they can make money off it.

Thanks Leanan! That got a big laugh out of me.

Asheville, NC

I'd say about 90% of gas stations in Asheville are out of gas and those that have gas have extremely long lines with the Police directing traffic (and preventing violence). Price is around $4/gal. Many reports of surrounding areas in the same condition with most stations out of gas. Only a few reports of fights so far, but expect there will be more in the future. There's a higher percentage of independent stations in this area, so it's more screwed than others. Stations are so afraid of getting turned in for "price gouging" (several stations were already turned in back when hurricane Ike first hit) that they're simply not charging enough to keep supplied and they're shutting down. IF you can get gas it's being rationed by the stations to $20 or $50 depending on the station - which is 5 to 7 gallons.

Some observations and lessons learned from the present mini-crisis:

1) The government at all levels has been largely silent, except to urge people not to panic buy. There has been NO information given to the public wrt the true supply situation and what might be available where and when. Best to count on this being SOP in the future, and plan accordingly.

2) There has been no official rationing scheme implemented. Some gas stations have implemented their own ad hoc rationing, mainly as a crowd control measure. Thus, don't assume that just because the government hasn't implemented rationing yet that there is no rationing.

3) The emphasis in the media and amongst government officials has not been on the supply disruption, but on "price gouging". This is due in large part due to lack of understanding of the situation and of basic economics, but is also probably intended to be a distraction. Scapegoat the petroleum industry and the service stations as a substitute for being honest with the public and dealing with the real problem. Expect similar behavior in the future.

4) People in general have been slow to become aware of the problem and slow to react to it. Most people seem to be driving as normal, very little noticeable curtailment in motoring activity. Most people don't realize there is a problem and start dealing with it until they are almost out of gas, and so is the service station they were going to refill at. I have had discussions with people at my workplace to discuss what they are going to do if they can't get enough gas to drive to work. Some are open to carpooling, but some have personal reasons why that won't work; they have NO backup plan, and just assume that they are going to find someway to drive themselves to a workplace that is 20+ miles away from where they live. Expect similar denial and lack of realistic contingency planning on the part of the majority of the population during future supply crises.

5) Fortunately, I have arranged my life so I do live reasonably close to my workplace. I do walk the 1.7 miles back and forth to work each day. It certainly does remove a lot of anxiety from one's life to not have to be so very dependent upon motor fuel and to not have to worry about refilling my car every week or two. I'm also noticing some more bicycles on the street now. It is definitely a good idea to have some way to get to work other than driving, and if one does not have such an alternative, then re-arranging one's life so that one does should be a high priority.

6) This Sunday, for the first time I noticed a significant impact to the local economy: most of the parking spaces in the business district of my small town were empty. We have lots of small shops catering to the tourist trade, and usually things are pretty busy here in the fall. Since downtown was almost empty, that must have hurt them a lot. I can only assume that people were finally cutting out the discretionary weekend trips in an effort to save gas (or because they were uncertain that they would be able to find enough gas to get back home). The lesson is that when there is a more protracted supply crisis, it won't take too many weeks before the retail/consumer economy starts hurting.

7) No signs of black market entrepreneurship yet. That may come soon if this goes on much longer. Expect such "alternative market channels" to take a few weeks to establish themselves when mainstream market supplies are disrupted.

Why aren't the Dems all over this gas shortage as another example of GOP incompetence? To distracted by that very unpopular bailout plan?

I see this gas shortages as a consequence of the "just in time" business strategy. There is a serious lack of warehousing of fuel at the local level. If every county had a rotating 30 day supply of fuel in reserve then the failure of a pumping station a thousand miles away wouldn't leave anybody without fuel. The same could be said of many other commodities including food.

Perhaps because the gas shortages are perceived to be because of panic buying. (link to a typical news article).

If it isn't happening on their way to work (in Washington DC), it just isn't happening. Maybe next week.

And it isn't happening in Washington DC because that is near the Colonial Pipeline terminus, and all the spigots in between have been shut off to maintain MOL so that the folks in the Imperial Capital get whatever there is to be gotten. Those of us who live in flyover land are unimportant and don't matter.

And it isn't happening in Washington DC

Getting closer?

Google Trends - "gas shortage"

1. Tennessee, United States
2. Georgia, United States
3. South Carolina, United States
4. Alabama, United States
5. North Carolina, United States
6. Kentucky, United States
7. Missouri, United States
8. Florida, United States
9. District of Columbia, United States
10. Ohio, United States

Don't call them "Black markets"... They are Anarcho-Capitalist markets :)

Stations are so afraid of getting turned in for "price gouging" (several stations were already turned in back when hurricane Ike first hit) that they're simply not charging enough to keep supplied and they're shutting down.

UFB.

The pain would be a lot less and a lot shorter if governments simply didn't do anything to *help*.

Hurricane damage is temporary and geographically limited - PO will be global and permanent. IMHO, government meddling is going to turn a difficult problem into a total disaster.

After reading reports like this, it amazes me that our energy and oil exploration and production companies aren't hot as blazes.

They are down. ( PSPFX, OEPIX ).

People think something else is more important?!?!!?

So, is there a shortage of product, or are the owners of the independent gas stations unable (or unwilling, IMHO) to pay for their next tank fillup because they won't break even or make a small profit from the next tank of gas?

If I am an astute observer, most retail gasoline stations don't make very much money on the gas anyway, they make the majority of their profits from tobacco, soft drinks, beer, and convenience items which are inside the store. Sheetz is a good example of this. Two years ago, they started building stores in North Carolina and they priced their gasoline up to 20 cents cheaper than those around them. This drew huge amounts of traffic into their stores, and more than offset their losses in the sale of gasoline. Well, competitors whined about their tactics because they sometimes went below the wholesale price of gas, and the great old State of NC told Sheetz to stop selling gasoline for less than they paid for it, or face fines and potential revocation of their licenses to operate. I dare anyone to find a Sheetz in NC, even one close to Asheville that is out of gas right now. Sheetz, like Wilco, is smart, and like WalMart, they own their own fleet of trucks to ensure their supplies of gas are adequate to keep their prices lower than their competitors, and keep the customers coming inside the store to buy the profit items.

So now, if it truly ISN'T a supply problem, then it's time for the independent stores to revamp their in-store offerings, and mark up the smokes and beer to help pay for the next tanker of fuel. If not, they may as well capitulate and go out of business. In case you didn't know, this is what competition and Capitalism are all about.

Here the left has been trying without success to get Socialism in the US for over a century, and the solution was under their noses the whole time: Stop calling themselves Socialists, and instead call themselves Republicans! So counterintuitive! Why didn't anyone think of it sooner?

Only Nixon could go to China.

Right-wing socialism is called fascism....

This is not what communists do. They do away with insurance, mortgages and loans and other indications of property. This is more in line with national socialism, especially the shifting of patriotic feeling to AIG as a great national asset or to the financial system.

It is important to recognize this difference because it is a long held tactic of national socialists to use red baiting to gain power. There is a long association between national socialist sympathizers such as white power organizations and the republican party. The current president's father made quite a play for them when he was getting started in Texas and his grandfather was a straight out Nazi collaborator. So, we need to be cautious about claims that what is going on is similar to communism. It is not.

The national socialists generally don't want to eliminate profits, they want to assure them. This seems very much where our present track is leading.

Chris

Excellent observation! You're spot on.

Eternal vigilance is possible if we all pitch in I think.

Chris

...sounds like one of them thar conspaaracy tharries I read about on that there inner-tube

No, no... it is like a series of tubes. It is not a tube. The tube is where you go to get stupider. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

Chris

The united states has had allot of things similar to the old ussr. intact there is one thing we improved on. while their senate was powerless, it had a lower retention rate compared to us. 98% vs their 92%

I think there are laws on the book that limit price increases to a timeframe too, but im not sure. One thing is sure, the shortages are the result of prices not being high enough... If we had been charged an appropriate price then there wouldnt be shortages.

Some stations (here in the Atlanta area) are putting per person/per visit maximum on the pumps in effect rationing the supply.

Delivery trucks are doing "splash and dash" trips, instead of filling up the underground tanks, they half load and move on to another station - wholesale rationing in other words.

Very interesting stuff.

Under those circumstances, it seems like the economically rational thing for a gas station to do in a sudden emergency is to turn off their pumps and refuse to sell gas until the emergency is over...

So if you owned a gas station and shutdown until the next delivery to ensure that YOU (and others) have gas, does that fall under "price gouging"?

Would be the logical thing to do if there is an actual shortage, ensure supply for you and yours since the government is so interested in taking care of their own.

There's little doubt in my mind that gas station owners already save the bottom of the tank for their friends and family. Why not? I doubt this is illegal, and if they cannot charge market rates for the gas anyway, they may as well sell to people they like...

I am aware of a local station that is officially "out of gas", but still has a little in the tank and turns on the pump when a local law enforcement patrol car needs a refill.

Exactly how it works in the UK when supply gets low - only its official policy. Police, doctors and nurses only.

Get a group of people one trusts together and buy a load of gas and never open the station to the public. Dispense it out the back door at night.

Some years ago we had a problem with a local pipeline and it was very difficult to get gas because they controlled prices. No problem to buy unleaded race gas in 55 gallon drums, other then at the time it was like 6$/gal.

I definitly would if there is a shortage, hell its yours since you paid for it. If things break down I wonder what the local management will do at the chains stores. Save it for yourself and just quietly hang the "out of service" sign on?

That means they can't charge the customer what it costs to replace their stock...just what it cost them to buy it.

And more importantly, it doesn't allow a price that would balance supply and demand.