Has there every been any study showing systemic manipulation of gas prices either in Washington state or nationwide?
Seriously, any?
Posted by Eric Earling at April 17, 2008 10:05 PM | Email ThisBTW, my Prius battery is starting to wear out. Does anyone know where I can get one for a discount? Does Walmart sell them? I hate to shop amongst the gun-toting religious folks, but they are really expensive, more than what I have saved on fuel since I bought the hybrid.
;)
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 17, 2008 10:27 PMHi Eric,
Thanks for fighting this fight--it really matters.
In a market where there are no barriers to entry, it hardly matters if a group of producers conspire to raise prices. The high price will attract other producers into the market, and it won't last. Oil can still be brought to America by ship. The idea that there's a gas price conspiracy is paranoia interfacing with feelings of entitlement to cheap gas.
Thanks for youralls time,
New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: New Left Conservative #1 on April 17, 2008 11:32 PMThey are a fire fighters nightmare if we have to cut the car apart to get you out!
One wrong cut and it's sizzle time! 0-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2008 06:25 AMImposed taxes exceed profits of the oil companies responsible for exploring, drilling, producing and distributing the energy that supports our way of life.
Government controls and taxes are solely responsible for the myriad of problems and challenges facing the oil industry.
By the way a pack of cigarettes cost about $2.00 in NC. Don't know the cost of a Big Hunk.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 18, 2008 08:51 AMBread is approaching $5.00 a loaf courtesy of the bio-fuel folk of Washington State. My state rep. Hans leads the effort. If you live in and around Snohomish, Mill Creek, please vote this socialist out of office.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 18, 2008 09:07 AMA friend and I had a good discussion with a Greenpeace guy a few days ago about this. Surpisingly, he was a actually a pretty sharp guy, a Chem. E., he said, and I think we gave him a bit of a shove off of the global warming/cooling/stagnation/yeah-we-don't-freakin-know-but-better-safe-than-sorry bandwagon, though maybe not enough (So little time, so much ignorance...)
Anyhoo, the guy really didn't have much of a defense about Greenpeace's opposition to Nukes. It was only "we don't know what to do with the waste..., but, yes the French do (6-70% of their elec. generation is Nukes), but 'we' don't".
My friend had a good point: So, we somehow know that engineers will find technical solutions to make solar power cost-effective, cars get 30 mpg average with same horsepower, etc., but no, we will never learn what to do with the low- or high-level nuclear waste. Bull. Savannah River Plant, in SC, has been working on glassifying it since the late 80's. (the high level, that is - low-level waste just needs an out of the way place to dump it, that's all)
Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 18, 2008 10:07 AMPOST is the new PREVIEW ;-}
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 18, 2008 10:12 AMWashington has the highest gas tax in the nation. The combined federal and state tax is 54.4 cents a gallon. Unlike most states, Washington depends almost exclusively on the gas tax, as opposed to general tax revenue, to fund state highway maintenance and construction.
• Washington's five refineries are running at capacity but do not produce enough gasoline to supply the demands of the region, which has led to substantial increases in the importation of more expensive foreign gas.
McCain opposed Ethanol way back on the trail in Iowa (way back in 2000). That was pretty courageous back in the day, wonder if he still feels the same way.
Let me get this strait Snuffy, you don't believe in the premise of free market economics if it affects your daily life? Bio-fuel pays farmers more for their crops, therefore price increases as demand does. Maybe you should invest in grain futures market if you want more money.
You know who else supports bio-diesel? The President and the GOP led Congress who passed and signed the Energy Bill back in 2005 to help stimulate the Bio Fuel market.
Yet another reason I won't vote for McCain.
"The President and the GOP led Congress who passed and signed the Energy Bill back in 2005 to help stimulate the Bio Fuel market."
Ah, but in Cato land, if a single member of the opposition voted for it, then they are just as culpable ala the 1995 Wash Demcorat controlled state government wherein the Democrat governor called a special session to subsidize millionaire sports teams at the expense of the taxpayer.
Posted by: pbj on April 18, 2008 11:14 AMIt is as far from a free-market as it could be Cato. I think you forgot the part about the government forcing the amount of ethanol in our gasoline (you know, it's an alcohol - ruins the seals and other parts in the engines of your older cars (for the poor folk, you wouldn't know) and has 90% of the energy per unit mass as gasoline).
If it was a free market, why did this crap just start up suddenly last year? Did everybody just get stupid on cue? Wait, don't answer that.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 18, 2008 11:19 AMYes, that's brutal. I can't stand that MF.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 18, 2008 11:23 AMHaha, cute. You still trying to get out of the basic math problem you screwed up on a couple weeks ago? The numbers are still the same and your still an goose-stepping anti-semite. I doubt there is any question the Dem's voted for it, in fact they're still pushing it (so is Pres. Bush).
It's funny to see Snuffy on one hand call his Rep. a Socialist while in the same post decry the basics of a free market principles of supply and demand. Sounds like Snuffy is for Nixon Era price controls.
Ethanol is made from Corn and not from Wheat. I don't think Snuffy is talking about Corn Bread.
Making these correction so you won't twist my comments into something they're not.
Ethanol is a grain alcahol that can be made from any plant sugar or starch. It is a byproduct of the digestion or the same by yeasts. That is all it is. There are some raw sources that produce more alcohol than others - corn and sugar cane come to mind. But I assure you that any hillbilly worthy of the name can produce alcohol from wheat.
Posted by: JDH on April 18, 2008 12:31 PMI'm sure they can which is why I modified my comments after I posted them because they were too vague and I knew some partisan nimrod like you would jump on them.
I will repeat:
The Ethanol you get in your GAS in the USA is pretty much exclusively made from CORN.
I am blaming the gubmnt, see post #14 dimwit.
Cato continues to spout his populist idiocy.
So if I agree with you I must be some populist idiot. Gotcha.
Posted by: Cato on April 18, 2008 12:58 PMOn the one hand the left whines about price gouging claiming that energy companies are making too much money. On the other hand the imposed taxes are greater than the profits they are whining about and government interference supported by special interest groups assure that this country will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. Competitive forces are held in check. National reserves are left untapped. New refineries are not being built. And Washington state passed a 10% tax on any oil company that may possibly extract oil within Washington State.
And bio-fuel, led by the ex-president of the mono-rail group, will raise the prices of all crops which in turn will increase the price of your grocery bill. Once again we pay a huge price for misguided government policies.
So please don't feed me free market theory while the economy sinks under government taxes, regulations and interference.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 18, 2008 01:14 PMNot the stupid ANWR myth again. Looks just have Gov. Crist (R) and Gov. Schwarzenegger (R) allow oil drilling of their coats an we won't need ANWR. Even if we did open ANWR oil we get from it would have a negligible impact on supply.
New refineries are not being build because of NIBYS and EPA clear air standards. If you want a big a big black smoke belching oil refinery in your back yard go to Oregon and propose one there...since their version of I-933 is still on the books you should be all set.
And bio-fuel, led by the ex-president of the mono-rail group, will raise the prices of all crops which in turn will increase the price of your grocery bill.
*yawn*, always blame the other party when something in your life is not as convenient as you would like. I bet the international rise in rice prices is a Democrat bio-fuel conspiracy as well.
Probably from some Democrat's district (Tom Harkin *cough*)
Posted by: pbj on April 18, 2008 02:25 PMHow about taxes can be removed, old-growth in National Forests can't.
Oh, prices are simply a reflection of demand on the available supply when gubmnt keeps it's paws off.
Sounds like we should end gubmnt subsidies...oh wait....then we get the GOP argument that the poor farmers will not be able to make any money and go under because they can't turn their farms into mega-mansions that can't be bought anyway because no one can get any funding from the banks...but we're going to give them tax credits for being irresponsible and bail them out with tax dollars if they look like they're going to go under.
Actually NPR, you know, that bastion of right wing lunacy, offer this:
Rice-Producing Nations Cut Exports amid Shortage
By Michael Sullivan
Morning Edition, April 10, 2008 · Growing demand and poor harvests are causing a severe shortage of rice in Asia and elsewhere. Where rice is available, prices are high. Rice-producing countries, such as India and China, have limited exports to assure adequate supplies at home.
World Food Prices Skyrocket
Day to Day, April 9, 2008 · From pizza places in New York to empty markets in Haiti &mdash everyone is feeling the high prices of food. First we hear from the U.N.'s Abdolreza Abbassian about riots in places where food is in short supply.
Then Michael Franks of John's Pizza in Manhattan tells us how he's changing the way he does business to accommodate high wheat costs.
Madeleine Brand then talks to Jim Andrew, a grain farmer from Iowa. He explains how corn prices driven to record levels by the ethanol boom are forcing out other crops.
Umm so yes, it IS the Democrat's fault. They are the majority pushing this misguided bio-fuel policy.
Posted by: pbj on April 18, 2008 04:10 PMYou can get your 6 month permit from any of the 30,000 new employees Gregoire and Locke have added to your state government in the last 12 years for another $300.
Have a nice commute to work.
Posted by: GS on April 18, 2008 05:08 PMYou realize, Cato, that the corn we're talking about is for hogs and cattle to eat, right? It is not sweet corn for us to eat. So, your sweet corn may cost the same, but beef and pork is another story - cows and pigs gotta eat too, you know.
Then, there is the whole issue of how much land is taken away from other grains for growing this corn for ethanol.
Unintended consequences? Who knew? Anyone who knows what government interference in free markets does does.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on April 18, 2008 05:24 PMWhy?
Because politicians like Barrack, Clinton, and McCain all insist on a central bank and fiat currency. It is time to abolish both.
Posted by: Lysander on April 18, 2008 05:39 PM
No - you morons have proved there is Nooooo monopoly of price fixing - except of course for enron - and they were proven to have manipulated the prices - so much for your pathetic theory.
Why do the smaller companies raise prices when the big two do? They would make more money by keeping lower prices and making more sales.
Posted by: Lysander on April 18, 2008 09:14 PMTypical of Cato. How does one have a conversation with someone who's reliance on nonsequiters is a way of life? They cannot. All one can do is point out that this belies the intellectual bankruptcy of Cato that he commonly heads to this refuge of loosers.
One simply would be stuck in a never ending game of chasing down ancillary arguments, I've exhausted my patience with it. I move that Cato be blocked from further participation here STRICTLY based upon his reliance on this tactic.
His further participation is counter productive to having an intelligent discussion.
Posted by: JDH on April 19, 2008 07:30 AMSecond, they never mention "more people riding mass transit and LIKING it"...as in, "gee, I wish I could drive to downtown, but all I can afford is this crappy bus seat".
I live six miles from where I work in Kent and took the bus for 3 years -- it took me an HOUR to get there because of infrequent service and the fact I had to take two buses...TWO BUSES to go SIX MILES!
Even with gas at $3.00 a gallon, now that I own a 1988 Mazda 626 that gets 24 mpg. I spend $1.50 a day on gas (12 miles total). That's STILL CHEAPER than two bus rides a day!
Posted by: John Bailo on April 19, 2008 09:20 AMThere is a reason for the high gas prices. It isn't just because of the gas tax, although it adds to the cost, and it isn't just because of the high cost of the raw ingredient (or the price would fluctuate more in line with the world-wide price). It is because the oil companies several years ago cut back on refineries nationwide, and left a major portion remaining right in the path of Katrina. After Katrina, then they make the decision on how fast to repair the damaged refineries. The reason is plain and simple poor planning by the oil industry executives. For this, the executives get huge bonuses. Where are the share-holders? The executives guessed wrong and did poor contingency planning for natural occurrences. Now they have the gall to blaim the lack of building additional refineries on environmental groups. The oil executives should be taken to the wood shed.
I work in the IT industry, a comparable decision is like the stupid decision by some in the ISP hosting business that base all their centralized hosting in Florida, or in LA area (e.g., MySpace is currently prone to having a outage if a major earthquake hits the LA basin). The smart companies, like Google, are spreading out their resources across the country. One can see by the 9/11 attacks how it was beneficial not to have your contingency plan too close to your main facilities. The financial firms that had backup devices in New Jersey were able to get back on-line alot faster than those who didn't.
It is the same with the oil industry. They have consolidated refineries, put the bulk of them in the Caribbean Hurricane zone, and then have issues when switching their lines from winter fuel mix to summer mix. It is called poor infrastructure planning. The high prices blaim should be put where it belongs on the oil executives. It also should be put on the legislators who in good times seek out the oil industries support, yet in bad time flip and want to blaim them (Cantwell would be in this group).
The problem with Washington is the elected officials are to interested in power and getting elected and not in solving the nations problems. Refineries is a nation-wide issue that shouldn't be soley determined by who's pockets are greased the most. It is an area where some regulation needs to return with regards to nationwide location decision making and capacities at the various locations throughout the country. The oil companies have failed in this task. Therefore, for the nations best interest, the executive branch needs to step in to provide overall control.
Posted by: tc on April 20, 2008 10:22 AMUm no tc, I did not state that. The University of Washington study stated that. Apparently as a Democrat party hack, you feel you know more than the experts.
If you want to pass a law that says only Washington state gets the output of our refineries, I am all for it. But don't complain if other states choose to do the same back to us.
"There is a reason for the high gas prices. It isn't just because of the gas tax, although it adds to the cost, and it isn't just because of the high cost of the raw ingredient (or the price would fluctuate more in line with the world-wide price). It is because the oil companies several years ago cut back on refineries nationwide, and left a major portion remaining right in the path of Katrina. After Katrina, then they make the decision on how fast to repair the damaged refineries. The reason is plain and simple poor planning by the oil industry executives. For this, the executives get huge bonuses. Where are the share-holders? The executives guessed wrong and did poor contingency planning for natural occurrences. Now they have the gall to blaim the lack of building additional refineries on environmental groups. The oil executives should be taken to the wood shed."
Enough of the damn class warfare designed to divide us. You think the oil executives were sitting around and decided they KNEW Katrina was coming and built their refineries smack in their path so they would be destroyed and they could charge higher prices? YOU ARE MENTAL!
Do you know who owns those "evil" oil companies? You do, I do, everyone who has a pension or retirement plan owns them. If you have a job you probably have a retirement plan and they probbaly invest in mutual funds that probably own Mobil or Exxon or whatever the boogeyman distraction of the week is.
"I work in the IT industry, a comparable decision is like the stupid decision by some in the ISP hosting business that base all their centralized hosting in Florida, or in LA area (e.g., MySpace is currently prone to having a outage if a major earthquake hits the LA basin). The smart companies, like Google, are spreading out their resources across the country."
Well maybe they could spread out their refineries if the environmental restrictions didn't make it so cost prohibitive to do so and in some cases outright forbidding new refineries to be built. We have liberals to thank for that.
"The problem with Washington is the elected officials are to interested in power and getting elected and not in solving the nations problems. Refineries is a nation-wide issue that shouldn't be soley determined by who's pockets are greased the most. It is an area where some regulation needs to return with regards to nationwide location decision making and capacities at the various locations throughout the country. The oil companies have failed in this task. Therefore, for the nations best interest, the executive branch needs to step in to provide overall control."
How self serving. The socialists enact restriction s on the free market all over the country and then use the consequences of that socialist action to call for even MORE socialist control. Nothing but a POWER GRAB for those nanny stater who want to tell us all what light bulb we can use, what kind of car we can drive, what kind of foods we can eat.
What it is time for is the government to stop destroying every attempt the nation makes to build more refineries, explore for more energy. Hell, Castro is drilling off the shores of Miami. However liberals refuse to allow us to get any of that oil. Will it matter to the dead sea life if it is a communist oil spill or a capitalist one? Does anyone here trust Fidel Castro and communist pollution control measures over own own technology? Puhlease. The time for the silly left over 60's anti-business rhetoric is OVER! GROW UP!
Posted by: pbj on April 21, 2008 12:46 AMTypical of Cato. How does one have a conversation with someone who's reliance on nonsequiters is a way of life? They cannot. All one can do is point out that this belies the intellectual bankruptcy of Cato that he commonly heads to this refuge of loosers.
One simply would be stuck in a never ending game of chasing down ancillary arguments, I've exhausted my patience with it. I move that Cato be blocked from further participation here STRICTLY based upon his reliance on this tactic.
His further participation is counter productive to having an intelligent discussion.
Posted by JDH at April 19, 2008 07:30 AM
JDH,
Very well put. Cato never has a shred of evidence to support any of his outlandish flights of fancy. As you pointed out he merely throws out epithets, straw men and non sequiturs.
Posted by: pbj on April 21, 2008 01:00 AM[NOTE: For slow liberals like tc, I am quoting the article. If you clear off the fog from your glasses and follow the link, you will see that.]
Posted by: pbj on April 21, 2008 01:06 AMThey complain about California regulations. This is a red herring because California probably doesn't need more refineries. There are other place they can spread out refinery production that isn't concentrated in a single Gulf of Mexico area. It is a national strategic interest.
Also, the fact that they run the refineries at almost 100% capacity may be efficient for them, but it isn't effective for the nation as a whole.
Finally, I for one do not think ethanol is the solution. I am not a big ethanol fan for a couple of reasons. First off, it is less efficient (lower mpg per gallon). Second, it costs fuel to make it (e.g., farmers have to run tractors to plant the crops). I personally like GM and Honda's research into Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, especially Honda's Home Energy Plant concept where one makes Hydrogen fuel from the natural gas furnace that heat one's home (i.e., double duty for an appliance). It will be interesting to see how Honda's FCV vehicle fairs in California. It is a sharp looking car with decent performance characteristics.
For other energy, I think harnessing Wind and water is another key that needs to be further researched and developed. I also believe Nuclear energy can be safe, the only issue there is with disposal. As long as disposal issues can be resolved, then it is also a good candidate for areas of the country that can't harness wind and water.
Posted by: tc on April 21, 2008 07:59 AMDid you ever consider for one microsecond that perhaps the reason so many of refineries are in that region is because they don't make the hurdles to refinery construction cost prohibitive and in some cases outright ban it?
Most refineries are going to be either near where the oil is produced or at a sea port. Otherwise you will have the cost of transporting the oil overland. And we know that liberals don't want more pipelines and trucking the oil will make it even more expensive.
"Also, the fact that they run the refineries at almost 100% capacity may be efficient for them, but it isn't effective for the nation as a whole."
You want low cost fuel don't you? You won't let them build more refineries ( none built sine 1976) and now you complain that they are being efficient with what refineries they do have. That make no sense at all. Do you want gas to cost more?
"Finally, I for one do not think ethanol is the solution. I am not a big ethanol fan for a couple of reasons. First off, it is less efficient (lower mpg per gallon). Second, it costs fuel to make it (e.g., farmers have to run tractors to plant the crops)."
You might want to write your Democrat reps and tell them to stop the ag subsidies for ethanol. The effect is now being felt here in the US. Rice is being rationed in California. This is because growers switched to corn for ethanol. Less rice meant countries are banning exports and the supply is not meeting demand. Why should you care?
According to the article:
"Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply."
Yes there has been...
The Tax Foundation has shown that the GOURGING consumers for decades...
Posted by: juandos on April 21, 2008 12:04 PMYes there has been...
The Tax Foundation has shown that the tax extortions have been GOURGING consumers for decades...
Posted by: juandos on April 21, 2008 12:05 PM