A modest proposal
Hurricane Katrina promises to raise the price of gas by 20-30 cents, so they say. That means it will probably hit $3.00 a gallon in the next few days. My question is this: How long does it take to refine a whole bunch of oil into gasoline?
The gas currently in your local filling station did not come from $70 a barrel oil. So how come the oil companies are permitted to immediately raise the price on current retail gasoline stocks when the oil used to produce that gas cost less than today's oil?
How long does it take to process crude into gasoline anyway?
How about we have somebody(Congress, Bush) step in and say to the oil companies, "You can't raise prices on current gasoline stocks already at the point of retail purchase for "x" number of days."?
Sound good?
posted by Career Guy @ 7:10 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Ah yes, but that would take common sense and independence from the Big Business/Oil lobby. You should know that politicians will only interfere with the workings of the so-called free market when it suits the business needs of their friends and contributors. Mess with gas prices? No way! Award no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Sure, makes perfect sense and is absolutely fair.
Yes, that was, in fact, eat poor Irish Catholic babies. Not just poor people in general, you know.
Congress is the bad guy here.
They've hobbled the industry's ability to increase refinery capacity, they've hobbled the industry's ability to drill domestically, they've taxed the end-product above regular sales tax. Who's fault is that, the oil industry's? Clearly not.
So, it appears that politicians have, in fact, interfered significantly in the free-market.
Plus, there is no sane person who knows even a smidgen about world economics who can fault the US government or "big oil" for the fact that demand is soaring from the growing economies of India and China--and that fact alone accounts for almost all the increase in oil/gas prices in recent years. Not the war in Iraq, not "big, bad oil", not even incompetent, economic theory/practice challenged legislators. It's actually a true free market working.
I'd suggest getting off the moonbat wagon and writing your congressmen/women and telling them to do the sensible things: make it easier for domestic production of oil.
Or to put it more eloquently:
Walter E. Williams "Gasoline Prices"
PRice gouging, I guess, although I've talked to a few who agree with Jeff. It hit $2.99 here just a few hours ago.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I deleted my previous post because I'd gotten the time wrong. Here it is, in its corrected entirety:
Gee, you almost had me thinking my dear old dad and I might have it a bit wrong until you went and wrecked your whole argument with a needless insult.
I don't happen to think that cheap gas is a birthright. I do think that putting up the prices at the pump because of a hurricane or a fire at a refinery or a strike in Nigeria BEFORE the extent of the effect is seen on supply is blatant profiteering.
About four or five years ago, there was a fire at a refinery, which coincided with the big power crisis in California. Prices at the pump in Chicago shot up about 40 cents and there were all sorts of rumors about how we'd see $3 or $4 a gallon before the summer was out.
Guess what, it didn't happen because it turned out the fire wasn't that bad and the supply wasn't interrupted. But gas prices only went down maybe half the amount that they'd gone up.
Oil companies are not exactly struggling businesses. They make a hefty profit and have historically thrown their weight around to prevent the development of alternative fuels. Part of the way they are able to rake in cash is by keeping people dependent on their product. When the price goes up, a lot of people will pay it so the oil companies do not have to roll back their prices once the supply threat has passed.
Wait a minute, my foot got caught in the stirrup of my moonbat wagon. OK, there we go.
Um, (cough), Jeff, the Republican Congress is to blame then? Glad we could clear that up.
I consider anyone who brings up the "Haliburton" cannard to be not a serioius student of current affairs. Sorry if that sounds like an insult.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, my party hasn't exactly won any praise for acting like the party in control. It's called "kowtowing".
I'm not trying to be obtuse or insulting. I find the use of certain unrelated items in arguments to be predictable from far-left leaning persons. Haliburton is one such example. In the argument at hand, about oil prices in their current and historical context, Haliburton is completely irrelevant. It is one of those things used by vehement--and yes, often illogical--opponents of the Bush administration in an attempt to smear him personally as well as corporately.
If you wish to argue about oil price, fine. Haliburton? Doesn't apply.
Halliburton is a symptom of a larger disease. This is an administration that has very obvious and well-documented ties to large corporate interests. You only need to look as far as Cheney's closed-door meetings with the energy lobby to formulate energy policy to see that. This is also an administration that is willing to bend or over-look certain rules for such corporations, such as the (dare I say it) no-bid contract for Halliburton.
I don't cast aspersions on your political beliefs. I've never said the words "wing-nut" or "far-right" or "ultra-conservative". I'd thank you to do the same.
I'm going on vacation for a week, where there will be no mention of gas prices, no-bid contracts or political insults. It'll be heaven.
Post a Comment
<< Home