Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No gouging, just supply and demand
Denver Post ^ | 09.08.05 | David Harsanyi

Posted on 09/08/2005 11:08:53 AM PDT by aynrandy

Gouging - even the word sounds frightening.

These days, there's been a near-unanimous call for the public to be outraged over price-gouging at gas pumps around Denver.

Well, I'm not outraged, and you shouldn't be either.

Here in Colorado, as elsewhere in the nation, high gas prices have generated hysterical, populist rhetoric from those who've forgotten the fundamental principles of supply and demand.

"Gas-price gouging is not illegal under Colorado law, and we think it should be," Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff recently claimed.

I'm not sure what Romanoff meant by "we" - I would like to be excluded - but anyone who believes gouging is a concern will really have something to complain about if shortsighted price controls are implemented.

This week, Romanoff promised to pressure the state attorney general and the Public Utilities Commission to "investigate" the problem and "combat" gouging.

It's going to be difficult to "combat" the irrefutable fact that fuel supply is down and demand is up. And really there is nothing to investigate, unless you believe in conspiracy theories.

Hurricane Katrina destroyed 12 percent of the nation's refining capacity. This fact, coupled with rising demand from nations such as India and China, has put a tremendous demand on oil - a fungible global commodity.

Price controls bring lower fuel prices and increase demand. But when demand is outstripping supply, we can all look forward to shortages and lines.

Fact is, gouging is a myth. It's called making a profit.

"For many Americans outside of the Gulf Coast, the immediate impact of Hurricane Katrina isn't looting in the streets, it's looting at the pumps," says "Looting at the Pumps," a release by CoPIRG, a public-interest advocacy group.

I spoke to Rex Wilmouth, state director of CoPIRG.

So, was there gouging in Denver?

"We were seeing the prices go up in four or five days from 60 to 70 cents," Wilmouth explains. "Our take on it is this: We looked at how much money the oil industry was making and how much they were posting as profit; we were astounded that they felt the need to increase the price of gasoline in the time of a natural disaster."

Wilmouth, no doubt, is well-intentioned. He will apparently do anything to save us from the evils of Big

Oil - except actually learn about the oil business. "Last week, the stock prices of major U.S. oil producers ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and Conoco-Phillips have surged," he tells me as part of a long harangue about the success of Big Oil.

It took me a few minutes to comprehend that this was supposed to be bad news. Millions of Americans own oil stock - shouldn't we be happy for them?

I mean, higher gas prices mean increased stinginess on the part of the consumers at a time of low supply, right?

Isn't that positive?

Don't Americans have alternatives? A consumer can decide to travel less, take public transportation, or buy a fuel-efficient car or drive to a cheaper station.

Hybrids, Wilmouth understands. As you can imagine, he is very excited about hybrids.

Now, Romanoff and Wilmouth are entitled to espouse that government should have the authority to dictate the price of products in the free market.

But then, why stop at oil?

Today, for instance, a quick calculation revealed I had shelled out around 8 bucks a gallon for my bottled spring water.

But that's nothing. Last time I went to see a movie, I paid approximately $200,000 a gallon for soda - I'd need an infinity sign to calculate the per-pound price of popcorn.

Or how about this?

Why don't Colorado and the federal government cut or suspend the 40-50 cents we pay in taxes on each gallon, depending on where you live?

Funny, with all the concern for consumers, no one's proposed something that would actually help them.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gasprices; gouging; oil; pricegouging; supplyanddemand
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-226 next last
To: fooman

Smart move on your part, bad for anyone with a petroleum burning vehicle....

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46209


141 posted on 09/08/2005 12:47:37 PM PDT by aspiring.hillbilly (!...The Confederate States of America rises again...!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly

I could have bought a lexis suv. I bought a civic instead for 6.2k and invested the payment inusrance and taxes in the funds....


142 posted on 09/08/2005 12:48:56 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Not in the short period of time under study. It takes time to divert the oil in the pipelines and refine it. Once the oil is headed to a particular refinery area, it will be used in that geographic area.


143 posted on 09/08/2005 12:49:38 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly

The internal memoranda themselves have been made public before, in a 2001 investigative report by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who this week said the primary reason for sky-high prices is that "the government isn't in the consumer-protection business anymore."




I would consider the source here. The gov regs have been a 'barrier to entry' as porter would say. Sure. no rush to make as much with entry barriers and cap expense needed. A nimby tax with tax credits for construction would change this.


144 posted on 09/08/2005 12:52:12 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Not in the short period of time under study. It takes time to divert the oil in the pipelines and refine it. Once the oil is headed to a particular refinery area, it will be used in that geographic area.

Sure, but markets move in anticipation of events. I.E. Markets are proactive, not reactive, to spot supply and demand issues.

145 posted on 09/08/2005 12:54:18 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Gas pumps have become a significant traffic generator for Wal-Mart. There are 1,555 stations on Wal-Mart properties, 300 of which are operated directly by Wal-Mart's warehouse arm, Sam's Club. The balance are operated by third-party vendors.

Thanks for this. This, by the way, if proof that there is no price gouging. If there were, then Walmart would also be seeing massive profits as of late.. they are not.

146 posted on 09/08/2005 12:55:40 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix; aynrandy; Rodney King; frogjerk; frgoff
DEMAND EXCEEDS SUPPLY AND PRICES WILL ALWAYS RISE WHEN DEMAND IS HIGHER THAN SUPPLY.

I'm in agreement with you about 90%. Yet, there are some considerations beyond simple Econ101:

1. As mentioned on the thread: Elasticity - I like to use funnel cakes and insulin. Funnel cakes are nearly perfectly elastic and insulin almost perfectly inelastic. Elasticity depends as much on available substitutes as it does on the property of the commodity itself. You can grab a Ho-Ho or Twinkie if funnel cakes prices rise, but there is not a substitute for insulin. However, if funnel cakes are the only food item available, it becomes nearly inelastic. Gasoline in our market falls somewhere in between the two.

2. The law of supply and demand assumes perfect competition. Such that others suppliers can step in immediately to fill shortages. While this is basically true in the oil spot market, it's not the case with gasoline refineries in the US, primarily because of the government. Therefore supply increases, due to government regulation, are delayed, are more costly than a free market would provide, or at worst, unavailable.

3. Media sensationalism and herd mentality. I remember within hours of 9/11, several of my coworkers stated that gas would be $5.00/gallon the next day. It actually was at a few stations, but overall prices dropped shortly after. Supply and demand does not function properly when individuals are provided with misinformation and suppliers are willing to take advantage. Fortunately, this type of situation typically corrects itself rather quickly. Again, thanks the free market.

4. Finally, there is the question of a "moral responsibility" on the part of suppliers during extreme circumstances. With a semi-inelastic commodity, is it enough to make a "acceptable profit" or should the highest price be charged that others are able to pay?

I know of no other system better than the free market, but like democracy, it's not perfect.
147 posted on 09/08/2005 12:55:41 PM PDT by zencat (The universe is not what it appears, nor is it something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: zencat
3. Media sensationalism and herd mentality. I remember within hours of 9/11, several of my coworkers stated that gas would be $5.00/gallon the next day. It actually was at a few stations, but overall prices dropped shortly after. Supply and demand does not function properly when individuals are provided with misinformation and suppliers are willing to take advantage. Fortunately, this type of situation typically corrects itself rather quickly. Again, thanks the free market.

Well, in this case, the consumers provided their own misinformation. That being said, regardless of the source, there is a real increase in demand at the pump. As a result, prices should increase.

Overall, your post is well thought out.

148 posted on 09/08/2005 12:58:45 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

You made a subtle dig at me, so I'll fire right back: Get your head out of the textbook and take a look at this real world situation.

The overall demand did not increase significantly. We had people topping off their tanks, but not increasing their total consumption. Net = no increase in demand.

Which leads us to this: If Econ 101 is all you ever consider, you'll frequently get the thing wrong. You also have to consider the local money supply and acceleration. You can have all the product supply and demand cycles you want, but if the money supply isn't there, total purchasing as measured in dollars will not increase (ignoring the irresponsible use of credit cards).

But in this particular case, gasoline supply for much of the country did not decrease significantly, and total demand did not increase significantly. which blows your supply/demand theory out the window.


149 posted on 09/08/2005 1:01:52 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly; Hendrix
"We have come full circle to the return of the equivalent of the Standard Oil Trust that Teddy Roosevelt broke up."

Hey, stop it. You're messing up Hendrix's econonic theories and clogging up his FReeper slander efforts. He is all over this board, relentlessly calling FReepers names and such.

150 posted on 09/08/2005 1:02:34 PM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Except of course that aspiring hillbilly's statement is just flat out wrong.


151 posted on 09/08/2005 1:03:24 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Realism

Just don't park that Silverado for too long! I own three small engines that will need to be worked on before they ever run again because I got involved in other things and let them sit too long without draining the fuel and setting them up for storage.


152 posted on 09/08/2005 1:03:39 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Acceptance of irrational thinking is expanding exponentiallly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
The overall demand did not increase significantly. We had people topping off their tanks, but not increasing their total consumption. Net = no increase in demand.

Total Demand = Total Consumption + Total added to storage. It is true that demand probably didn't pickup much, if at all, but storage did.

Plus, it is a simple reality that prices move in anticipation of changes in supply and demand. There was a lot of talk about major pipelines being down early in the week. Prices moved in anticipation of what that might mean.

153 posted on 09/08/2005 1:05:27 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

Actually, I think you're wrong. Scarcity and shortages are not the same thing. A shortage of a product does not necessarily mean there is any less of the product. It means there is a shortage at existing prices. If the price was lower the demand would THEN cause a shortage. And as you probably know, since oil is a fungible commodity, prices are determined as much by the future (price of fixing the gulf area refineries) as by the past (high demand).


154 posted on 09/08/2005 1:08:19 PM PDT by aynrandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
"Except of course that aspiring hillbilly's statement is just flat out wrong."

Hey Rodney. Do you beleive that the oil companies are totally operating on the "up-and-up" and that they would never purposely manipulate things so they get the most profit? Just wondering.

And that Henrix guy really is all over the place, calling FReepers names.

155 posted on 09/08/2005 1:08:38 PM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

ConocoPhillips (Tosco-Flying J) 13.2
Shell (Motiva-Equilon-Pennzoil-Quaker State-Deer Park) 10.8
ExxonMobil 10.8
BP (Amoco-Arco) 9
Valero (Ultramar-Diamond Shamrock-Orion Refining) 8.4
ChevronTexaco 6.4
Citgo-PDV-Lyondell 5.8
Marathon-Ashland 5.6
Sunoco 5.2
Tesoro 3.4
Koch 3.1
Blackstone Group-Premcor 2.5
Williams Co 2.3
Chalmette Refining 1.1
TotalFinaElf 1
Top 15 in 2003 88.6




It took me a awhile to find and then format this. It turns out that this market is pretty fragmented. I would not approve mergers that create more than 9% market share though.


156 posted on 09/08/2005 1:10:03 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: zencat

please note that this market is not concentrated per your point 2. At least for reatail gas.


157 posted on 09/08/2005 1:12:07 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
Hey Rodney. Do you beleive that the oil companies are totally operating on the "up-and-up" and that they would never purposely manipulate things so they get the most profit? Just wondering.

Well, I think they operate in a competitive environment for starters. Now, I am willing to accept that on a certain street corner in a certain town that the stations might conspire to raise prices. But, on the whole, I beleive that the prices are much more of a result of supply and demand than they are by price-fixing, etc. As for oil executives, I think they are like any others. So no, I don't think they are heroes, but I don't think they are evil either.

158 posted on 09/08/2005 1:13:28 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Shell (Motiva-Equilon-Pennzoil-Quaker State-Deer Park) 10.8

No wonder Deer Park water tastes so bad.

159 posted on 09/08/2005 1:15:16 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: aynrandy

I suppose if you're willing to change definitions mid-debate, you can reach most any conclusion you want to.

Your new definition seems to say that if suppliers increase the price, they simultaneously increase demand, regardless of actual demand. Clever argument if you can get away with it.

;-)


160 posted on 09/08/2005 1:15:18 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson