If the lender charges you 35% interest per annum for your mortgage on that house, the gov't would nail it for usury under the same principle. The free market isn't allowed to work in many facets of the economy.
if oil companies were working within a total capitalist system, id buy it, but they arent. government subsidies need to stop for oil companies.
It's only "price-gouging" if somebody else does it, especially if it's somebody you don't like.
So can we little people go out in our back yards and establish distilleries to make and sell gasoline, and perhaps alcohol, to anyone we want?
Can we go make our own guns and freely sell them, too?
Only large corporate entities are capable of price gouging. Sarc
If I was forced to buy a house every week and all of the houses were sold by a strictly limited amount of companies that colluded to set the price, then yes, paying $300,000 for a $100,000 dollar house would be price gouging. There is competition in the housing market, however, so I can buy a cheaper one. There is no competition in the oil market, so I cannot buy cheaper gas from a different station. The point this article's writer tries to make falls flat as an apples-and-oranges comparison.
I don't believe in the price gouging argument. However, I do believe that oil companies are not trying very hard to increase the gasoline supply to meet the nation's demand.
If any law should be passed, it should be strictly limited to requiring oil companies to increase their supply to meet the nation's demand.
IE - if the current refining capacity of US oil companies is 17 million barrels/day and the US demand is 21 million barrels/day, then the oil companies should increase their capacity by 4 million barrels/day.
And if, after a set timeframe (let's say... a year), the oil companies cannot show a sizeable increase in refinery construction or expansion, then the law should mandate that the oil companies be required to spend a set portion of their profits (let's say... 25%) into increasing their supply production. For Exxon, 25% would mean that they would spend $10 billion/year into increasing their refining capabilities, leaving $30 billion for their shareholders. Even with the insane environment regulations, $10 billion would easily cover the cost of building a new refinery (and grease the palms of stubborn lawmakers). Once supply then meets demand, the law should then go into remission.
The biggest problem right now is that the oil companies are abdicating their free market duties. Which is to increase supply to meet demand. And all the talk of 'windfall profit' taxes just adds more ammunition for them not to increase supply.
Here's the most major thing wrong with your analogy: The republican party isn't going to get massacred in the 2006 elections because of what might have happened to the prices of houses in the last five years.....
I suggest you insulate yourself against rising energy prices by buying high quality energy-related stocks. Money made here will offset higher retail prices. These are mostly publicly traded companies with millions of shareholders. Besides, the amount I pay for gasoline is a pittance compared the 50% of my income in all taxes, including the gasoline.