Why isn't Gasoline regulated?
05-25-2007, 09:59 AM
#1
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Why isn't Gasoline regulated?
We regulate electricity.
We regulate natural gas.
We regulate cable, telephone, etc.
Why not gasoline?
We regulate natural gas.
We regulate cable, telephone, etc.
Why not gasoline?
05-25-2007, 11:11 PM
#3
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
I believe gasoline should not only be regulated, but nationalized. If the U.S. went the nationalization route, then the feds could tap into the Alaskan oil reserves without nearly as much opposition as the oil companies did a few years ago, thus greatly reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Also, think of the other benefits and advantages:
1) The ability to institute one fuel formulation standard for all 50 states. Californians shouldn't have to pay more for 91 octane than Ohioans do for 93 octane, and we shouldn't have to take it in the *** because "that state requires a unique gasoline blend, and currently three out of the handful of refineries that produce it are down for routine maintainence."
1) The ability to institute one fuel formulation standard for all 50 states. Californians shouldn't have to pay more for 91 octane than Ohioans do for 93 octane, and we shouldn't have to take it in the *** because "that state requires a unique gasoline blend, and currently three out of the handful of refineries that produce it are down for routine maintainence."
2) The end of "market-based pricing".
If oil companies have the ability to squeeze-out franchise dealers in favor of company stores by manipulating prices, how can it still be considered a "free-market" economy? Also, does anyone have the foggiest clue as to how much fuel, on a nationwide basis per day, is currently being wasted by people aimlessly cruising around town trying to find the lowest price?
If oil companies have the ability to squeeze-out franchise dealers in favor of company stores by manipulating prices, how can it still be considered a "free-market" economy? Also, does anyone have the foggiest clue as to how much fuel, on a nationwide basis per day, is currently being wasted by people aimlessly cruising around town trying to find the lowest price?
As for wasted gas from people driving around looking for cheaper gas... that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. I would say that amount of fuel used has a negligible impact on overall fuel usage and pricing.3) Fuel price reductions through the elimination of branding and advertising.
If any of this is true, then why are we paying name-brand prices for a generic product? If the "one fuel" standard was applied at the same time, such fanciful names as "CleanTech", "Techron", "PROclean", and "V-Power" simply become words without meaning.
If any of this is true, then why are we paying name-brand prices for a generic product? If the "one fuel" standard was applied at the same time, such fanciful names as "CleanTech", "Techron", "PROclean", and "V-Power" simply become words without meaning.
05-26-2007, 09:48 AM
#4
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Your argument still comes down to "I think gasoline is too expensive, so let's screw with the foundation of our economic system and introduce a whole new government bureaucracy so that maybe I will have an extra $20 in my pocket every month." That's pretty lame.
05-26-2007, 10:16 AM
#5
If you don't want to be burdened with living in a market where everything is more expensive, move. Ohio's not a bad place to live, just don't live near their turnpike where gas is 3.79/gallon... for the cheap stuff.
05-26-2007, 05:54 PM
#6
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
More like $20 every week, but this concept isn't as hair-brained as you make it out to be.
Replace "gasoline" with "healthcare", and entire legions of people are ready to get in line behind Hillary Clinton on the matter. Even Benjamin Franklin himself once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If we don't like the results of our current system, we need to try doing something different.
Replace "gasoline" with "healthcare", and entire legions of people are ready to get in line behind Hillary Clinton on the matter. Even Benjamin Franklin himself once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If we don't like the results of our current system, we need to try doing something different.
If everyone who was displeased with gas prices followed your advice, it would trigger the largest migration of people within the United States since the Gold Rush... which would in turn jack-up gas prices even further under the current system. However, if the nationalization and standardization of gasoline were implemented, then the price of gas just off the turnpike would be about the same as gas 100 miles, or even 1,000 miles away from the turnpike.
BTW, I've got family living in Ohio, so I've been there to visit them. I'll stay put on the West Coast, thank you.
BTW, I've got family living in Ohio, so I've been there to visit them. I'll stay put on the West Coast, thank you.
05-26-2007, 08:32 PM
#7
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Natural gas = Canada.
Electricity = Canada.
Originally Posted by Kevin M
This statement shows a lack of understanding of the gasoline markets. First off, California gets 91 octane instead of 92 or 93 because we have such an abundance of performance/luxury vehicles designed to run on premium fuel. There is only so much total octane/gallon available from crude oil, and by having a higher percentage of demand from premium-fuel users, we are forced to reduce the maximum octane to prevent shortages. Also, since *everything* in California is more expensive than *everything* in Ohio, why shouldn't they pay less for their gas? We do have higher incomes than they do in the midwest as well.
.There are ways of boosting octane.
Alcohol comes to mind.
But me thinks that Democrats in CA don't like listening Republican ethanol lobbyists.
Hence MTBE instead of ethanol.
05-27-2007, 01:03 AM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
And how would nationalization of the petrolium industry solve the issue of environmental regulations preventing oil companies from building more refineries? That's the real question, since you can't possibly think it's a good idea to reduce the maintenance schedules of refineries to increase uptime.. right?
05-27-2007, 01:08 AM
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Electricity? lolz. Regulation of that industry is working out spectacularly. That whole Enron business was just a hiccup in the system right? And would you mind providing me with both a percentage of national electrical consumption is imported from Canada, and how much of that comes from Niagara Falls?
Probably because Republican ethanol lobbyists are more concerned with lining the pockets of corn growers (along with the oil companies) than they are with the actual effects ethanol has on gasoline. Remember, there is a whole lot more to gasoline formulation than octane. Also, significant levels of ethanol-mix gasoline in our market would put huge demand pressure on corn supply, making ethanol, feed corn for livestock, fieldcorn for popcorn and many pet foods, as well as corn for table food all significantly more expensive. It's not like we have unlimited capabilities of growing corn beyond our current production.
Probably because Republican ethanol lobbyists are more concerned with lining the pockets of corn growers (along with the oil companies) than they are with the actual effects ethanol has on gasoline. Remember, there is a whole lot more to gasoline formulation than octane. Also, significant levels of ethanol-mix gasoline in our market would put huge demand pressure on corn supply, making ethanol, feed corn for livestock, fieldcorn for popcorn and many pet foods, as well as corn for table food all significantly more expensive. It's not like we have unlimited capabilities of growing corn beyond our current production.
05-27-2007, 09:37 AM
#10
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Posts: 10,133
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
I am not weighing in here, because I don't feel informed enough to have an opinion. However, I think this argument requires some more questions.
1. Why, when prices have steadily increased at a fairly high pace, have the oil companies generated record profits for 1Q07? Prices increase for various reasons beyond supply and demand, like maybe because overhead has increased or regulations change in favor of the supplier...
I've heard that there were 2 or 3 refineries that were damaged or destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, which significantly decreased supply but that the oil companies had no incentive to repair them.
2. Why is the price-gouging bill getting vetoed? Is it a political or pragmatic move? [click on quote]
Also, a little OT, I recall reading something (by some dude named John Chapman) that stated something to the effect that the US intent behind the war in Iraq wasn't so much to destroy OPEC, but to join it with the intention of gaining a controlling share. Not that this opinion has any direct bearing upon the theme of this thread, but it may go towards additional shaping of the argument.
1. Why, when prices have steadily increased at a fairly high pace, have the oil companies generated record profits for 1Q07? Prices increase for various reasons beyond supply and demand, like maybe because overhead has increased or regulations change in favor of the supplier...
I've heard that there were 2 or 3 refineries that were damaged or destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, which significantly decreased supply but that the oil companies had no incentive to repair them.
2. Why is the price-gouging bill getting vetoed? Is it a political or pragmatic move? [click on quote]
Originally Posted by SmartMoney.com
The White House, in a formal statement of administration policy, said the legislation amounted to price controls that would hinder oil companies and retailers from responding to market signals, potentially worsening fuel shortages.
"Gasoline price controls are an old -- and failed -- policy choice that will exacerbate shortages and increase fuel hoarding after natural disasters, denying fuel to people when they most need it," the White House said, adding that Bush's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the House bill or any similar legislation that makes it to his desk.
"Gasoline price controls are an old -- and failed -- policy choice that will exacerbate shortages and increase fuel hoarding after natural disasters, denying fuel to people when they most need it," the White House said, adding that Bush's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the House bill or any similar legislation that makes it to his desk.
Also, a little OT, I recall reading something (by some dude named John Chapman) that stated something to the effect that the US intent behind the war in Iraq wasn't so much to destroy OPEC, but to join it with the intention of gaining a controlling share. Not that this opinion has any direct bearing upon the theme of this thread, but it may go towards additional shaping of the argument.
05-27-2007, 10:07 AM
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
I contend that the motor fuel market in California is being manipulated, because the oil companies are retaliating for being required to sell a special "California only" blend. If they can't bring in fuel from a neighboring state to meet a spike in demand, then retail prices go up. Also, if there were to be a dip in production, retail prices would go up as well. So why not use a rotating schedule to take only one refinery off-line for maintainence?
As for the maintenance... you missed the point. Refineries by nature need lots of maintenance to be kept safe and this requires significant downtime. The answer to California gas shortages is not bringing gas in from other states, but passing legislation which will allow more refineries to be built in california.
If all the refineries were under one umbrella, it would be easier to organize a rotating maintainence schedule. Also, if all refineries produced the same gasoline formula, it would be allowable to trade gasoline between any and all states. The only reason that the oil companies are crying about refinery capacity in California now is because they are not allowed to import "non-CA" gas.
05-21-2013, 09:30 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 200
Car Info: 2005 Saab 9-2x Aero (STi'd)
I realize this is a very old thread, and for that I apologize...however, I find the debate on gas regulation between you two to be quite intriguing; because from my perspective, valid arguments are presented from both sides.
Since this thread was created in mid-2007, I would love to see both of your current views on the same topic now that it's 2013 (post stock crash, auto/banks bailout, etc)....
Since this thread was created in mid-2007, I would love to see both of your current views on the same topic now that it's 2013 (post stock crash, auto/banks bailout, etc)....
