Anyone else see the "reason" for gas price hikes?

Yahoo news this morning was blaming the civil unrest in the middle east as the cause. Gas prices have been down for a loooooong time and just now they happen to affect us? Whatever...

OK, rant over.

I believe it is called "price gouging" and its pretty standard whenever unrest happens with people who may or may not produce any actual oil but kinda look like they do. I'm pretty sure the pump price would go up if you handed out middle eastern attire at a soccer riot.

Media

It's all Bush's fault. When Obama takes office, he'll fix it.

Profit.

LOLZ

Because they can.

Blame speculators. The commodities and stock markets have become havens for gamblers looking to make a quick buck.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/libya-merrill-idUSLDE71N2I720110224

Libya is shutting down production and could be lost for a prolonged period of time.

Kramer wrote: It's all Bush's fault. When Obama takes office, he'll fix it.

Hilarious!

It's not the prez's fault, either one of them.

Joey

Otto Maddox wrote: Blame speculators. The commodities and stock markets have become havens for gamblers looking to make a quick buck.

+1 on the speculators. That's what the commodities market is. Wouldn't say its become a haven for gamblers, it's always been about gambling.

The gamblers aren't always who you'd expect. A big group of them are retirement fund investors.

Greed.

Global Warming...errr...Climate Change.

My favorite tactic that really pisses me off - and I'm an avid supporter of laissez-faire capitalism - is that the pump prices always jump the day after there is bad news, even though the gas in those tanks was bought 2 weeks ago at the going price then.

In reply to Duke: I don't like the practice, but I would tend to expect the entire supply chain to adjust prices as the source price changes. If crude goes up, it's going to cost more to refill the tank, so the value of what's already in it goes up.

It'd be nice if the opposite adjustments were applied as quickly. Actually, they may be for all I know, but downwards adjustments don't get noticed as much.

Definitely not one to defend the oil companies. I'm not so laissez-faire at this point; seems to me that much of the enlightenment has gone out of enlightened self-interest.

There are worse things than unenlightened self interest... you are left with the laissez-faire choice of profit being the motive or the non-laissez-faire choice of power being the motive.

In the first case, those supplying the product get rich (and then usually powerful due to their wealth, but they most typically limit the influence of that power to figuring out how to get richer).

In the second case, those controlling the market get powerful (and then usually rich due to their power) but tend to want to use their power (and wealth) to get more powerful.

The former has always worked out better for the public.

Lets put it this way:

If everyone is buying Miata's (I know, a stretch), and suddenly Mazda says they will cut production by 25% (exaggeration), what do expect to happen to the price of Miata's almost immediately?

(and yes, all questions can be answered with Miata)

Im buying a motorcycle...60 miles to the gallon sounds pretty good right now

aircooled wrote: Lets put it this way: If everyone is buying Miata's (I know, a stretch), and suddenly Mazda says they will cut production by 25% (exaggeration), what do expect to happen to the price of Miata's almost immediately? (and yes, all questions can be answered with Miata)

LMFAO!!

Awesome.

wcelliot wrote: There are worse things than unenlightened self interest... you are left with the laissez-faire choice of profit being the motive or the non-laissez-faire choice of power being the motive. In the first case, those supplying the product get rich (and then usually powerful due to their wealth, but they most typically limit the influence of that power to figuring out how to get richer). In the second case, those controlling the market get powerful (and then usually rich due to their power) but tend to want to use their power (and wealth) to get more powerful. The former has always worked out better for the public.

Excellent post and I completely agree, right up to the last line. Certainly many examples recently of laissez-faire not working out so well for the public. I'd say history shows that either extreme doesn't work out so well, but a prudent balance between the two has worked famously.

By the way, it's all Reagan's fault. George Soros told me so.

First things first: I suppose there was no way this topic wasn't going to get at least a little political, but I guess I have to take the blame for the first political/contrary post... Though I wasn't the first to claim a leaning! covers head

wcelliot wrote: There are worse things than unenlightened self interest... you are left with the laissez-faire choice of profit being the motive or the non-laissez-faire choice of power being the motive.

I'm really not so sure the two can be separated so tidily. When are power and money ever separate?

In the first case, those supplying the product get rich (and then usually powerful due to their wealth, but they most typically limit the influence of that power to figuring out how to get richer). In the second case, those controlling the market get powerful (and then usually rich due to their power) but tend to want to use their power (and wealth) to get more powerful.

But once you have a fair bit of money or power, buying influence becomes the most cost-effective way to get more of either. Whether it's paying lobbyists, funding candidates with strings attached, or just bussing in loads of people to fill all the seats in a public hearing, money is sufficient incentive and a capable tool for the acquisition of more power, which pays its dividends in wealth. In gloves-off capitalism, the acquisition of power is what the shareholders demand, because it gets the best return on investment.

The former has always worked out better for the public.

If that were the case, would we need anti-racketeering laws? Control against monopolies? Would we have issues with wall street like we have had recently? You'd certainly be right in arguing that a lot of governmental controls have gone badly wrong (severe understatement), but to suggest that wealthy entities will achieve equilibrium, focus just on earning more money without laying their own hands on the system, and generally police themselves, or that hands-off capitalism will benefit the masses more than any other system seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Certainly many examples recently of laissez-faire not working out so well for the public. I'd say history shows that either extreme doesn't work out so well, but a prudent balance between the two has worked famously.

Agreed. A lot. Too bad balance is so darn... tricky.

As with so many things, God is in the details. Overly simplistic ideological arguments always sound good on paper. In practice, the line is seldom, if ever, so clear.

aircooled wrote: Lets put it this way: If everyone is buying Miata's (I know, a stretch), and suddenly Mazda says they will cut production by 25% (exaggeration), what do expect to happen to the price of Miata's almost immediately? (and yes, all questions can be answered with Miata)

25% yeah, approx .5% like now? Probably not so much.

.5% now, with the possibility of 25% in the near future... that slightly rusty 92 with the strange dash pad starts looking better...