State Orders Gas Station to Raise Prices

13»

Comments

  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    are you making money off this..how can you argue against a government who is obviously making lots and lots of money off oil and giving none of the profits to the people of this country?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    which by the way..is one of the exact same things saddam hussein was accused of.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    macgyver06 wrote:
    are you making money off this..how can you argue against a government who is obviously making lots and lots of money off oil and giving none of the profits to the people of this country?

    This question makes no sense. How can I argue against a bad government? Seems pretty easy.

    Furthermore, the government does give "profits to the people of this country". Those profits come in the form of gas that is currently selling at about 2/3s of its true market price.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    macgyver06 wrote:
    what do you mean consumer demand... this isnt a factor when the govt determines the price per gallon in this country...OPEC does not set the prices for this country.. we buy barrels. than they are set in this country. there are no world economics to this...people from england are not moving here for cheaper gas.

    Ugh.

    First, OPEC doesn't determine ppb anymore. The oil exchange market in England does.

    Second, our government does not "determine the price per gallon in this country". Sometimes governments will set fixed margins and prices, but for most part the price of gas is set by the exchange market.
    the season thing is irrelevant and is still set by our goverment...in the summers here in orlando...gas goes up because of the tourism industry??
    it doesnt go up because of a demand change...it goes up because it means more money during a 3 month period.

    You just said the same thing two different ways. The reason increased demand increases prices is because the good has greater worth. So if the market will sustain a $5/gallon gas price in the summer, hell yes I'm going to charge that whereas in the winter I can only charge $4.
    im saying this law is not meant to protect smaller companies... cause you could actually argue its meant to help bigger companies in the case of a Sams club...i can get all my gas for the same price as the little hindu guys store and buy a gallon jar of pickles and plasma tv in one trip...

    You're just trying to invent a reason for this law to fit your preexisting opinions. The actual reason for this law is what you've been told 20 times here.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Well if the reason this law was put into place was to save smaller companies selling gas. Than can you agree its false... this law is not the reason small companies can sell gas...its the exact opposite ..and small independent convenient stores selling gas are now exclusive to lower class neighborhoods and struggle in middle class neighborhoods.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Okay, I have a question that I have heard and am wanting to learn more about.............So, all you economic and politic majors..........."Could a mass boycott of just one particular gas company, indefinately, have a positive effect on gas prices?" Or would that company just get bought out by the one selling all of the gasoline and stregnthen its monopoly?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, I have a question that I have heard and am wanting to learn more about.............So, all you economic and politic majors..........."Could a mass boycott of just one particular gas company, indefinately, have a positive effect on gas prices?"

    Only indirectly, and calculating the indirect economic effects of such a boycott would be kind of a crapshoot.

    The best way to positively effect energy prices is to lower demand (stop driving) or invent alternatives (increase supply).
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Only indirectly, and calculating the indirect economic effects of such a boycott would be kind of a crapshoot.

    The best way to positively effect energy prices is to lower demand (stop driving) or invent alternatives (increase supply).
    Okay, how many people boycotting would it have to take to lower the demand by a substantial amount if the companies boycotted were only companies importing oil from overseas? That would put some pressure up in other areas of government, and I know it's probably a rediculously high number of people...................any mathematicians out there?

    And what would the residual damage be on inderect economics............long term, short term, depending on what?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, how many people boycotting would it have to take to lower the demand by a substantial amount if the companies boycotted were only companies importing oil from overseas? That would put some pressure up in other areas of government, and I know it's probably a rediculously high number of people...................any mathematicians out there?

    A boycott doesn't lower demand unless they're boycotting driving. Boycotting Exxon doesn't lower demand if you're just buying your gas at Shell.

    To get a rough idea of pricing differences, simply look at historical consumption of gas relative to supply at that time. You could construct a rough relationship between supply and demand from there and then make computations to see what percentage of decreased consumption would lead to what percentage of decreased price. The measure would be far from perfect since gas is not perfectly supply/demand priced and the measure wouldn't account for oil supply turmoil and some post-oil production factors, but it would give you a basic idea.
    And what would the residual damage be on inderect economics............long term, short term, depending on what?

    Well, that's the problem. If, say, one of the major oil companies went out of business, monopolies would emerge, supplies could decrease and pricing could conceivably go up. I mean, the indirect effects would be very dependent on which company was involved. Furthermore, they would be locality-specific in a big way. Some areas would be affected different than others. Suffice to say that boycotting an oil company could have just an many negative effects as positive ones, vis a vis gas prices. Truly attacking the supply-side or the demand-side is a much better approach.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm not sure of the point you're making. Yes, in a commodity market the lowest price will win and that means the most efficient or capitalized operation will rule the market. However, how does this "sabatoge industry"? In the event that I push you out of the market, how is there less industry than there was before?

    I don't understand your point here. Basically if seller A goes out of business because of seller B's prices, what's to stop seller B from doing it to all his concurrents until he has a monopoly? And once he has it, what's to stop him from practising ludicrous prices for which we all get to shut up since he is the only seller?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    Kann wrote:
    I don't understand your point here. Basically if seller A goes out of business because of seller B's prices, what's to stop seller B from doing it to all his concurrents until he has a monopoly? And once he has it, what's to stop him from practising ludicrous prices for which we all get to shut up since he is the only seller?

    What was to stop seller A from doing that? The answer is futher competition. If seller B drives A,C,D,E&F out of business and then jacks up his prices to unacceptable levels, then seller G capitalizes on the new low-price market seller B has left behind.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A boycott doesn't lower demand unless they're boycotting driving. Boycotting Exxon doesn't lower demand if you're just buying your gas at Shell.

    To get a rough idea of pricing differences, simply look at historical consumption of gas relative to supply at that time. You could construct a rough relationship between supply and demand from there and then make computations to see what percentage of decreased consumption would lead to what percentage of decreased price. The measure would be far from perfect since gas is not perfectly supply/demand priced and the measure wouldn't account for oil supply turmoil and some post-oil production factors, but it would give you a basic idea.
    It would lower demand for imported oil though, ya see what i'm saying? You couldn't just go for any company and have much of an effect............but the right ones? Then you'd be decreasing consumption by a direct targeted market. We should probably try to push a few more big business monopoly laws through before such a venture................It would, if nothing else, be a massive attempt by the consumers to lower prices.............Which means a lot to poloticians with their hand in the cookie jar.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What was to stop seller A from doing that? The answer is futher competition. If seller B drives A,C,D,E&F out of business and then jacks up his prices to unacceptable levels, then seller G capitalizes on the new low-price market seller B has left behind.
    Exactly!
    not to mention it might make sellers a,c,d,e&F invest in a new kind of resource.........................maybe that's just wishful thinking, they'll probably take their money and run.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What was to stop seller A from doing that? The answer is futher competition. If seller B drives A,C,D,E&F out of business and then jacks up his prices to unacceptable levels, then seller G capitalizes on the new low-price market seller B has left behind.

    But if seller B has the financial and legal capacities can't he just continue to put sellers out of business as to protect his monopoly?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Kann wrote:
    I don't understand your point here. Basically if seller A goes out of business because of seller B's prices, what's to stop seller B from doing it to all his concurrents until he has a monopoly? And once he has it, what's to stop him from practising ludicrous prices for which we all get to shut up since he is the only seller?
    Because they would still want to make money and have investors to please. They would HAVE to stay in the industry some way. Whether it be forming seller G or by some other means.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Kann wrote:
    But if seller B has the financial and legal capacities can't he just continue to put sellers out of business as to protect his monopoly?
    What would Seller B pull them out of business with? New, more efficient technology? Because that is what the other companies know the public wants at that point..............Even better, the technology is already out there, all they have to do is invest in it. I think it would speed up the people trying to patent new technology.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    PJPOWER wrote:
    It would lower demand for imported oil though, ya see what i'm saying?

    It's not that simply, unfortunately. Oil is a commodify. Whether imported or not, there's not much difference in the value of the actual oil.
    You couldn't just go for any company and have much of an effect............but the right ones?

    I'm not sure what that "right one" would be, or how it would lower prices.
    Then you'd be decreasing consumption by a direct targeted market.

    How? The commodity at hand isn't "Exxon" or "Shell". The commodity is gas. And if the boycott doesn't affect the consumption of gas, then it won't work.
    We should probably try to push a few more big business monopoly laws through before such a venture................

    Hehe...what??? What would that accomplish, other than forcing your boycotters to then subsidize the existence of what they're boycotting?
    It would, if nothing else, be a massive attempt by the consumers to lower prices.............Which means a lot to poloticians with their hand in the cookie jar.

    Yeah, and that sucks. The "massive attempt" should be a national oil consumption strike. No consumption of gas. That could affect some massive changes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    Kann wrote:
    But if seller B has the financial and legal capacities can't he just continue to put sellers out of business as to protect his monopoly?

    What "financial and legal capacities" are you talking about?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's not that simply, unfortunately. Oil is a commodify. Whether imported or not, there's not much difference in the value of the actual oil.
    I'm not going to assume that it would actually lower gas prices..........in fact just the opposite for a pretty long time actually. But it would effect the income of particualar businesses...........long story short, it would kind of force a boycott of gasoline all together............Seriously, prices go up too much more, I won't be able to afford it :)............or :(



    I'm not sure what that "right one" would be, or how it would lower prices.
    The ones that a consensus comes up with.



    "How? The commodity at hand isn't "Exxon" or "Shell". The commodity is gas. "

    It does effect the revenue of "Exxon" or "Shell"..........making it a much more espensive comodoty having to sell more or raise prices...........How many investors would sell if they knew there was going to begin a national public boycott of their Business in a year to the date from now?


    "Hehe...what??? What would that accomplish, other than forcing your boycotters to then subsidize the existence of what they're boycotting?"

    That would completly depend on the wording of the new bill.



    "Yeah, and that sucks. The "massive attempt" should be a national oil consumption strike. No consumption of gas. That could affect some massive changes. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately.[/quote]

    That could happen..............probably sooner than not. Some people are feeling some heavy financial pressure because of the gas prices...........as well as businesses.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    i really think everyone is off key a little...gas companies dont want to put other gas companies out of business.

    convenient stores are the ones competing

Categories