Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_gas_price_controls.html" target="_blank">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_gas_price_controls.html</a> >>Hawaii's gasoline price controls have sputtered to a stop. The island state whose drivers pay the highest pump prices in the nation has given up on price caps after an eight-month, first-in-the-nation experiment. Some complained that the restrictions actually led to higher prices, because oil companies knew they could charge up to the maximum allowed. "In a lot of people's minds, they thought the gas cap wasn't working," said Republican state Sen. Paul Whalen, a strong supporter of the price controls. "It was hard to generate lots of support for it because we're paying more than we ever were before." Gas is particularly expensive in Hawaii because of high state taxes and because of the costs of transporting oil across the Pacific. Last fall, Hawaii became the only state to cap the cost of fuel to try to give some relief to motorists. Under the price control legislation, Hawaii set weekly caps on wholesale gas prices. Those caps were based on the average of prices in Los Angeles and New York and on the Gulf Coast. Then allowances were added for what it costs wholesalers to ship to Hawaii and distribute gas to more remote islands. But there was no cap on the markup added by gas stations. << So what to do, IMHO... First off, reduce the amount of different blends of gasoline the Feds require. For example, California has its own blend, so there is no way for other nearby states to ship their gas to California, reducing possible supply and driving up prices. Maybe two or four blends for the Nation,.. North, South, East, West.... Open up more oil production, increase the Alaska production, and start off-shore drilling here in California, the technology has really advanced, and Europe has some amazing derricks in the Atlantic Ocean. (Note, when I say off-shore, I mean deep off-shore, where it would not be visible to folks on the coast line). Give government incentives to build new refineries to increase production (not to replace older refineries), Incentives could included reduced red-tape and tax breaks for building the new facilities.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a good set of facts from the NPR website... <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365439" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s tory/story.php?storyId=5365439</a> Here is a quote from an article discussing the NPR article.... <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5478" target="_blank">http://www.americanthinker.com /articles.php?article_id=5478</a> >>Finally, Stark chose not to inform the viewer that shareholders received a total of $2 billion in dividends – representing a paltry two percent yield based on the current share price, which is less than what one can make in a money market account or certificate of deposit – or less than one tenth what the government made from ExxonMobil in the quarter. That’s right – the government actually received more than ten times as much money from ExxonMobil as its shareholders. Capitalism at it’s finest, wouldn’t you agree? Not to be shut out of the oil company bashing, the NBC Nightly News also lead with oil prices that evening.<<<<
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Hawaii proves that a cap on Gas Prices won't work >>> Well gee, that's a surprise... NOT. Price caps are almost never a good idea for a commodity item. And it seemed that the formula they had in Hawaii showed that the high gas prices there were the result of higher costs to do business in that state, and not undue profiteering.
Originally Posted By berol All it can be said to prove is that that particular gas price cap design doesn't work, but... "Price caps are almost never a good idea for a commodity item."
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< All it can be said to prove is that that particular gas price cap design doesn't work, but... "Price caps are almost never a good idea for a commodity item." >>> I believe that arbitrary price controls on a commodity that has price/demand elasticity are fundamentally flawed. If you don't let supply/demand and price balance themselves out, then you create shortages. Note that I'm not promoting a totally unregulated market. Many times, regulation is absolutely necessary in order to assure a freely-functioning market. With no regulation, you can end up with a "robber baron" sort of situation with monopolistic tactics being used to the detriment of the consumer. But regulation of the form "item X is too expensive, so by law we hereby decree that item X will cost no more than $Y" is fatally flawed. Unfortunately, it's an all-too-common populist solution to many problems. Hey Darkbeer, help me out here. In California a few years ago (1986 or 1988, perhaps?), an insurance reform initiative was passed that among other things dictated an arbitrary 20% cut in auto insurance premiums as a first step toward reform. To my knowledge, it never actually went into effect, and was a stupid, kneejerk reaction to the problem. If insurance companies are overcharging for insurance, then there are much more sensible ways to address the problem.
Originally Posted By berol I was gonna say maybe a PUC for gas, but nah. you'd never see prices go down. I remember a more recentauto ins. proposition which had rural people get their premiums raised so urbans could pay less out of "fairness."
Originally Posted By berol <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_ballot_propositions_1980-1989" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_California_ballot_propositions_1980-1989</a> I see 2 props in 11/88, but they failed.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I remember a more recentauto ins. proposition which had rural people get their premiums raised so urbans could pay less out of "fairness." >>> This brings up a very intersting issue: what demographic categories should we as a society allow to be used for insurance underwriting, and which not? For example, it's well established that one can be charged different premiums based on their gender and age, but not skin color, even though discrimination based on age and gender are otherwise prohibited. If the statistics showed that, for example, purple people had on average 30% more claims, why are we prohibited to charge purple people a higher rate for insurance, while at the same time charge people of certain ages or a certain gender more? People can't help their age or gender any more than they can their skin color, so why are some of these categories allowed to be used and others not? It would seem that where one lives makes much more sense to be a usable demographic: it's very much like smoking: even though not all smokers choose to pick up a lifelong habit (which in many cases is acquired before they are "of age" to be responsible for themselves in a legal sense), they still have some amount of control as to whether they continue smoking or not. I don't pretend to have all the answers as to what's fair and what's not, but do believe that there is some amount of inherent unfairness in the way things are currently set up that is just accepted by society for whatever reason. And yes, I know, "Life's not fair."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Another liberal idea up in flames... gas price caps. LOL! Throw it in the bin of other liberal ideas that were total failures like taxing the rich or socialism or gay marriage or socialized healthcare or affirmitive action. These people are amazing. All they have to do is learn simple ecomonics and common sense, but noooooooo.....
Originally Posted By berol Purple people eaters' premiums are MUCH lower. Is that fair?! (hey, it was that or a Laker joke)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Another liberal idea up in flames... gas price caps. LOL!> <said Republican state Sen. Paul Whalen, a strong supporter of the price controls. > So... all we know of the Hawaii situation from this thread politically comes from that one quote from a supporter, and he's a Republican. Yet Beau immediately goes for calling this a "liberal" idea. If there were a drug on the market for restless knee-jerk syndome, Beau, I'd send you a case!
Originally Posted By fkurucz Price controls will only insure that fuel supplies will be redirected to unregulated markets, which are many. Anyway, until we kick our 15 mpg truck/SUV habit/addiction, gas prices will stay high and continue to climb.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Price controls will only insure that fuel supplies will be redirected to unregulated markets, which are many. >>> Or cause demand to not be curtailed such that there are shortages. And as soon as shortages start, some people will start hoarding, only worsening the problem. <<< Anyway, until we kick our 15 mpg truck/SUV habit/addiction, gas prices will stay high and continue to climb. >>> It really does amaze me how much waste there is out there. And it hasn't helped much that the US automakers have staked most of their profits in recent years on SUV sales - now look where they are financially compared to the likes of Toyota now that there has been a shift in consumer demand (even if it's not dramatic). I know it's a free country, and I would not like to see the problem solved by too much regulation. What gets me is the people that have bought into the "I *need* a 9/12/15mpg vehicle because of (insert excuse here)" and have convinced themselves that it's true. They have lots of kids that need to go to soccer practice. They need to go to WDW once a year. Well, soccer practice and WDW were around long before SUVs or even minivans were popular. I remember when station wagons with a third row of seats were the family transport of choice for people that needed extra room. Once again, I must say that I don't think we should over-regulate what choices people make, but it's annoying to see people that have chosen to drive a gas-guzzler then complain when gas gets to $3, which isn't even at its historical high when adjusted for inflation.
Originally Posted By keokiboy <<<So... all we know of the Hawaii situation from this thread politically comes from that one quote from a supporter, and he's a Republican. Yet Beau immediately goes for calling this a "liberal" idea.>>> Actually... Beau is correct. The bill was introduced by Sen. Ron Menor, a Democrat. In fact, Hawaii govt is a mainly seated with Democrats. Ron Menor has been feverishly fighting to keep this law alive. But since this is an election year for him... he conceded to suspend the gas cap. Under this new law now, the govenor can re-enact the gas cap if she deems it so. The gas cap was a bad idea. It aims to control prices by capping the wholesale price, but it makes no attempt to curb retail price, which is the price you pay at the pump. The pricing formula based the wholesale prices from the Gulf Coast, LA, etc. Hawaii refineries buy their crude from Asia from countries such as Singapore. I'm glad it is gone.... for now.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy See Dabob... a guy from HAWAII setting the record straight that the democrats are the ones to push such a stupid, ignorant idea that violates all the rules of basic ecomonics. By the way.... when I buy gay I ask for a certain dollar amount like $25 unleaded. For some reason, it doesn't seem to hurt as much getting gas this way compared to filling the car up for $70 bucks. Sure the tank isn't as full, but you seem to be spending the same amount and you just drive a little less if possible. Not a perfect plan, but hey, it's a plan a lib in a Volvo might go with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The bill was introduced by Sen. Ron Menor, a Democrat. In fact, Hawaii govt is a mainly seated with Democrats. Ron Menor has been feverishly fighting to keep this law alive. But since this is an election year for him... he conceded to suspend the gas cap. Under this new law now, the govenor can re-enact the gas cap if she deems it so.> Thanks for the info. But the fact remains that until you mentioned that, the only party affiliation mentioned in this thread of a supporter of this idea was a Republican, yet some jump to conclusions anyway. And since this Republican was a supporter, it seems to me this was probably closer to "bi-partisan panic to appear to do something about a problem" than anything else.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <By the way.... when I buy gay I ask for a certain dollar amount> Going after rent boys, are we now, Beau? Somehow, I always knew...
Originally Posted By berol If a Republican is in office in Hawaii, he's probably centrist at best if not a bit left.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <By the way.... when I buy gay I ask for a certain dollar amount> Going after rent boys, are we now, Beau? Somehow, I always knew...>> LOL, uhhh... the other thread must have been on my mind.
