$3 a gallon gasoline?? How about some price controls??

   I was just wondering why no Democrats or other politicians are not calling for President Bush or congress to set a cap on the price of gasoline?

   From everything I have read oil companies are reaping record profits so it's not like that limiting the price of gas would put them in the hole.

   I'm sure the president or congress could set a cap at such a level so as to still allow oil companies a decent profit, while at the same time giving consumers a little relief.

 I mean it's not like consumers can immediately demand more salaries from their employers to offset the high gas prices, or go out and immediately invest in some hybrid car or something. Shouldn't corporations who have profites so much from our free market approach have to show some civic spirit?

•  actually

  I heard on WCBS radio that they were expecting $4 a gallon by the end of next month, with a 65 cent increase this weekend alone.

  by CaptUnderpants on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:15:18 AM PDT

  •  I heard the same thing from

    an oil industry analyst on the radio today.  It's expected to hit 4$ and according to the analyst, "with no end in sight."

    At least one good thing came of this for mne I guess.  I finally quit smoking since I can barely cut anything else in my budget.

    by PaulVA on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

    •  you get a 4

      for quitting the cancer sticks. =) Good job!

      by CaptUnderpants on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:34:31 AM PDT

  •  If that's true...

    ...I'm totally screwed.  

    My small business relies on people having extra spending money.  People obviously aren't going to be buying CDs and other nonessentials if their spare money is going right into the gas tank.  

    I know I'm not alone in facing my business failing.

    by ssmt on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:24:39 AM PDT

    •  Two Ways of Seeing...

      ... I can see people spending money on CDs and other small nonessentials over going out to the movies, or going to baseball games, or whatever. I can see people scaling down their entertainment.

      Then again, my husband and I are both in the music business on a smallish scale, so what you're saying has definitely crossed my mind... though I don't think it's crossed his yet...

      by LBK on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:27:27 AM PDT

      •  I hope you're right!

        I sure can use a little encouragement!  Best of luck to you guys too.

        by ssmt on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:37:48 AM PDT

    •  My small business

      relies on transport to exist.  I have calculated that I will be no longer able to do business when gas hits about $5/g.  Till then, I can lower my service area to reduce use or raise my prices to cover the expense.  Afterwards, I can also look for another line of work that doesn't require so much time in the trucks.

      Gas is over $3.00 right now and is only climbing.  I wonder how much longer I will be able to keep this up?

      Eric

      by ericledford on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:31:46 AM PDT

•  Can't have that...

  Only thing we can hope for is the cost rockets up so high that the Big Non-Oil Corporations turn on the Oil Companies.

  by Fro on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:17:03 AM PDT

•  That'll be the day...

  The day Bush puts price controls on the oil industry is the day hell freezes over.

  Dick Cheney would sooner have his final, fatal heart attack than clamp down on his pals in the oil business.

  by Bob Johnson on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:17:13 AM PDT

•  Fear of conservative gods

     Placing price controls would enrage the gods of the free market (e.g. Grover Norquist), whom the conservatives adulate and serve above all others.

  by WIds on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:17:23 AM PDT

•  Recommended Diary

  I asked this same question in one of the long Katrina threads. Why can't they forego profits while this crisis passes?

  I cannot believe that NO-ONE I've heard on the MSN has even broached this idea.

  Am I being naive? Do I not understand something? I mean, really, why hasn't this crossed the minds of journalists and lawmakers????
  

  by Dunbar on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:17:47 AM PDT

  •  Actually I read here somewhere

    that Soledad or however you spell her name brought it up on CNN when talking to a govt. official.  She was blown off, but it was brought up.

    I think they have the fear of what happened to Nixon when he froze prices.  There was a public outcry and when he backed off on it, everyplace basically doubled their prices in case he froze everything again.

    by DanD on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:20:41 AM PDT

    •  I posted the comment about Soledad.

      She did inquire about price caps this morning when interviewing the Secretary of Energy.

      He said it wasn't gonna happen.

      by VickiStein on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:31:43 AM PDT

    •  Why would the public disagree?

      Why would there be a public outcry then or now?

      by Dunbar on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:44:47 AM PDT

      •  Corporations used loop holes

        They never just make a blanket law or decree, they always put in special cases for this etc etc.  So all kinds of nonsense happened.  2x4's had holes drilled in them and filled as then they were processed lumber and had a higher price.  Mid grade steel which was regulated was discontinued to force companies to buy higher value and higher grades of steel. Goods were shipped to canada and back as the controls didn't affect imports.  At that time gas from new refineries was allowed to be sold at a higher cost.   Sometimes conditions were added for purchase, to get x regulated product you need to purchase 2x unregulated product.

        The net result was the set price was wonderful if you could find anyone that actually would sell you that.  Now if you wanted the 'unregulated' almost identical but slightly modified but vastly more expensive item, then you could generally find that.
        

        by DanD on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:30:23 AM PDT

  •  Are you being naive?

    Did you ask why oil companies can't forgo profits?  Then yes.  Sadly, that is naive (although it shouldn't be).  They are one of three industries shielded from any and all possibility of not making all the money they want (the other two being pharmaceuticals and insurance).

    by switzerblog on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:22:51 AM PDT

  •  I've noticed it too. I mean unions make concession

    when times are tough. It seems unpatriotic when the admin says we are all in this together for the oil companies  not to forgo some of their largesse.

    by Hollowdweller on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:04:01 AM PDT

•  Jeez, ya commie

  Who do you think he is, Nixon?

  Oh wait, that's closer than I thought....

  by switzerblog on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:18:34 AM PDT

•  Just a reminder

  When your conservative and/or libertarian friends suggest price controls, remind them that they are the ones who advocate keeping the government out of the marketplace and letting the market regulate itself.  

  by multispeed49 on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:23:35 AM PDT

•  Price controls

  are un-American.  

  eric

  by ericledford on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:26:32 AM PDT

•  I Want $5 A Gallon

  Gas prices cannot go high enough.

  Sheesh, people  - this is serious.  Since the only thing we have working for us is "free market economics", let's quit subsidizing petroleum with our dollars and sons/daughters blood and pay what it really costs.  No more complaining.

  The era of cheap gas is over.  Let he who wants to drive the gigantic SUV pay $5 a gallon for the gasoline to propel it.

  by bincbom on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:28:30 AM PDT

•  OTOH...

  ...arguably America needs to take its foul-tasting medicine if it is ever to get better... By European standards, we'll be paying around $7 a gallon within the next two years.

  by Lupin on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:29:17 AM PDT

•  Price controls won't solve it

  unless you can control the price of oil on the entire planet. Oil is global. Demand is driving it. The oil will go where the money is.

  If we go into recession or depression, and the high cost of gas slows demand, (less driving) the price will drop.

  But democrats could call for a rollback of all the subsidies that were just passed in the energy package for starters.

  by Sherri in TX on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:29:30 AM PDT

  •  They won't solve it

      But they would help cushion the transition from an oil based economy to something else.

    by Hollowdweller on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:05:44 AM PDT

•  Price controls are a bad idea, but....

  
  Yes, gas is going through the roof and there are hardships ahead.  But price controls will lead to supply shortages.  

  I'm for less government, not more.  

  That having been said... I am ALL for ensuring that the oil markets are operating freely and are not being arbitraged (ala Enron style).  Of course, that might be asking a bit much from the Big Oil Administration.  

  by Jon Jayman on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:31:19 AM PDT

  •  a taste of the future

    I am ALL for ensuring that the oil markets are operating freely and are not being arbitraged (ala Enron style).

    It is clear that oil companies now can make more money by delivering less gasoline.  We can look forward to alot of market gaming by the oil companies as the global oil supply gets tighter and tighter.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:34:45 AM PDT

•  fighting capitalism?

  When the supply is limited, we have two choices: high prices or shortages.  Maintaining an artificially low price would mean that people would keep buying like always even if there isn't enough to go around.  Then some gas stations run out and the rest have long lines.  It's better to have high prices, so people who really need gas can get it, and pay through the nose for the privilege.  If it helps get people out of their SUVs, all the better.

  by CA Pol Junkie on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

•  We have to kick the monkey.

  Cheap oil is cooking our planet and rotting the soul of American democracy.  Gasoline should be in $5-6 range.  At least.  I say bring it on.

  It'll hurt for a while, but once the fevers and shakes and chills subside we're going feel better than we have in centuries.

  by green street on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

  •  The idea is nice

    Until you consider the millions of poor and lower class who are now overburdened and by this will be broken.  And believe me, there won't be enough charity and government aid to pick them back up.

    by ganner918 on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:31:11 AM PDT

    •  What's the alternative?

      Americans, taken together, seem unwilling to cut gasoline consumption unless price compels them to do so.  Just look at car ads these days.  Suddenly fuel efficiency is a major selling point.  When's the last time that was the case?

      The climate doesn't care about economics.  Or poor people.  Or rich people.  Earth is going to tear us apart unless we get this oil problem under control.  The poor would not fare any better in that scenario.

      We cannot continue to encourage consumption with cheap oil.  That's not an option.  Mitaging the impact of expensive oil on the poor, however, IS an option.

      by green street on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 11:51:09 AM PDT

•  I'd have no trouble with 4$ a gallon gas

  If it was going to fund a mass transit system like in Europe where I can hop a train and go anywhere.  Since its lining the pockets of multibillionaires and dictatorial monarchs, it does piss me off fierce though.

  by marcvstraianvs on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:34:41 AM PDT

•  Good thing

  This country's ridiculous energy consumption is contributing to global warming and other environmental problems.  We are involved in a war in the middle east because we are dependent on foreign oil.  Yet we keep buying SUVs and using more and more oil.  Maybe the high prices will finally get people to change their behavior and to indirectly address the envrironmental and oil dependence problems.

  by lando on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:34:58 AM PDT

•  because

  there is a shortage of fuel.  Price controls would eliminate any incentive to consume responsibly.  At least, so I hear- but I am not convinced.  Still, it's a valid point- when there is a shortage, we don't need to encourage status quo consumption.

  by tubalefty on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:39:24 AM PDT

•  Not a good idea

  History has shown that price controls in times of shortage are usually a disaster.

  by Bradford in Jax on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:40:31 AM PDT

•  Anecdotal measurement

  I was walking through a parking lot yesterday, prices had just gone up, and there was a person sitting in the car, engine running, and the air conditioner on while eating lunch.  A very shady area with tables and benches was 150 feet away.  Also, it was warm here but not hot at all.

  My conclusion was that gas needs to go higher.  If we still have people who think it's worth the cost to run a car for its air conditioning, the price isn't high enough.  And for those who are anxious about the added cost of fuel and how it will affect their businesses:  you have my concern and sympathy.  I really think it will come down to location.  If you are off the track and away from other businesses you had better hunker down now.  If you are on mass transit and near other businesses with a lot of pedestrian and motorized traffic, I think you will do ok.  Good luck.

  by red moon dog on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:46:22 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    This is an excellent observation! As prices go up, people will find ways to conserve. The higher they go, the more incentive we have to conserve. So you're right, I think, by saying that gas needs to go higher. Right now, it's not high enough if people still waste by doing stupid things like you described and if they are still buying Humvees and super-SUVs. I think it needs to go a lot higher so that people start paying attention to the fact that our government isn't doing enough to encourage development of alternative sources of energy or more effecient technologies.

    Many of us believe opening ANWR to oil drilling will ruin the environment there. That's true, but we should be framing it differently. As long as we continue to find new sources of oil, we will stay dependent on oil. The sooner we run out of oil, the sooner we'll find an alternative! Rather than drill ANWR, we should be providing incentives to auto-makers to improve the efficiency of our cars (more hybrids) and to energy industries to find alternatives. The minute we drill ANWR, what we will have done is encourage people to sit in their cars with the AC on while they're eating a sandwich!!!

    by mdsiamese on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:02:46 AM PDT

•  50 cents in 48 hours

  Monday evening I filled up for $2.72 (regular unleaded).  The same station this morning was $3.27.  The point of raising prices, in addition to making more money, is to reduce consumption so that stations don't run out.  Suits me.  We could use some reduced consumption.  

  by pkjnew on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:50:26 AM PDT

  •  Same here,

    though a little different: Last night, I filled up for $2.50-something but this morning I saw lots of stations at $3.19 for regular unleaded. I hope this tank lasts me for a while.

    The hubster started taking the bus to work a couple months ago. It doubles his travel time because we have a crummy bus system in our city but he loves not having to drive. His mother asked him at what point does it become cheaper to ride than to drive. I think we're definitely getting closer to it now!

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:47:12 AM PDT

•  55 MPH speed limit

  I have been advocating a return to a Nat. speed limit of 55 MPH to reduce consumption. It is easy to implement, as it is only a short time since this was the case. I frame it as a patriotic sacrifice in the war on terror, which we the public have not had to do much of yet.
  P.S. I like driving fast too, but I am willing to do my part for the greater good.

  by flounder on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:50:50 AM PDT

•  bad idea

  A price cap would cause shortages. The President could certainly right now cap the price of gasoline by executive order, claiming he needs to do it as a result of a natural catastrophe. I read a prediction that we're going to top $4 a gallon, which will really screw our economy and virtually kill some business markets (like the
  tourist industry). But a price cap would actually cause a worse problem - shortage. We import a lot of oil, if those that we import from can get more money by selling the oil elsewhere, they will.

  What Bush can do, and apparently is going to do, is release some of the SPR oil to replace what isn't coming into the port of New Orleans. That will not lower prices, but will help prevent shortages. And a shortage of gas will be worse than a high price. Think of it this way - if gas is $5 a gallon, people will by only what they need to get to work, will struggle and it will be painful, but they'll get to work. If gas is capped at $3 a gallon and OPEC can get a better price for their oil in Japan or China or Russia or wherever, we won't have any gas to buy to get to work. It will be awful!

  by mdsiamese on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

•  This debate is getting asinine

  My wife has to drive 55 miles round trip to work. We can't afford to give that job up, and we couldn't afford to live within a 20 mile radius of her job because of the house payment we can afford. We have scads of doctor visits too. We have no real usable mass transit system. The nearest bus stop for us is probably six miles away. We have no light rail, train, subway, or anything.

  Most of us around here have to drive to work because we have no usable alternative system. Our vehicle is the best compromise between gas mileage and getting people and car seats both in it. I work at home so I drive as little as possible. Our fuel expenses for the month are still generally over $300 as it is.

  Gas prices going up to $5-6/gal is just going to double or triple our monthly expenses. None of that money is going to ever go to mass transit and it will take years and years if they started today to build a system here that we can use. Thankfully they are at least thinking about it, but with tax revenues down they are having a hard time paying for it.

  We have pretty decent jobs, but with a new baby, gas going up sucks. There are a lot of people here who simply can't absorb that cost.

  So, let's review before the cheerleaders for higher gas prices get out of control.

  Will higher gas prices hurt rich people? no
  Will higher gas prices hurt big SUV owners? not that many since you have to have money to afford one in the first place
  Will higher gas prices hurt oil companies? no
  Will higher gas prices affect oil lobbyists? no
  Will anything happen to reform energy issues while Bush is in office? no

  Will it actually bring about mass transit? Perhaps years from now, but not in time to help all these people who would suffer in the meantime. I'm still not holding my breath because someone still has to find the money to pay for it. In many places, mass transit is decades away.
  Will it bring about more fuel-efficient vehicles? Probably, but what inventory they have is so back-ordered that this will also take years.

  Will higher gas prices hurt lower income people? badly
  Will higher gas prices hurt small businesses? you bet
  Will higher gas prices affect farmers, truckers, etc.? yep
  Will lower income people be able to replace their 15 year old car struggling car with a nice new Prius? get serious
  Will higher gas prices bring about higher prices for basic staples such as food and clothing? yes

  Higher prices will harm the very people Dems are trying to help. The rule that if we let things get really bad, change will happen, never works. If you let things get really bad, all you get is something really bad. Sure the solutions are common sense, but look where common sense has gotten us before.

  Oh, and I don't give a shit about what they do in Europe. They have mass transit options everywhere and for the most part, we don't. Putting an immense burden on the poor and middle income people isn't going to change that reality. Europe doesn't have Bush as their leader either and they largely have universal health care. We have to deal with the reality hand we are dealt. It sucks, but that's how it is.

  We desparately need change in our energy policy. I absolutely agree with that. But doing it while piling a giant weight on the poor is just wrong. The Dems have laid down in the road about this in the past and waited to get run over by energy companies. It's time to go after the administration on their failures and be relentless about it. Heaping suffering on the poor while we are doing it isn't the answer.

  by Aragorn for America on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:05:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree that bad policy led us into this.

    But,

    Do you expect conditions to ever go back to how they were, say, 10 years ago?  Or might it be that, for most of us, the ability to commute 55 miles was the historical exception to the rule?

    by green street on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:10:21 PM PDT

    •  telecommuting

      This is a sort of a roundabout way of answering your question. I don't think anything is going back to how it was, but I think there are great solutions to fix the commuting issue.

      I think the most immediate help to the problem is to bring about widescale telecommuting. The infrastructure pretty much exists to make that happen almost immediately. Companies just need the will to allow it. I mean, hell. If you can collaborate on projects now with people all over the world, why do you even need to go into the office half the time? I just completed a project with participants from 15 states and I never left the house.

      Just to make up some numbers, if just 100,000 more people who commute 40 miles to work worked three days a week from home, that would save 12 million miles of gasoline usage a week, or about 600 million miles a year. That's probably about 25 million gallons of gas. Not a huge amount in real terms, but there's no real reason why a couple million professionals couldn't do this. Again, it just takes the will.

      I think long commutes will be an exception eventually for a large sector of the population. Unfortunately, the ones who will still have to drive will be the lower paid workers who work at factories, McJobs, etc. Hopefully if demand drops enough in other ways, prices will drop enough to make things OK for them. Reduced consumption is good all the way around.

      You could market it as a family value too. I work from home and get to take care of my kid too.

      by Aragorn for America on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 12:37:53 PM PDT

•  I completely disagree

  Gas prices have been too low for a long time, effectively masking the true cost of gasoline and cars to the local and global environment.

  Price controls will only produce shortages while doing nothing to control demand, which is the real problem.

  What is truly needed is a windfall profits tax on the oil companies with the proceeds used to fund alternative energy sources.

  by admiralh on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:13:04 AM PDT

•  YES!!

  
  Stop it at $2.50

  75% of that is just raw profit anyway

  by NewAmerica on Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 10:17:30 AM PDT