The press is once again all breathless with the erroneous claim that gasoline prices are at an all time high. The only high I'm wondering about is what drugs these journalists are using to get this high? The article notes that when adjusting for inflation gasoline prices would have to hit $2.99/gallon to beat the past high. But what do we see, titles about...record highs. I am simply staggered at the complete and totally blinkered idiocy of journalists. They have it quite clearly that prices are not at an all time high, but that is the title that is continually use.
As for Bush I wonder if he will be stupid enough to put price controls into place assuring that we don't have enough gasoline. It'll be cheap, you just wont be able to buy any. And when a station does have gasoline, there will be a nice long line. Bush has already shown that he will ignore economic logic for short term political gain, so who knows.
And to be fair, Kerry is also a moron. On the one hand he wants to help the environment. But on the other hand gasoline prices are too high. Sorry Senator Ketchup you can't have it both ways. Higher prices means less consumption of gasoline and other goods which is good for the enivornment. Stop talking out of your ass and your mouth.
Posted by Steve at March 31, 2004 10:47 AMWell, Bush did resist calls for price controls on electricity in California. So there's reason for hope.
I think he figured steel tariffs wouldn't make that much difference in the overall scheme of things, but he's got to have enough sense to know that price controls on gasoline would have an enormous impact. Especially since we've tried it before with catastrophic results.
Posted by: Ken on March 31, 2004 12:44 PMWell, Bush did resist calls for price controls on electricity in California. So there's reason for hope.
Well, there were already price controls in the retail market. And the soft price caps in the wholesale market did the trick nicely.
Posted by: Steve on March 31, 2004 01:28 PMThe link you provide doesn't lead to a story.
I'm assuming that price controls were mentioned in the story but I have no idea about the context implied.
An option for President Bush, if he wants to avoid price controls, is to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This could flood the market in the months preceding the election and remove the high gas price from the consciousness of the voter. Of course, doing so for his political gain will reduce the strategic reserves which are intended for national emergencies. I'd guess most people wouldn't care about the abstract security diminishment and will react positively to lowered gas prices.
Posted by: TangoMan on March 31, 2004 01:59 PMInteresting, TangoMan, that you imply a political motive for President Bush for this hypothetical action which the Bush administration has not even suggested and omit to acknowledge the political motivation for the Kerry camp in their ineffective suggestions of diverting the SPP.
Actually, I take that back. It isn't interesting anymore.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on March 31, 2004 02:11 PM"I think the president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, ‘We expect you to open your spigots.’ … The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price."
Posted by: Quaker on March 31, 2004 09:02 PM"`I think Americans ought to be asking where's all the capital we earned overseas after defending some of our OPEC nation friends?'"
Posted by: Quaker on March 31, 2004 09:06 PMWEWS, Cleveland's ABC affiliate, used a news story about the gas hikes to promote the station's own online petition to promote "rage" at gas hikes. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.newsnet5.com/money/2943063/detail.html
Posted by: Skip Oliva on March 31, 2004 10:53 PMRobin,
Are we in a national emergency? If not, then drawing from the SPR would be a decision made for political gain. I wouldn't agree with the withdrawal but I think most people would view it as a popular move because it would lower prices at the pump. Overall, a winning strategy for the President.
You see conspiracies all around you. As for Senator Kerry, his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth is legendary especially if he can appeal to some group. The diversion plan would be ineffective in that the amounts released would be negligible. It's a half measure. If one believes that gas prices need to come down, then marshall the full resources available to you and do it effectively, not some half-assed attempt that isn't noticed at the pump and hinders the goals of the SPR. Do it right or don't do it at all.
You confuse criticism of President Bush with support for Senator Kerry. They can both be asses at the same time. Your world view may be strictly Black and White, but mine isn't. You haven't read any commentary of mine that comes forth to defend Senator Kerry when Steve points out his frequent gaffes. Steve has pointed out President Bush's weaknesses in the past but now is buried with material, almost daily, of the ineptness of Senator Kerry, so I feel that I'm doing my part by pointing out the ineptness of President Bush.
Posted by: TangoMan on March 31, 2004 11:52 PMTangoMan
I disagree with releasing SPR, it has a function and high gas prices ain't it. But I thought the main problem with gas prices was refining capacity? So it seems to me that the only political gain would be by releasing some with no notice immediately before the election.
He might get the votes of a few people unfamiliar with the situation, and the no notice would be necessary to keep any informed opinions coming out between the release and the election.
How stoopid are our politicians that I'm discussing a plan like this?
Posted by: Ron on April 1, 2004 07:56 AMTangoMan:
Yore insinuating that Bush is willing to release oil from the SPR. KERRY is the one saying that we should stop adding to the SPR, essentially releasing more oil into the market. Kerry. Not Bush. Projections much?
Steve:
As for Bush I wonder if he will be stupid enough to put price controls into place assuring that we don't have enough gasoline.
I have to say I was surprised to see you wrote this. What on earth gave you the idea that Bush would make that stupid of a mistake? They're looking at "short term things" like relaxing the EPA restrictions on the different blends of gasoline. This would allow the supply to be shifted around to higher demand areas more easily.
I know Bush has done some economically stupid things, but come on -- price controls on gasoline would be Kucinich-stupid.
Posted by: Dave on April 1, 2004 08:30 AMI have to say I was surprised to see you wrote this. What on earth gave you the idea that Bush would make that stupid of a mistake? They're looking at "short term things" like relaxing the EPA restrictions on the different blends of gasoline.
I disagree, it would be steel tariff stupid, and since Bush has already demonstrated he is more than willing to go that specific route....
Posted by: Steve on April 1, 2004 08:36 AM"I disagree, it would be steel tariff stupid, and since Bush has already demonstrated he is more than willing to go that specific route...."
Not even close. The steel tariffs were dumb, but not catastrophic for most people. Gas lines across the country are another matter altogether.
Posted by: Ken on April 1, 2004 10:59 AMBitch, bitch bitch, we're not conserving enough, gas prices go higher, more conservation, bitch, bitch bitch because they're paying higher prices.
Yeesh.
It's like living in Europe, the US is damned if we do, damned if we don't.
But, Alaska's got territorial rights offshore around ANWR and are going to drill.
hehehehehehehehe
Posted by: SAndy P. on April 1, 2004 09:22 PMSteve,
Ok, gotcha. I guess I'm just less cynical (or more polyannaish?) about the administration's economic wisdom. Hell, if I can remember the linrd at gas stations in the 70's I'd hope someone in the White House could too.
Posted by: Dave on April 2, 2004 08:03 AMFunny how everyone likes to bash on how the gas prices are up because of shipping and other insignificant purposes of the U.S. getting their oil/gas. Doesn't anyone know that it is all here. Makes people wonder why gas is up so much. Don't you agree?
Posted by: what ever you want it to be on November 9, 2004 04:10 PM