$25 For A Gallon Of Gas

Tyler Durden's picture

Because even the road to socialist utopia is paved with capitalist intentions. At least until the 120% excise "fairness" tax is implemented. In the meantime, welcome back supply and demand. We missed you...

From Craigslist:

h/t John

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

Yee Haw!   I have no idea how to answer that the oil industry is one of the most non-free market, government subsidized industries on the planet, so I'll just fall back to sophomoric free market red meat platitudes.  Ride 'em cowboy!

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I was talking about you. You think that price discover is unfair so why do you use it in order to not pay your employees more than they are worth?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Where do I say price discover[y] is unfair?

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

And the fact that someone can and does advertise gas for $25/gallon means that it cannot be done and it's all government's fault that there is a shortage after an historic storm?

 

Do you or do you not agree that price gouging laws enacted and enforced by government limit the desire of those who can provide supplies to stricken areas to actually do so?

dark pools of soros's picture

when a country goes into massive debt on the notion it is 'providing for people' you must also think that a 400 pound lady maxxing out her credit cards to get even fatter is wise behavior

LetThemEatRand's picture

So we're going to focus on trade constraints, and just ignore the cost of the military running around and maintaining the status quo, none of which is reflected in the price at the pump and therefore the profit margin of the majors?   And we're going to ignore favorable lease terms for the oil industry, and subsidization of things like cleaning up the enviroronment?   What the heck, I'm convinced.  Think I'll slap a big belt buckle on and gas up the pickup and drive down to the local watering hole and complain about socialism and subsidized green energy technology destroying America and how we need more free market.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

So we're going to focus on trade constraints, and just ignore the cost of the military running around and maintaining the status quo, none of which is reflected in the price at the pump and therefore the profit margin of the majors?

 

Because it's not the government that uses the military to subsidize the oil indusrty. It's the market's fault.

GoinFawr's picture

 

"Because it's not the government that uses the military to subsidize the oil indusrty. It's the market's fault."

Your sarcasm is not quite misplaced enough this time. As usual, and as I am sure you are aware, your disinformation is half true, and your sardonic conclusion is a deliberate strawman. But, after all, stuffing bullshit into others' mouths is the echochambermaiden MO. Haw haw.

It's the plutocracy that owns the oil companies that USeans have allowed to purchase their gov't that uses the US military to subsidize their industry. Duh.

IE It's not the market's fault: it's YOURS!

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Actually it's your fault because when folks get onto the truth about the evils of organizing society by force you come out of the woodwork with your snarky comments in an effort to delegitimize those who speak oput against the regime. Get back to Bloomberg's house, he's got a hot toddy and a warm bed all ready for you.

GoinFawr's picture

Oh spare us. Quit trying to pass off your lot's deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of reality as somehow a 'noble quest for ultimate truth with a side of freedom fries'. By the time you and the other decepticons get done giving each other reacharounds in your daisy chains of misinformation burbled out of both sides of your thick lipped gaping maws while cheering on hate spewing shit trolls who drop steaming coilers on anyone who dares call you or your gang on your fantasyland bs... by then 'Truth' has long since given up and gone to the pub for a pint.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You seem to think that people only come in one of two flavors, either red or blue. I've voted for Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and None of the Above in my day. Freedom fries, indeed! You ought to get out more often and see that people are not the cartoon figures you imagine them to be. Also realize that those of us who respect the individual rights of others will no longer accept the pain inflicted by statists such as you. Fuck you, your wars and your welfare.

GoinFawr's picture

 I'll have to go ahead and take 'none of the above' when it comes to all the strawmen you set up in order to knock them down.

 But thank you so very much for constantly pushing them at me and any one else who calls you out on your bs.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You associated my comments with those who created "freedom fries." Correcting your error is no strawman. I was a Democrat and opposed to the war at the time of the freedom fries issue. I sent money to antiwar groups and marched in the streets in protest. I voted for John Kerry as the 'anyone but Bush' alternative. In light of that can you present new evidence proving that I looked favorably on freedom fries as you originally asserted?

GoinFawr's picture

I meant 'freedom fries' in the 'hate everything France stands for' context. I would have thought that obvious to a self-purported 'anti-statist' like yourself.... but I'd bet you knew that all along anyway, and were just digging for another sidetrack to latch onto in order to derail the conversation by putting your opponent (in this instance:me) on the defensive; standard practice when you sense that you're being shown up.

FWIW I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in your efforts to singlehandedly foment world peace, assuming we can reach some sort of mutual agreement regarding the MO.

But I will fight you tooth and nail to keep the public libraries (an eg. of 'welfare') open so that even those who weren't fortunate enough to inherit their initial stake still have a decent shot at self determination.

Fuck you and all your double standards, your false dichotomies, your imaginary absolutes, your hypocrisy, and most of all, fuck you and your pseudomeritocratic fantasies and their ARandian 'principles'; the practice of which hinge upon your own self service and personal convenience.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I'm not a mind reader. Don't expect me to be able to extract your intended meaning when you ramble on about freedom fries and god knows what else in your effort to legitimize the unjust wars and prisons of the state. All those poor lil chilluns who get to read at your fancy government libraries will likely not find that a decent trade off for the elimination of their freedom and well being. Not to mention all the foreign kids murdered by your beloved government.

GoinFawr's picture

 "Chilluns...."?

How old are you? So you think you've been that age your whole life do you?

But I do appreciate you laying out just how committed you actually are to everyone having the right to the opportunity for 'self determination': only so far as it remains a convenient platitude you can cite to garner support for your iself-serving religion. Ayn Rand would be so proud.

As for the rest: WHAT?!

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Yep, keep telling yourself that supporting a government which kills millions of innocent people is "worth it," as your fellow statist Madeline Albright would say, because it enables children to get access to publicly funded libraries.

Have a great day, killer.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

 

GoinFawr's picture

Your syllogism fails:

Just because one gov't kills while it simultaneously supports public libraries doesn't mean you get to deduce that all publicly funded libraries are supported by gov'ts that kill. Nor does it allow you to conclude that publicly funded libraries cause gov'ts to kill, or whatever other ridiculous irrational notion you might be calling an 'invioble truth' next, for that matter.

Viszlat, 'ignorance is strength'er

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

All government is predicated on the use of force. If you permit government to use violence in order to fund public libraries then you have sanctioned a violent government. It is what it is and you really can't pretend otherwise.

And by the way, it is possible to have free libraries through voluntary cooperation. Did you think that men with guns was the only way to get a book into a child's hands?

GoinFawr's picture

"All government is predicated on the use of force"

But 'voluntary cooperation' is a form of gov't, which contradicts your 'principle'. As utterly unrealistic as it is as an absolute, I have to admit it sure sounds nice. Like most ideals.

The involuntary part of any group interaction comes when you look past the impossible Marxist/Anarchist ideal to the reality: the ability to reach consensus on practically any subject is inversely proportional to the number of individuals affected by the decision. And the limits are tight, so it doesn't take a whole lot of folks to gather before consensus is practically impossible to reach on most subjects. Which means that in order for the group to function, some people will always have to go along with decisions involuntrarily.

In addition to the impossibility of reaching absolute consensus on any meaningful scale when you're talking about populations in the billions, is the fact that there exists a certain percentage of the human population that is devoid of empathy, selfishly ruthless and unscrupulous; these require forcing/coercing. The undeniable existence of these creatures is what ultimately spoils the ideal for the rest of us.

The result is that the best humanity can do is mostly voluntary cooperation. With a heaping helping of diligent civil oversight.

The implication that because you are obligated to pay taxes, and that there are consequences for refusing to do so, is the equivalent of murder is on the far side of ridiculous. Just because you see 'obligation as the bane of freedom' or whatever, doesn't negate the compunction of responsibility.

"Did you think that men with guns was the only way to get a book into a child's hands?"

No, I'm sure they could buy them, if their parents could afford it. And those that could would be able to give their children a distinct advantage at self determining themselves over those children who had parents that could not. Should an unfortunate dare to borrow a book without paying they'd better watch out though, because guns aren't just great at getting books into a child's hands, you know.

"And by the way, it is possible to have free libraries through voluntary cooperation" Hahaha! Hey pal, nothing is 'free' you know. I imagine in a privately operated library you'd have to read a whole lot of Oprah's reco's before you'd be allowed to borrow Othello. In reality I'd bet most reasonable people think that they already are supporting libraries through voluntary cooperation. I personally don't know anyone who begrudges their tax dollars being spent on funding public libraries, but I guess I can now say that I've met at least one dramaqueen who is being dragged along unwillingly; you're such a martyr for everyone who already has the privilege of having access to the right of self determination. Hahaha! We're robbing you of the strength you could be deriving from the ignorance of the unfortunate! Honestly, no matter how hard I try I am unable to locate one single solitary f to give, but then, sometimes that is how MOSTLY voluntary cooperation goes. So sad.

But really, we all know that I am wasting my time here.  I suspect your pursuing this agenda has very little to do with 'freedom' and everything to do with protecting the well heeled; whether you're merely a sycophant or not. That and propagating the Divine Right of Kings principle inherent to what you consider the 'sanctity' of private property.

While we are on the subject: in your fantazyland dreamworld of anitstatic anarcho whateveryercallingitnowism, who exactly enforces your sacred private property rights; do public property rights even exist in your utopia? Or is the entire universe owned by some all encompassing private entity a priori? If it's the latter, who decides who gets the privilege of experiencing the initial windfall of the Divine Right of Kings? Is your plan to start off with the current status quo?

Power loves a vacuum, and wealth is power. Ironically (or not), the ultimate endgame of your religion is Might Makes Right, or More of the Same, regardless of whether or not you wish it to be.

Oh and don't worry, I'm not so naive as to expect your reply to actually speak to the relevant points I've made, or answer any of the pertinent questions I've asked, but I look forward to our next subject of discussion all the same. ,)

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I can get your favorite urchin a copy of Othello for pennies. It's in the public domain. As Lennon said, "I tell them there's no problems, only solutions." Life is not so difficult that individuals must ask an armed and violent elite class to make their decisions for them. Don't you yearn to be free to live as best you can and see your fellows do the same?

GoinFawr's picture

Ok, bad example... one of N Ferguson's Ode to the Banksters  then.

"Life is not so difficult that individuals must ask an armed and violent elite class to make their decisions for them"

No, it's not a matter of asking 'elites' to make decisions for us. We make the decisions and it's the elected official's obligation to act in the best interests of them. It's a matter of public servants performing the duties and tasks we're ostensibly paying them to do. That is the responsibility of gov't. They answer to us, not us to them. That's a big difference from what you're suggesting.

The problem is that isn't happening because an ever increasingly powerful/wealthy armed and violent self entitled 'elite' class has taken over what was once owned by the masses, and is using the power that is rightfully the peoples' to make decisions that serve their own selfish interests, even though they have no mandate from the people do so.

Your vision is their wet dream, because it would effectively remove any lingering vestige of public scrutiny left.  Which is why I am deeply suspicious of anyone who pushes it.

The only way your ideal could have any chance of lasting success involves something that I can guarantee you won't like...

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

There is absolutely no way you can select a power hungry class of individuals to rule over you with jails and guns and expect them to act as your servants. It's always been that way. As individuals who look out for other individuals we have a chance to live a prosperous and satisfying life. It's just a chance but it's a far better choice than voluntary enslavement.

Soothing oneself with the notion that your jailor is your servant is cold comfort. At the very least it would be nice if my fellow prisoners didn't call the guards should I attempt escape.

GoinFawr's picture

"There is absolutely no way you can select a power hungry class of individuals to rule over you with jails and guns and expect them to act as your servants. It's always been that way."

Nicely phrased. I liked the universal character assassination in particular. All known falses, of course, but I can see how you would require those sort of constructs to keep the pretense up. I suggest you lay off the Rothbard for awhile and read this: http://www.vincentlam.ca/tommy-douglas.php  Warning: it could do irreperable damage to your ideologically induced love of being a victim.

 "As individuals who look out for other individuals we have a chance to live a prosperous and satisfying life"

Wait a second, I thought you thought it was patently ridiculous to believe that acting unselfishly or self sacrifice for the benefit of another were traits inherent to humans; I was under the impression that you thought everyone acting in their own self interest at all times was for the best, because that way everything just has to always work out equitably for you, or something like that. So which is it really?

'voluntary enslavement' isn't really the same thing as electing an official to perform a public duty and them turning on you,  now is it? Maybe if you were talking about someone joining the military...

"Soothing oneself with the notion that your jailor is your servant is cold comfort. At the very least it would be nice if my fellow prisoners didn't call the guards should I attempt escape."

Yeeah, a bit prosy, no? But I thin I get the metaphor: Taxes are your prison, regulations the prosecution, and Public Library patrons are your jailors. Wilt thou ever be free? Thou art indeud so very hard done by... 

So, anyway, what did you have for dinner tonight? 

 

 

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Wait a second, I thought you thought it was patently ridiculous to believe that acting unselfishly or self sacrifice for the benefit of another were traits inherent to humans; I was under the impression that you thought everyone acting in their own self interest at all times was for the best, because that way everything just has to always work out equitably for you, or something like that. So which is it really?

 

It's as if you don't see the difference between helping people you actually know overcome problems in their life and being forced to give money to the government so that they can "help" people by bombing them into freedom, imprisoning them because of the products they chose to consume, sterilizing them, conducting medical experiments on them without their knowledge, etc.  You labor under the weight of many false impression about me and the world around you.

blunderdog's picture

You've started a religious argument, LTER.  Don't expect any rationality here.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Because it's rational to have faith that strangers have your best interests at heart and will always work hard in your interest rather than thier own. It's just plain holy roller crazy to believe that individuals have a right to make voluntary arrangements with each other in order to fulfill their needs.

GoinFawr's picture

And that folks is how simple the world appears to one CrockettAlmananac(dotcom).

I always love the use of the universal 'always'; employed in this case to make the first supposition appear ridiculously impossible, even though the selflessness it represents is quite common, and in my opinion one of the more honourable tendencies inherent to humanity. As a rule it's prevalence is inversely proportional to material wealth; and completely inversely proportional to selfishness. See, no 'blind faith' in CA's manufactured absolute is required because it is a question of degrees, not the 'all or nothing' CA asserts. It's a worthwhile exercise to consider where CA and the rest of the echochambermaidens might register on either of those sliding scales... Smack dab in the middle of the 'I'm all right so fuck all the rest' zones is my best guess; at least that is what their vanity would have us believe.

 Then we are presented with a platitude with which nobody on earth would disagree; the implication being that anyone who has a problem with anything that CA ever has written or ever will or could write simply must be against any and all forms of mutual consent, regardless of how mutually consenting the agreement might be. Which, of course, is something absolutely no one is actually suggesting.

To summarize: CA is claiming that there are two types of people, those  who believe that everybody does everything for everyone else with never a thought for their own well being, and those who believe that every mutual agreement works out equitably for everyone involved and consensus is always possible regardless of the number of individuals affected by an agreement.

Conclusion: all extremists are batshit loopy.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I am claiming that there are seven billion types of people currently living on the planet. Each of them has a right to self determination no matter how many webs you would spin to enslave them.

GoinFawr's picture

No Mr.Batshit Loopy, that's what you're claiming now.

Well, that and a fresh load of baseless crap you've fabricated about me.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Apparently you are hearing voices in your head and attributing them to me. You better have that checked.

GoinFawr's picture

Apparently your addled brain isn't completely processing what your finger types. You'd better have that removed (j/k, I wouldn't have you any other way.)

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Please provide documentation of statements showing my desire to stop any individual from being free to make their own decisions.

blunderdog's picture

The irrational bit is this:

You and your kind assert that "capitalism" (which you don't ever define) is a PERFECT system which leads to economic paradise.  Despite this perfection, "capitalism" has NEVER EXISTED throughout history--all the problems which have ever occurred in the past were the results of imperfect implementations of capitalist principles and/or failure to adhere to the crystalline "capitalism" that you claim to envision.

That's what makes this a religious argument.  "Capitalism" in your world is 100% equivalent to "heaven," and it's a matter of faith (and faith alone) that it is the solution to all economic problems.

Despite your later claim that there are 7 billion on the planet with different desires, you already know that most of them are "wrong" because they lack your understanding of "capitalism."

What is that if not religious zealotry?

(Not that I mean to put you on the spot.  Let's hear what you'd prefer to talk about instead.  I've learned not to expect a response that has anything to do with the content of this post.)

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Please provide documentation showing that those who promote free markets on this site have claimed that such a system is "perfect." I'll wait.

blunderdog's picture

Now you want to discuss "free markets" and not capitalism?

Well, anyway, I have the documentation--I've read it before, and I'm sure you wouldn't want me taking your work here out of context, so here you go:

http://www.zerohedge.com/notifications/subscribe/22393/author/author/186...

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When I click that link it says:

Access denied

You are not authorized to access this page.

Keep up the good work.

blunderdog's picture

You don't need it, anyway.  You WROTE all that crap.

crusty curmudgeon's picture

This isn't about the wealthy it's about ordinary people being able to buy gas.  It's about the free market that allows people to make a bigger profit than normal by selling to people who desperately want that product and who are willing to voluntarily fork over money for it.

But for you moral busibodies, it is better to see an "honest" gas station charging $4/gal with "No Gas!" signs than someone selling as much gas as people need for $25/gal.

Oh, and "heavily subsidized by the taxpayer" makes you the most ignorant troll I've ever seen.  The government makes more money off gas than the gas industry itself.  Or perhaps "subsidized" doesn't mean what you think it means.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"The government makes more money off gas than the gas industry itself."

Really?   Not if you count the cost of our military running around the world and opening up new oil fields to the majors (e.g., Iraq), providing cheap or free leases to drill on public land, building roads and other infrastructure to allow the status quo of gas powered cars moving people around, etc.

And where did I say I am against charging more for gas to reflect the true cost?  

crusty curmudgeon's picture

Where did you say it?  Well, admittedly, your ranting is incomprehensible.  So let me ask you to explain just exactly what you meant by this gibberish:

"And the fact that someone can and does advertise gas for $25/gallon means that it cannot be done and it's all government's fault that there is a shortage after an historic storm?"

Nobody here is blaming the government for the storm.  They are blaming the government for making gas all but unavailable by imposing price controls.  It seems to me that's what you're implying. 

J in Vegas's picture

I think its time for me to get another two 5 gallon gas containers. I already have 1 but I think 2 more is in order. Off to the store on Monday to update the disaster supplies. Las Vegas is pretty disaster proof, but L.A. isn't and when the big one hits there and  I-15 is destroyed (no food), and the gas pipeline from L.A. to Las vegas is ruptured which carries 90% of the gasoline sold in Las Vegas, I want to be prepared. Plus I have the Volt so I will just plug in the car and taunt the sheeple waiting in line for gas for hours and hours.

fuu's picture

"So the oil and gas industry -- that is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer through everything from military commitments all over the world, to favorable lease deals on "public" land -- is the last best hope of the free market?"

 

I thought the dude on craigslist being a market maker in post-disaster unleaded was the last great hope. No fucking algos in that market.

 

 

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Big oil doesn't own all the gas stations though. Independents can't buy gas at $4 a gallon and sell it for $4.05. The retailer makes the smallest part of the revenue pie. Most credit card fees average almost 2.5%. At $4 a gallon that means Visa is making 10 cents per gallon. The credit card companies make more than the retailers do and they don't have to pay the help or the light bill or the insurance. If you want to talk about price gouging the credit card companies are a good place to start. And who owns them? The banks.

Grimbert's picture

google "25 usd per us gallon in gbp per litre"

£4.12, less than 3x what we normally pay. 

adr's picture

Each gallon only has between a $.30-.70 tax on the fuel. What is the tax on each litre for you?

GoinFawr's picture

Er that tithe is separate from what the plutocrats' jolly green giants with guns charge you via taxes to roam the planet and coerce the weak into giving away their valuable shit below cost. Better add that to the price of your gallon if you don't want to come off as disingenuous.

smiler03's picture

Grimbert. I think you meant to say "MORE than 3x what we normally pay" ?

(UK price approx £1.35/litre, US Gallon = 0.8327 Imperial Gallons, $25.00 = £15.60)