Ah, yes, nothing like the government telling you what you can and cannot sell and how much you are allowed to charge for it.

If Hawaiian politicians really wanted to lower gas prices for their constituents, they would:

1. Permit the building of a refinery on the islands; and

2. Reduce their gasoline tax which, I believe, is the second highest in the U.S.

California is looking to follow suit:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hawaiigas30aug30,0,396684.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It did not work before. What makes them think it will work this time around?

Hell, this was almost the entire reason why the LP was founded in the first place. The Nixon price controls.

It's crap, and I hope the states LP's will have something to say about it.

Typical. Politicians know that these caps and other price controls cause shortages and actually make people's lives more painful in the long run. In the short run, they are feel-good offerings that boosts the politician's standing with the average citizen who doesn't get economics.

I certainly hope that the Libertarian Party affiliate in Hawaii pounces all over this. The Governor is a Republican who failed to veto this awful legislation brought forward by the Democrats there. The Libertarians can own this issue.

I'll consider accepting government imposed price caps of private consumer items when government first establishes the example by setting reasonable spending caps for itself, and then actually abides by them. In other words, never.

In my opinion, our government should stop subsidizing gasoline. Yeah, it would be a real jam if gasoline cost five bucks a gallon like it does in other countries, but we're already paying for it in taxes. All making it seem cheaper does is make us consume an undo amount of it. People who use a lot of gas, and feel the need to drive some thirty ton sherman tank around should be the ones who have to pick up the actual costs. If our gasoline pricing was based on a free market system instead of coporate and governmental monopoly, prices would reflect the actual costof oil production (which is quite high), people would consume less of it, demand would go down, and we'd be out of this jam in a jiffy once prices leveled out at about twice their current rates (where they belong). It'd probably be good for the environment in the long run too, as it would force us to examine other energy options and use fewer fossil based fuels. Sure, it would hurt our unrealistic materialistic way of life, but it would be true to the reality of the situation, and dealing with it head on is the only way to preserve any shred of our way of life. Wow, a real free market really can save the world if we let it. Who'd have thought.

Eaxactly right. Plus, you wouldn't have to worry about alternative fuels or subsidizing certain types of cars because consumers would flock to and clamor for such items.

The government has absolutely no faith in its own people, which is exactly why people have no faith in the government.

Hawaii LP should challenge all politicians to submit their resignation if the cap doesn't work as planned. Bet not one of them takes the challenge. And, if one did, he/she would weasel out of it some way.

Instead of capping the price a few cents below the regular price, why not knock a few cents in taxes off? Or did I just answer my own question?

As mentioned by a previous poster, the cap on prices is merely a ploy so that people come under the illusion that the government is helping them, and under that illusion, the people vote for them. Anyone who's picked up an economics book knows how devastating price caps can be to any market in the long run. What's next, production quotas? Sounds like a planned economy, and it's pretty obvious how well those have worked.

I've lived in Hawaii before and I know how expensive the gas is there. If any of you have been on Oahu, you would know that in Honolulu they have one of the worst rush hours of any major city. The H1 freeway is like a parking lot for a good portion of every weekday. However, the entire island of Oahu has one of the best bus systems I have ever seen. If the government would let gas prices move naturally, it would encourage people to use this underutilized bus system and help ease the traffic problem. LET THE MARKET WORK!

Playing the cap game is, in essence, the same thing that screwed California during the so-called energy "deregulation" fiasco, a few years back. My, my, my. Don't these politicians ever learn? Or worse, don't the people ever learn enough to recognize and overrule the politicians' foolishness? It is almost excusable that Hawaii's government is considering this moronic step, but to have California's government seriously consider it on the heels of that earlier energy "crisis" lets me know that the Golden State must surely be run by true imbeciles who are incapable of learning, even from the school of hard knocks.

What can I do to keep them from raping my home state and all the people in it? What can be effective to save us from the folly of politicians?

I find it hard to believe I haven't seen more publicity about this:
http://www.theaircar.com/

Basically it's a car with an engine that runs on compressed air.

It would completely solve all the problems associated with fossil fuels were it to become widespread.

If our country were run by impartial and altruistic people they'd be all over it.

Bill:

The problem with the air car is the laws of thermodynamics.

The compressed air is merely a storage medium for energy, not a source of energy. It takes a whole lot of energy from electricity (most of which is derived from fossil fuels) to compress that air.

More information here: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Of course, if it's a hot air fuel source we need, we could always run a tap into Washington, DC.

Things like this do nothing but offset the advances of alternative fuels! High prices are GREAT incentive to develop them because you can make an absolute killing putting something to market that undercuts the gas price.

They are doing nothing but messing with supply and demand, making getting out of the addiction to oil even harder.

B:

Yes the energy stored in compressed air does come from somewhere. Internal combustion engines can only get it from fossil fuels or maybe biofuels (takes more energy to process than it's worth though).

Compressed air can be produced by electricity which can be derived from any energy source. Coal, fission, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric... it will all work.

So instead of depending on the opec as the only option to supply the energy for our transportation sector, we would build more power plants and would have a multitude of choices on how to exactly do so.

Putting price controls on gasoline has been tried before during the Carter Administration. Because of it, there were gas shortages (Remember lines at the long lines at the gas station in the late 70s?)

To resolve the issue of high gas prices, and getting this country to become energy independent, what is needed is to drill for more oil, whether it be in the Artic National Wildlife in Alaska or at the Gulf of Mexico. The reason this is not being done is because of the enviromental groups. Most of these groups are anti-capitalists, such as Greenpeace. They want to see the destruction of the capitalist system in the United States and a majority of them have found a home in the Democratic Party while some pitched tents in the Republican Party, giving their money to the so-called "Moderate Republicans." There are ways to be energy independent and care for the enviorment at the same time. These groups are an impediment to that goal.

I am getting more depressed about the prospects of the LP these days. Because more and more it just seems like we are even a smaller minority than I thought. Why do I say this?

This is basically the ONLY place I can go online where I am not the ONLY person opposed to price controls instituted by the government.

EVERY messageboard I have been to that is not specifically aligned with the LP or a libertarian cause is full of people calling for price restriction, Crying about "price gouging" ( and crying for price gougers to be locked up in jail or shot),etc. Even at a messageboard that I frequent that is specifically for small business owners and business financing, I was the only person that so much as suggested that it was not the government's job to control the cost of gas. Over 30 people disagreed with me and called nasty names.

I also had the audacity to suggest that gas prices ,while high to a point that is even starting to bother me greatly, are still realtively low compared to a lot of things. And I also pointed out that many "essentials" and other things have actually stagnated in price or lowered when adjusted for inflation- and that many products decreasing in price due to technology and increased efficiency tend to offest the rising prices of others.

The cost in gas for me to drive 1000 miles, for example, if gas goes up $1 a gallon- wil cost me about $33. SO if I drive 1000 miles a month, thats an extra $33 a month. It sucks, but its a little overblown IMO. Meanwhile my phone bill, internet,cable.etc have probably decreased more than that in a short amount of time ( thanks in no small part to competition).

I also dont understand why anyone expects the government to be the savior, but oh well.

Today I am one of the MOST HATED posters on the internet for even daring to suggest or speak of the concepts of free market capitalism, competition,etc.

Even in the Business forums, I am the only non-socialist.

Graham:

Yer not alone, believe me. I have about gotten lynched for telling people that they do NOT have a right to gas. It is the property of the gas station owner and if he wants to sell it for $100.00 a gallon, that is his right, as is the right for anybody else to sell their property at what price they wish. People need to shut up and search for the lowest priced gas station. If they don't like the price of gas....WALK!!!

Oh, and as for the guy in Atlanta that is selling gas at $5.87, the one that is splashed over every news outlet. If he can move his product at that price, and people are dumb enough to buy it, more power to him.

The realities of the market will soon bring prices like those down into line with the market as a whole, but I would definately be opposed to the government taking any action at all.

EEK, just noticed, on my comment to Graham, was in a hurry and put his name in the wrong field, that message was from me, sorry about that.

I tell you, the way we are going, unless we have cars that do not run on gas, we could go back to horse and carriage.

Oh, God, I know. Nobody seems to realize that free market capitalism is the absolute most powerful and efficient way to allocate limited resources. It is absolutely ridiculous how no one will accept it.

Atlanta is out of gas now, because they weren't allowed to "price gouge"(aka make a profit). If they were, then only people who actually needed gas would have bought it, and there would still be gas at the pumps.

I am a card-carrying liberal, but a good friend of mine is a hardcore libertarian--and I admire the Libertarian Party for what it does. We've had our discussions and have come to agreement on things like the idiocy of complaining about gas price "gouging" when (a) gas is about half what it would cost if the government stopped subsidizing the oil industry and (b) there's enough local gas competition to keep prices down. I also note the following:

- If I'm informed correctly, a typical gas station/convenience store will probably make more money selling you a Coke than selling you a few gallons of gasoline. The gas pumps are more of a low-profit hook to lure people into the convenience store.

- The people who complain the most about gas prices are also most likely the ones who are making finance/lease payments on SUVs they can't afford. Don't forget that they're big fans of the free market system, but watch them start calling the police, media, and FTC when the gas station nearest their house hits $3.

People who don't need it? Just what do yu mean by that? If gas gets to $6 a gallon here in Houston, my daughter would probably go deep into negitive cash flow. Getting her and her husband to their three jobs along with the required child-care travel is already costing them a large portion of their income. Not everyone sees the doubling of that expense as off-set by lower phone and DSL bills. They don't have a phone or DSL. In Houston if you don't have a car, you pretty much can't get anywhere. Unless you live deep downtown where the buses only run during the day and the trains crash into people waiting to turn left.

Craig,
I didnt mean to imply that everything is offset by lower cable/phone bills. I was just giving one example of many where technology and competition have caused goods and services that many people use to decrease in price. My food costs have been about the same the last 10 years as well. gas is just one cost that has had wild swings in price. In the summer of 1997, I paid about 1.25- in the winter of 1998- 69 cents. You can also get nicer cars these days for less money. Advancements in technology, production, efficient markets, tend to lower prices. And even enegry prices have been fairly stgnant when adjusted for inflation.

Matt,

As far as the people complaining being the same ones paying the high SUV payments- Most of the people in Business forums last week were bragging about how they buy as many large trucks and SUVs that Ford Motor Credit will approve and that they cant possibly get by with "last years Coach Bag." People who dont mind spending hundreds of dollars on a purse, handbag, or pair of shoes; but they get all bent out of shape if the have to spend $10 more a week on gas. personally I'd rather spend $50 a gallon on gas than hundreds of dollars on a piece of clothing that was made for a buck in a cheap factory somewhere, but thats just me. I'm not "well-off" myself, but spending $10 extra a week on gas ( especially when some peope will spend that on a trip to Starbucks and then complain that they are poor)is not that huge of a deal to me.

My take on price controls and why the energy industry says it won't work is because they sabatoge the policy by deliberately withholding their product as a punishment to level headed leaders who are looking to help ALL Americans in a time of crisis.

Afterall, this is a time of war, so declared by George Bush in 2001 and we need to cap our prices so as not to put undo pressure on the American people who through there taxes pay for our safe shores.

Does my comment singe with cynicism!?

It costs more to ship to Hawaii, so it will cost more to buy gas there. That, combined with the high taxes, causes the price to be so high.

Now that the price has been lowered, why would oil companies even ship to Hawaii in the first place? I smell a shortage.

No, Richard. Absolutely not! That is ridiculous! If you cap prices in a panic then people go out and buy as much as they can, and everything is gone. Let the market work itself out! If companies raise prices to 5 or 6 dollars a gallon, only people who absolutely need the gas buy it, and because of that, the price falls down to a natural level after the panic has subsided.

The government should never determine the price of anything! It doesn't protect people when it does that, it punishes them because the system becomes "first come first serve" and hording ensues. Guess who loses out and who doesn't get the supplies they need? It's the so-called poor.

Furthermore, energy companies are not withholding their product. There is no proof of that and it is a ridiculous concept. There is just not enough distribution in the nation to be able to support the nation if everyone tries to fill up their tanks at once. It's impossible. We could be swimming in Oil and it would still be impossible for everyone to fill their tank up at the same time.

The very SECOND you institute a temporary price control, that is EXACTLY what the public will do. There were several gas stations in my area out of gas yesterday because of the panic. The only reason I can still drive now is because my tank was low two days ago in the morning and I was already late for work, so I luckily filled it, right before the panic set in.

Richard Padro,

Lets just assume for a second that one or maybe two oil companies are deliberately withholding their product. What you don't realize is that opens up tremendous opportunities for the other oil companies to sell their product at a much higher price because of the reduced supply caused by the deliberate withholding of the other companies.

So in order for your so-called grand conspiracy to work, it would take massive collusion between every company in the entire oil industry. You can't possibly believe that someone in some oil company wouldn't alert the government or the presses if such a collusion were taking place.

Just because it seems like there could be a conspiracy doesn't mean there is one.

Graham,

Please point me to these message boards you speak of. I'll be glad to argue on your side.

I hope the price controls don't wreck the state.

It's too bad that people (especially politicians) refuse to learn that the market will always be more powerful than any law passed.

Isn't it ironic how politicans claimed that the Soviet Union fell because of its anti-market policies (especially price fixing on agriculture), yet now we seem to be making the same mistake???

Did anybody catch Bill O'Reilly last night? He had a person from CATO and the Judge on.The two libertarians tried to explain why price fixing doesn't work and the idiot kept saying "I just don't buy it" Bill was making the argument that since oil compines are making record profits that they should make voluntary price cuts. The person from CATO tried to explain that if the oil compines did that we would have a physical shortage. Man, is Bill an idiot. He couldn't understand that if a company prices oil below market price, that demand would increase even more and we would have a real crisis on our hand.

rense.com

Bring The National
Guard Home...NOW!
By Norman Solomon
9-1-5

The men and women of the National Guard shouldn't be killing in Iraq. They should be helping in New Orleans and Biloxi.

The catastrophic hurricane was an act of God. But the U.S. war effort in Iraq is a continuing act of the president. And now, that effort is hampering the capacity of the National Guard to save lives at home.

Before the flooding of New Orleans drastically escalated on Tuesday, the White House tried to disarm questions that could be politically explosive. "To those of you who are concerned about whether or not we're prepared to help, don't be, we are," President Bush said. "We're in place, we've got equipment in place, supplies in place, and once the -- once we're able to assess the damage, we'll be able to move in and help those good folks in the affected areas."

Echoing the official assurances, CBS News reported: "Even though more than a third of Mississippi's and Louisiana's National Guard troops are either in Iraq or supporting the war effort, the National Guard says there are more than enough at home to do the job.

But after New Orleans levees collapsed and the scope of the catastrophe became more clear, such reassuring claims lost credibility. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday: "With thousands of their citizen-soldiers away fighting in Iraq, states hit hard by Hurricane Katrina scrambled to muster forces for rescue and security missions yesterday -- calling up Army bands and water-purification teams, among other units, and requesting help from distant states and the active-duty military."

The back-page Post story added: "National Guard officials in the states acknowledged that the scale of the destruction is stretching the limits of available manpower while placing another extraordinary demand on their troops -- most of whom have already served tours in Iraq or Afghanistan or in homeland defense missions since 2001."

Speaking for the Mississippi National Guard, Lt. Andy Thaggard said: "Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event. We need our people." According to the Washington Post, the Mississippi National Guard "has a brigade of more than 4,000 troops in central Iraq" while "Louisiana also has about 3,000 Guard troops in Baghdad."

National Guard troops don't belong in Iraq. They should be rescuing and protecting in Louisiana and Mississippi, not patrolling and killing in a country that was invaded on the basis of presidential deception. They should be fighting the effects of flood waters at home -- helping people in the communities they know best -- not battling Iraqi people who want them to go away.

Let's use the Internet today to forward and post this demand so widely that the politicians in Washington can no longer ignore it:

Bring the National Guard home. Immediately.

Bring Them Home...NOW!

The National Guard Belongs in New Orleans and Biloxi

Not Baghdad

Disclaimer

Email This Article

Adam,
The message boards I was talking about were business credit discussion boards that have now been moderated for political speech. Expression of opinions of any kind is now censored and I dont wish to push the issue.

This issue proves once again that it is a lie to claim that conservatives favor the free market. They only give lip service to it, as Bill O'Reilly (among others) is demonstrating quite clearly.

Nameless,

While I may or may not agree that our soldiers shouldn't be in Iraq, their presence there isn't detracting fomr relief efforts. That is not a problem of numbers, it is a problem of logistics. It's not something you can just throw money at, or in this case, throw more soldiers at. When it comes to accopmlishing certain tasks, you often can;'t increase effectiveness by increasing numbers.

RE: The comment that we could go back to horse and carriage if we can't find gas-less vehicles to drive.

I realize that statement was made half in jest, but if you look at it from a serious standpoint, feeding and caring for a horse so you can use it as transportation is much more costly than a motorcycle, which is my current form of transportation.

Even if the horse is used only on in-town trips, the cost of feed and care is more expensive than gasoline. When you look at longer-range trips, such as a current business trip I took on my motorcycle, the loss of work-time because of travel-time makes such transport a poor switch.

Same with a bicycle: I can ride a bicycle to work in about 40 minutes. I can drive it in less than 10. That's an hour saved, per day, if I ride the motorcycle. So I can make five hours worth of money more each week by riding the motorcycle rather than the bicycle, in exchange for about $8 worth of gas.

Yes, gasoline is expensive. But the trade-off makes it worth it.