"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

A local independedant station was told to raise prices and they did. Two
hours later they were told to raise them again, but did not want to as
they
wanted to take care of their loyal customers. Simply put, if you ever
want
to get gas again, raise the price.

Nice story, but I doubt it's the whole story...

I do know the owner and have done business with him for over 15 years. Met
him at the barber shop the day this happened. What do you suspect is the
rest of the story?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

A local independedant station was told to raise prices and they did. Two
hours later they were told to raise them again, but did not want to as
they
wanted to take care of their loyal customers. Simply put, if you ever
want
to get gas again, raise the price.

Nice story, but I doubt it's the whole story...

I do know the owner and have done business with him for over 15 years. Met
him at the barber shop the day this happened. What do you suspect is the
rest of the story?

I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

A local independedant station was told to raise prices and they did. Two
hours later they were told to raise them again, but did not want to as
they
wanted to take care of their loyal customers. Simply put, if you ever
want
to get gas again, raise the price.

Nice story, but I doubt it's the whole story...

I do know the owner and have done business with him for over 15 years. Met
him at the barber shop the day this happened. What do you suspect is the
rest of the story?

I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

Sorry, that's hard to parse--misplaced comma.

I meant that I don't know "the rest of the story", but...

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:34:36 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
=
I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

Not true in Florida. No station is allowed to sell gas below cost to
stop the big boys from running the little guys out of business. Don't
know if other states have similar laws.

Steve B.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

That something is the pressure of the distributors. He would not be selling
at a loss and that is why he did not want to raise prices for a second time
the same day as he had gas in the ground to pump. It is simply how the
system works. Play by my rules or I take my ball and go home. Independent
stations are not truly independent.

"Sacramento Dave" wrote in message
...
I have a simple question just my observation. You see all the
destruction the confusion witch is to be expected in a disaster this size.
The question are flying, the blame is being pointed. We are seeing are
government talking, predicting telling what an impact it all is ( there's a
no brainier)Well hear is my question The same as everyone else's Why is the
aid and help taking so long? Why don't they just ask the oil Co. to help ?
They are fast the wasted no time raising oil prices.
Fox News "State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Friday launched a
probe into possible price gouging by gas and oil companies following
Hurricane Katrina." Well I'll sleep better now, somebody's on it.


this is Turtle.

Dave , When the hurrican hit , everyday after it hit, and then was ask if the
city and State of Louisiana wanted Federal Aide and FEMA to come in and start
the help. Bush and FEMA was told last Friday [2 days ago] that it was ok to have
aide and FEMA come in to Louisiana. Governor and Mayor would not give permission
for FEMA or Federal Aid at all to come in and almost a week later they decide to
give FEMA and Federal Aide a ok to come in. It is against federal law for FEMA
or Federal Aide to come into a state with out the Govenor's permission and the
Mayor also to go into the city. I have lived in Louisiana all my life and watch
the bull grow over the years. All the Rep. and Sentors of the state have a way
of dealing with a problem and if you can't deal with it you just turn your back
and it will go away. This is what they thought about this New Orleans Hurrican
problem. Right now the Governor will say awwwwwww What's the problem -- I bought
my Duck hunting Stamp this year and the Mayor is Just plain mad and will not
talk about it. We have a real crew to deal with this.

OH Yea, there was a 5 foot shark that had gotten in to the French Quarter and on
Canal Street. i did not hear about what happen but somebody maybe having Shark
for supper.

TURTLE

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

That something is the pressure of the distributors. He would not be selling
at a loss and that is why he did not want to raise prices for a second time
the same day as he had gas in the ground to pump. It is simply how the
system works. Play by my rules or I take my ball and go home. Independent
stations are not truly independent.

That's one possible explanation I had...

There have been instances here of distribtors threatening to stop
delivering on the basis of not enough volume, but none have threatened
anything on retailers' pricing that I am aware of. Doesn't really make
any sense they would do so as the only effect to them would be to move
more, not less, product and their take is the same...

I know at the local Co-op we tend to wait longer on the driveway pumps
than most of the independents simply because we have larger total
intermediary storage than they (we are, in essence, our own
sub-distributor rather than getting direct retail distribution) so we
can delay the pinch a little w/ only a cash flow deficit but we elect to
do that since we don't do cash pump sales, only keyed members. If we
ran cash pumps, I'm sure we would treat those like any of the others and
reflect cost increases at the time.

The other possible explanation I had was that the fella' just doesn't
like having to tell folks he deals with regularly the bad new so he
shifts the blame, so to speak...

Even if we still had the Farmland refinery, it would be costing us at
least as much as it does now because there's not enough KS crude being
produced to run it a full capacity any longer. Having to buy crude and
truck it in to refine would be even more expensive than buying bulk on
the market. Which is, of course, why we shut the refinery down several
years ago.

That, btw, has been a pretty common occurrence w/ these small refineries
throughout the midwest and is a factor in the loss of refining capacity
in the US the media has been talking about.

"Steve B." wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:34:36 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
=
I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

Not true in Florida. No station is allowed to sell gas below cost to
stop the big boys from running the little guys out of business. Don't
know if other states have similar laws.

I was speaking of a short term "loss" and not, in actuality a loss at
all--the implication was this retailer wished to countinue selling
existing inventory at less than new replacement cost and that was
forbidden him by his wholesaler. As noted in a reply to Edwin, that
doesn't really make sense and I've not heard of it, at least here.

Second, regarding "loss leader" laws--I don't know FL's specific
provisions, I doubt the law would prohibit short term sales such as this
and most have allowances for special promotions, etc. The only thing
they really prohibit is long-term dumping.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:38:05 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

"Steve B." wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:34:36 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
=
I don't, know but who did the asking and why? If he wants to sell at a
loss, that's his business. Knowing several independents here and the
local distributors, something just doesn't add up...

Not true in Florida. No station is allowed to sell gas below cost to
stop the big boys from running the little guys out of business. Don't
know if other states have similar laws.

I was speaking of a short term "loss" and not, in actuality a loss at
all--the implication was this retailer wished to countinue selling
existing inventory at less than new replacement cost and that was
forbidden him by his wholesaler. As noted in a reply to Edwin, that
doesn't really make sense and I've not heard of it, at least here.

Second, regarding "loss leader" laws--I don't know FL's specific
provisions, I doubt the law would prohibit short term sales such as this
and most have allowances for special promotions, etc. The only thing
they really prohibit is long-term dumping.

Why would you doubt Florida lawmakers ability to create stupid laws?
Trust me they are very capable. Gas stations are not allowed to sell
gas below their cost at any time for any reason. No exceptions.

This law has been talked to death on local news with the recent gas
price hikes.

Steve B.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

There have been instances here of distribtors threatening to stop
delivering on the basis of not enough volume, but none have threatened
anything on retailers' pricing that I am aware of. Doesn't really make
any sense they would do so as the only effect to them would be to move
more, not less, product and their take is the same...

I don't know the legality of it all, but it may not be OK to tell the
retailer what to price at. OTOH, if you don't like our suggestion to
increase. we have 50 other legal ways of shutting you down.

"Steve B." wrote:
....
Why would you doubt Florida lawmakers ability to create stupid laws?
....

Simply assuming that despite outside appearances to the contrary there
would have been at least a small modicum of common sense...

That's ok, they passed one of those "pi == 3" laws here once upon a
time, too...

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

There have been instances here of distribtors threatening to stop
delivering on the basis of not enough volume, but none have threatened
anything on retailers' pricing that I am aware of. Doesn't really make
any sense they would do so as the only effect to them would be to move
more, not less, product and their take is the same...

I don't know the legality of it all, but it may not be OK to tell the
retailer what to price at. OTOH, if you don't like our suggestion to
increase. we have 50 other legal ways of shutting you down.

The question I still has is--"Why would they do that?" What's to their
advantage? The only thing I have ever seen is that of moving not enough
product to satisfy the distributor or some other reason that boils down
to the same thing. Here where it's a long transfer as compared to much
more populated areas, for example, the transportation cost is harped on
regularly, but it's the same thing--they sell far less product per
tanker-mile as compared to say, Wichita and environs.

I'd have to know more about the locality and underlying markets and
driving forces to comprehend.

At one time (but this was well over 50 years ago now) there was a single
distributor in this area who was an absolute proverbial ass. Grandad
and his cronies had to file suit against him in order to get started w/
the local Co-op with being able to sell any petroleum products. I
suppose if some such of a true monopoly were to exist in your area it
would be possible, but that seems unlikely to me today.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
The question I still has is--"Why would they do that?" What's to their
advantage?


Because they can. They want all stations selling at the same price no
matter what the oil presently inthe ground cost. No dealer gets an
advantage over the other. They have the market locked and want to keep it
that way and controlled tightly.


Here where it's a long transfer as compared to much
more populated areas, for example, the transportation cost is harped on
regularly, but it's the same thing--they sell far less product per
tanker-mile as compared to say, Wichita and environs.

Transportations cost is BS too. I know of stations 50 miles closer to the
storage tanks selling higher than lower volume distant stations. Here in CT
the state is broken into pricing zones. The city of Hartford is broken down
to smaller zones, the highest prices being in the poorer neighborhoods where
people are less likely to drive out of the area to find cheaper gas. There
was a story about this in the Hartford Courant a year or so ago. When the
reporters asked the distributors about it and why, they were pretty much
told, "so what, we can do it."

Here in town I pass a Shell station every day on my way to work. Another
Shell station 7 miles south, closer to the tank farm is always 10¢ a galon
more. Then I go to Manchester, another 40 miles further and a high volume
stations is 6¢ more. This is year round no matter the base price the spread
is maintained.


I'd have to know more about the locality and underlying markets and
driving forces to comprehend.

Only driving force I'm aware of is "we can do it so we do"



At one time (but this was well over 50 years ago now) there was a single
distributor in this area who was an absolute proverbial ass. Grandad
and his cronies had to file suit against him in order to get started w/
the local Co-op with being able to sell any petroleum products. I
suppose if some such of a true monopoly were to exist in your area it
would be possible, but that seems unlikely to me today.

Probably a series of monopolies as each distributor has his stations and
they all protect them the same way.

I'm in the plastics industry and we have three US suppliers of material.
They have all been the same price for the past 35 years I've been in the
industry. One raises and lowers price, the others do too. What a
co-incidence for that many years. There are a couple of suppliers in Korea
that sell the material about 15¢ cheaper, but you have some risk if you try
to use too much of it. The supplies dry up and delivery is unreliable (plus
or minus 30 days). If you cannot get the foreign stuff for a couple of
months, the US suppliers will only sell you based on what you did that
period the past year. That keeps a gentle squeeze on your scrotum.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
The question I still has is--"Why would they do that?" What's to their
advantage?

Because they can. They want all stations selling at the same price no
matter what the oil presently inthe ground cost. No dealer gets an
advantage over the other. They have the market locked and want to keep it
that way and controlled tightly.

Here where it's a long transfer as compared to much
more populated areas, for example, the transportation cost is harped on
regularly, but it's the same thing--they sell far less product per
tanker-mile as compared to say, Wichita and environs.

Transportations cost is BS too. I know of stations 50 miles closer to the
storage tanks selling higher than lower volume distant stations. Here in CT
the state is broken into pricing zones. ...

If I recall my junior high geography, the whole state of CT isn't much
larger than the distance from here to Wichita...

I suspect in the NE the dynamics are significantly different than in
the midwest.

That there is collusion on some pricing is certain. However, the fact
that oil and gas trade on the mercantile exchanges pretty much
guarantees that the current market costs are the same for everybody so
there really isn't any room for dealer-to-dealer price variations. The
competition between suppliers is resovled at that point, not at the
local levels.

I don't have sufficient data to be able to comment on possible predatory
pricing in urban areas--it certainly could be true as it has been in
other industries. That's a type of environment w/ which I have
(thankfully) absolutely no experience.

The only time I've ever spent in the great state of CT has been at the
CE facilities in Windsor Locks and that ended back in the early 80s when
I left the employ of B&W and went to a consulting firm instead of
working directly for a vendor except for one 2-week period of some
testing at their pulverizer lab in the early 90s.

On 4-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth wrote:

Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
(positively) correlated.

The wholesale price of the two may stay linked, but the _retail_ price
is not set on any exchange. What part of that is so difficult for
you to understand?

Mike

On 5-Sep-2005, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

Transportations cost is BS too. I know of stations 50 miles closer to the
storage tanks selling higher than lower volume distant stations.

A few years ago, I had to review hundreds of contracts between a major
oil company and its various dealers (in several different classes).
I saw the contracted shipping costs. They were set by volume and distance.
However, the shipping costs were a small fraction of the difference in
price found at the stations. Typically the cost was between $0.01 and
$0.02 per liter and the retail prices differed typically by about $0.04
to $0.06 per liter. This when gas was just under $0.50 a liter. Claims
that the differences of 10% were due to shipping cost were BS.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:

On 4-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth wrote:

Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
(positively) correlated.

The wholesale price of the two may stay linked, but the _retail_ price
is not set on any exchange. What part of that is so difficult for
you to understand?

What part of the connection between wholesale and retail prices is
difficult for you to understand?

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:31:41 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

| Tom Miller wrote:
|
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:43:13 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| wrote:
|
| | Tom Miller wrote:
| |
| | On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| | wrote:
| |
| | ...
| | | Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
| | | closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
| | | (positively) correlated.
| |
| | Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Gasoline futures surged 14 percent last
| | week while crude oil prices gained only 2 percent.
| | ...
| |
| | Ant that is still a positive correlation...it would be difficult to
| | conceive of them being totally independent as one is the raw material
| | for the other.
| |
| | And, of course, I started this subthread branch by pointing out that
| | there are open markets for both products...
|
| There was a large disparity between gasoline futures and crude futures
| last week. It's a 12% difference. That's a lot.
|
| Short term fluctuations are not unusual...just look at the data over a
| period of time...

We're talking about a sudden rise in gasoline prices. Don't change the
subject. If you want to talk about investing, I'll be happy to teach
you.

Tom Miller wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:31:41 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

| Tom Miller wrote:
|
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:43:13 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| wrote:
|
| | Tom Miller wrote:
| |
| | On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| | wrote:
| |
| | ...
| | | Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
| | | closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
| | | (positively) correlated.
| |
| | Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Gasoline futures surged 14 percent last
| | week while crude oil prices gained only 2 percent.
| | ...
| |
| | Ant that is still a positive correlation...it would be difficult to
| | conceive of them being totally independent as one is the raw material
| | for the other.
| |
| | And, of course, I started this subthread branch by pointing out that
| | there are open markets for both products...
|
| There was a large disparity between gasoline futures and crude futures
| last week. It's a 12% difference. That's a lot.
|
| Short term fluctuations are not unusual...just look at the data over a
| period of time...

We're talking about a sudden rise in gasoline prices. Don't change the
subject. If you want to talk about investing, I'll be happy to teach
you.

You're the one who seems to have changed the subject...I simply pointed
out (quite a bit earlier) that gasoline is a commodity traded on the
open mercantile markets which is where wholesale prices a pegged as
opposed to being unilateraly set by some specific entity. Retail prices
hence follow with various other factors and forces, some of which I have
also mentioned.

I have no idea what you're onto now.

"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne

Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back on
they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long time
business owner myself.

Liz

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:27:07 -0400, Liz wrote:


"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne

Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back on
they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long time
business owner myself.

Tell you what... I'll buy the gas in your car's tank for what you paid
for it last week.

--
Keith

Liz

On 3 Sep 2005 09:52:45 -0700, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Sacramento Dave wrote:

...Snip incoherent rambling...

They ["the" oil comanies] are fast the wasted no time raising oil prices.

As has been pointed out ad infinitum, oil (and gasoline) are traded on
open mercantile markets...oil is bought/sold there, at market prices.

Mebbe so, but the gas in the tanks at the individual gas stations has
already been paid for. Raising prices due to calamity on the existing,
already-been-paid-for supply is pretty much the definition of gouging.

R
In the southeast US (don't know if it applies elsewhere) The station
owner usually don't own the fuel in the tanks.. the distributor does..
The station owner pays for the fuel after its been pumped out
The distributor owns the pumps as well.. (this being at the
independent stations anyway..)

On 5-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth wrote:

What part of the connection between wholesale and retail prices is
difficult for you to understand?

Nothing - you're the one that doesn't get it.

Here's a simple example from the service station up the road - prices
in US dollars:

When the price of a barrel was about $60.00, the pump price was $0.75/liter.
When the price of a barrel hit $70.85 last week, the pump price was $1.13/liter.

The wholesale price of a liter was 60.00/159 = $0.377/liter
and more recently 70.85/159 = $0.446/liter

The cost excluding crude was 0.75-0.38 = $0.37 earlier
and 1.13-0.45 = $0.68 recently.

The increase in crude price was $0.07 while the pump rise was $0.38.

Why should the costs that exclude the cost of crude - not set by any
market - rise 84%? The tax portion remains a fixed percentage. The
remaining costs of refining etc are largely fixed in the short term.

The extra $0.31 is partly taxes and mostly gouging by the oil industry.

Get over it.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:

On 5-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth wrote:

What part of the connection between wholesale and retail prices is
difficult for you to understand?

Nothing - you're the one that doesn't get it.

Here's a simple example from the service station up the road - prices
in US dollars:

When the price of a barrel was about $60.00, the pump price was $0.75/liter.
When the price of a barrel hit $70.85 last week, the pump price was $1.13/liter.

The wholesale price of a liter was 60.00/159 = $0.377/liter
and more recently 70.85/159 = $0.446/liter

The cost excluding crude was 0.75-0.38 = $0.37 earlier
and 1.13-0.45 = $0.68 recently.

The increase in crude price was $0.07 while the pump rise was $0.38.

Why should the costs that exclude the cost of crude - not set by any
market - rise 84%? The tax portion remains a fixed percentage. The
remaining costs of refining etc are largely fixed in the short term.

The extra $0.31 is partly taxes and mostly gouging by the oil industry.
.....


As I've pointed out, the two are RELATED, but not ABSOLUTELY fixed with
respect to each other. Did you look at the relationship of the pump
price to the market prices of gasoline or only crude?

A significant portion of the move in gasoline prices in the last couple
of weeks was obviously the loss of production in the Gulf Coast region
of the US.

As I've also noted over and over in these threads, there is sufficient
shortage of supply and active demand that the markets are responding to
speculation and rumor and fear of what might occur as much or more than
as they are to real shortages.

It is also possible that there was a certain amount of "rigging" in the
short term at the pumps of which you specifically speak.

The point I've been addressing all along is that the basic prices of
commodities are set on the mercantile exchanges. Observing trends in
these, one will find high correlation (which doesn't mean exactly
matching) with retail prices.

I don't know why you have jumped on that with such vehemenence--I've
never said and still don't say that there aren't local or other factors,
simply pointed out the basics of where price levels are based for those
who keep claiming absolute prices are set by the proverbial "they".

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Tom Miller wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:31:41 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


| Tom Miller wrote:
|
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:43:13 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| wrote:
|
| | Tom Miller wrote:
| |
| | On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| | wrote:
| |
| | ...
| | | Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
| | | closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
| | | (positively) correlated.
| |
| | Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Gasoline futures surged 14 percent last
| | week while crude oil prices gained only 2 percent.
| | ...
| |
| | Ant that is still a positive correlation...it would be difficult to
| | conceive of them being totally independent as one is the raw material
| | for the other.
| |
| | And, of course, I started this subthread branch by pointing out that
| | there are open markets for both products...
|
| There was a large disparity between gasoline futures and crude futures
| last week. It's a 12% difference. That's a lot.
|
| Short term fluctuations are not unusual...just look at the data over a
| period of time...

We're talking about a sudden rise in gasoline prices. Don't change the
subject. If you want to talk about investing, I'll be happy to teach
you.


You're the one who seems to have changed the subject...I simply pointed
out (quite a bit earlier) that gasoline is a commodity traded on the
open mercantile markets which is where wholesale prices a pegged as
opposed to being unilateraly set by some specific entity. Retail prices
hence follow with various other factors and forces, some of which I have
also mentioned.

I have no idea what you're onto now.

The flaw in your argument is your apparent belief that all gasoline is
traded on the open market; that is simply untrue. The open market
reflects sales of excess capacity, or by independent refiners (if you
can find one). The bulk of US gas has its wholesale price established
by the refiner, who controls the distribution and the marketing. A
station that sells a name brand gas is contractually bound to buy from
that manufacturer at the price set by that manufacturer, and does not
enjoy the freedom to pick up some extra product on the spot market.

Price gouging is a meaningless emotional term used by name callers who
are upset that they themselves lacked the foresight to buy something
that would go up in price. Yes, the station owner makes more than he
anticipated on his current inventory, just as he will lose money on the
replacement inventory when prices decline. That is capitalism, and it
has worked very well for the US.

Liz wrote:
"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne


Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back on
they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long time
business owner myself.

Liz




That being true you know that any business that sells it's stock for
less than it will cost to replace that stock and cover their overhead
will soon be out of business.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

On 6-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth wrote:

I don't know why you have jumped on that with such vehemenence--I've
never said and still don't say that there aren't local or other factors,
simply pointed out the basics of where price levels are based for those
who keep claiming absolute prices are set by the proverbial "they".

If we were talking about a couple of pennies, your latest diatribe would
be reasonable. However, the price gouging goes _far_ beyond that.

Your posts on the market mechanisms have been grossly out of whack
with what folks have been posting in many cases. Yes, the market
for wholesale prices is open - the retail prices are not - not even
close to reasonable. You have never made any such distinction.

Mike

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:05:52 GMT, "Michael Daly" wrote:

If we were talking about a couple of pennies, your latest diatribe would
be reasonable. However, the price gouging goes _far_ beyond that.

Is making money a sin? What is reasonable pricing, selling below cost
and maybe you wanna it for free?

"Thomas D. Horne, Electrician" wrote in message
ink.net...
Liz wrote:
"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne


Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back
on they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long
time business owner myself.

Liz


That being true you know that any business that sells it's stock for less
than it will cost to replace that stock and cover their overhead will soon
be out of business.
--
Tom Horne

Well that all depends on what the stock happens to be, doesn't it? Most
stock doesn't turn over quite as fast as gasoline does these days so I can't
see the comparison. On the other hand, I own a service business and do not
deal in stock so perhaps my reasoning is skewed?

Liz

"keith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:27:07 -0400, Liz wrote:


"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must
cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne

Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back
on
they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long
time
business owner myself.

Tell you what... I'll buy the gas in your car's tank for what you paid
for it last week.

--
Keith

The gas in my car was purchased 3 weeks ago so no way I'm gonna do that!!!

Liz

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:58:52 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

| Tom Miller wrote:
|
| On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:31:41 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| wrote:
|
| | Tom Miller wrote:
| |
| | On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:43:13 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| | wrote:
| |
| | | Tom Miller wrote:
| | |
| | | On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Duane Bozarth
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | | ...
| | | | Not totally independent if you'll simply look at the mercantile exchange
| | | | closing prices for the two commodities you'll find they're quite highly
| | | | (positively) correlated.
| | |
| | | Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Gasoline futures surged 14 percent last
| | | week while crude oil prices gained only 2 percent.
| | | ...
| | |
| | | Ant that is still a positive correlation...it would be difficult to
| | | conceive of them being totally independent as one is the raw material
| | | for the other.
| | |
| | | And, of course, I started this subthread branch by pointing out that
| | | there are open markets for both products...
| |
| | There was a large disparity between gasoline futures and crude futures
| | last week. It's a 12% difference. That's a lot.
| |
| | Short term fluctuations are not unusual...just look at the data over a
| | period of time...
|
| We're talking about a sudden rise in gasoline prices. Don't change the
| subject. If you want to talk about investing, I'll be happy to teach
| you.
|
| You're the one who seems to have changed the subject...I simply pointed
| out (quite a bit earlier) that gasoline is a commodity traded on the
| open mercantile markets which is where wholesale prices a pegged as
| opposed to being unilateraly set by some specific entity. Retail prices
| hence follow with various other factors and forces, some of which I have
| also mentioned.
|
| I have no idea what you're onto now.

Now you're really backpedaling.

On 6-Sep-2005, Dave Jefford wrote:

Is making money a sin? What is reasonable pricing,

Their cost goes 5% up and they charge us an extra 30% - you think
that's reasonable? If they increased the cost by, say, 7% to cover
uncertainty, no one would be complaining. But that's not what's
happening.

Mike

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:25:55 GMT, "Michael Daly" wrote:

Of course it is reasonable to charge as much as
the market will bear! No one asking you to buy?
If you can't afford it, take buses, walk or better
yet eat less.

On 6-Sep-2005, Dave Jefford wrote:

Is making money a sin? What is reasonable pricing,

Their cost goes 5% up and they charge us an extra 30% - you think
that's reasonable? If they increased the cost by, say, 7% to cover
uncertainty, no one would be complaining. But that's not what's
happening.

Mike

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:07:06 -0400, Liz wrote:


"keith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:27:07 -0400, Liz wrote:


"HorneTD" wrote in message
nk.net...


What do you expect the station's owner / operator to pay for the
replacement fuel with. The price of what they are selling now must
cover
the cost of what they will buy to replace it.
--
Tom Horne

Bull Feathers! If the station owners don't have a cushion to fall back
on
they have no right owning a business...and I'm stating this as a long
time
business owner myself.

Tell you what... I'll buy the gas in your car's tank for what you paid
for it last week.

--
Keith

The gas in my car was purchased 3 weeks ago so no way I'm gonna do that!!!

Ok, maybe now you'll understand the gas retailer's POV.

--
Keith

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:42:28 +0000, Chuck wrote:

On 3 Sep 2005 09:52:45 -0700, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Sacramento Dave wrote:

...Snip incoherent rambling...

They ["the" oil comanies] are fast the wasted no time raising oil prices.

As has been pointed out ad infinitum, oil (and gasoline) are traded on
open mercantile markets...oil is bought/sold there, at market prices.

Mebbe so, but the gas in the tanks at the individual gas stations has
already been paid for. Raising prices due to calamity on the existing,
already-been-paid-for supply is pretty much the definition of gouging.

R
In the southeast US (don't know if it applies elsewhere) The station
owner usually don't own the fuel in the tanks.. the distributor does..
The station owner pays for the fuel after its been pumped out
The distributor owns the pumps as well.. (this being at the
independent stations anyway..)

It's *mostly* the same in the NE. Most small operators couldn't afford to
replace the in-ground tanks and pumps after the EPA mandate. The
distributors replaced the tanks and pumps and now pay the station operator
to sell their gas. The station operators make most of their money from
twinkies and coffee.

--
Keith

In article , Duane Bozarth wrote in part:

As I've pointed out, the two are RELATED, but not ABSOLUTELY fixed with
respect to each other. Did you look at the relationship of the pump
price to the market prices of gasoline or only crude?

A significant portion of the move in gasoline prices in the last couple
of weeks was obviously the loss of production in the Gulf Coast region
of the US.

Oh, the oil companies sure appear to be enjoying the loss of capacity to
refine crude into gasoline. Same as with that big blackout a couple years
ago or whenever that was.

And now that their favored party has both houses of Congress and the
White House, nothing has been done to address their complaint that "The
Greenies" have instituted roadblocks to building new refineries. So the
refinery count dwindles, and the oil companies get to blame "The Greenies"
despite the party on the side of the oil companies being in power.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dave Jefford wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:25:55 GMT, "Michael Daly" wrote:

Of course it is reasonable to charge as much as
the market will bear! No one asking you to buy?
If you can't afford it, take buses, walk or better
yet eat less.

Surely I believe the oil companies are gouging Americans!

But why? Americans did not decrease gasoline consumption in response to
gasoline prices hitting $2.50 per gallon for regular. Annual national
consumption was actually up from a year before then, almost to the extent
of a year's population growth! So if the oil companies can have sales
grow 1% if gasoline goes from $1.80 to $2.50 per gallon in a year, should
they not see a profit motive to try for making gasoline cost more than $3
per gallon?

How much does gasoline have to cost before people decide to commute via
Honda Civics or bicycles or mass transit or by foot rather than via SUVs,
and drive a Honda Civic or a non-motor vehicle rather than an SUV to the
supermarket? Americans beware - whatever most of you are willing to pay
for gasoline to avoid such a fate has a fair chance of not being too much
more than the lowest gasoline prices we will see in the future!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:

How much does gasoline have to cost before people decide to commute via
Honda Civics or bicycles or mass transit or by foot rather than via SUVs...?

I drive an '84 CRX that still gets about 40 mpg. Small. Light No airbags.
An easy loser in an accident with an SUV. My choice. Could I get 100 mpg
on short trips with a small motorcycle?

Nick

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message

And now that their favored party has both houses of Congress and the
White House, nothing has been done to address their complaint that "The
Greenies" have instituted roadblocks to building new refineries. So the
refinery count dwindles, and the oil companies get to blame "The Greenies"
despite the party on the side of the oil companies being in power.

I'd take you seriously, but the same argument about the "Greenies" has been
going on for years no matter what party was in office or controlled the
houses of Congress. Please don't insult yourself by thinking that there are
politicians of any party not in the pockets of big oil.

In article ,
wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

How much does gasoline have to cost before people decide to commute via
Honda Civics or bicycles or mass transit or by foot rather than via SUVs...?

I drive an '84 CRX that still gets about 40 mpg. Small. Light No airbags.
An easy loser in an accident with an SUV. My choice. Could I get 100 mpg
on short trips with a small motorcycle?

I have heard mostly bad news on gas mileage of motorcycles, mopeds,
scooters, etc...
As in with most fairly good cases the sub-car gasoline-powered vehicle
has gas mileage only a little better than that of cars that get good gas
mileage.

Reasons:

1. Smaller/lighter gasoline powered vehicles often have 2-stroke engines,
which are significantly less efficient than the 4-stroke engines used in
cars and generally in heavier motorcycles.

2. Most cars have aerodynamic design that is not used to a similar extent
for exposed people on smaller/lighter vehicles. At least this one
detracts mainly from highway fuel economy and hardly from urban street
fuel economy.

3. Smaller, lighter vehicles to some extent lend themselves to
less-fuel-economical driving habits. I have seen how a fair amount
of people that drive 4-stroke motorcycles drive more like bicycle
messengers than car drivers ("cagers") do.

I think that if you get the smallest available 4-stroke motorcycle and
drive it as gently as cage drivers usually drive their cages, you would
get (MY GUESSTIMATE) about 60 MPG both city and highway, and about 80-90
MPG on country roads cruising at at 40-50 MPH or at whatever speed is
hardly outside this range while using a higher gear and having the engine
sounding like it is running efficiently.
At higher speeds, I see air resistance making motorcycles having fuel
economy drop with increasing speed towards only somewhat more than is
achievable with better-highway-mileage cars at such higher speeds.

- Don Klipstein )