Price Fixing

[noze]

Gas prices up again. Just as the cold front hit up north and not a shortage of GAS in site our GREAT LEADERS pull another (i am going to get a lot richer on this front) stunt. Gas in my area had been going down but only 3 -4 cents a week. It always goes down a little but when it goes back up it's 10 cents at a time. Who controls these crooks? When normal people break the Law they are held accountable. These B------s steal wide a-- open and we all got to pay. The rich don't care, gas could be 5 dollars a gallon and they won't say a word. So it's Christmas let's see if they can hurt the poor any more. Someone please get a handle on these Black Hearted people. The common people need a little help also. Merry Christmas to you all.

[abbd]

You want government help in controlling energy prices and supply? Hey I hear Cuba might just do both those things. Try living there I hear it's a "worker's paradise".

[zoe10850]

Well, what bothers me about this is that all gasoline in area comes from the very same refinery, The truck drivers mix a bit of chemical to make it Mobil, or Shell, or BP-Amoco etc. Chemical mixes while they drive. When the product getrs to Lafayette, look at the price differences. ALL Shell gas is same price (usually highest) because Macro owns distribution and retail. There prices are definitely fixed.

I do not know of other industries where you can control that many levels of the product ie. production is shell refinery, distribution is franchised jobber, retail is same franchised jobber ? what is with that ? You should not see $.20-30 diffwerence in prices on major brands, but you do; Shell versus Chevron versus BP versus Citgo but you do.

That is the only change I would endorse; outlaw ownership at any more than one level of marketing. I am against absolute monopoly (LUS) but am more against socialism (government ownership/control of anything)

[abbd]

Z, that's interesting. Take a look at the mandated(by law) three tier system controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages here in Louisiana and I believe 39 other states. If I have an on-premise license why shouldn't I be able to drive over to Houston and pick up a hundred or so cases from the brewery and sell it in my bar? Why can't I drive up to Lynchburg and pick up a truckload of whiskey for sale in my bar? All kinds of strange laws that place a burden on businesses.

[JeffC]

Well, there is a reason for that, and believe it or not, it protects the consumer.

For ex: In alcohol sales no one can compete at more than one level. You can import, distribute (wholesale) or retail. This is done to keep, say, Anheuser-Busch from controlling the beer market. Fact is they could sell beer for free for a year or two until there was no beer competition left. Then jack the price to whatever they wanted.

Yes, you could (now) go to another state and buy cheaper, but you cannot sell it in any of the 39 states w/o a license in that state. There is also a minimum markup (I think it is 6%) from wholesale to retail sale. That way, the big boys cannot kill the little retail outlet.

Gasoline should be that way because people like Macro control the market for Shell gasoline. They ran all the independent Shell outlets out of business by jacking up the wholesale (rack) price and then buying the outlets. Shell will not grant a shell franchise within a certain distance of another (unlike Exxon which did not care) and now Macro owns all the retail outlets in this area. This cannot be good for the consumer.

[abbd]

Jeff, I could say the same for any manufactureer. Why couldn't Levi-Strauss just give away free jeans for a year and dry up it's competition. I don't think any product should have a minimum mark up, why does alcohol? You old enough to remember the "Louisiana milk commission" and what they did to the price of milk here? Do you remember when John Schwegman took that group to court( and won, and the price of milk dropped)? Why is government mandating a price for a product? Free the markets, let quality and price determine a product's value to the consumer.

[noze]

I remember 911, gas prices were just starting to rise. It got to the point where Mr. Bush said we are going to help by getting gas prices down, and it was done. He has the power to do it.

[zoe10850]

Well. one reason is that Levi-Strauss does not retail to the consumer. They only manufacture their product. That is the basis for breaking up Standard Oil years ago, for breaking up Ma Bell etc. Monopoly of a product that the public needs. Alcohol obviously is needed to help us cope with all the RINO's in this area.

And actually, John Schwegman lost and had to heed the price controls on both milk and liquor.

I see the point about Budweiser beer;they control 70%+ of the beer market, and could monopolize if they controlled retail as well as manufacture and distribution. They could sell at break even or loss for years and buy out all competition, then charge whatever they wanted.

The minimum markup is designed to help the "little guy", not the large producers. Sort of a guaranteed profit. That was Teddy Roosvelt's idea then, and I think it is still valid today. Look at the farmers; it is not profitable for small scale farming in this day and age. Eventually, all farming will be controlled by conglomerates

[abbd]

Eh, see this Z,...The federal suit, which grew out of Schwegmann's attempts to import cheaper out-of-state milk, was in litigation for eight years, Fontham said. Finally, a three-judge panel said that Schwegmann could not be barred from buying cheaper milk.

[ronnief]

John Schwegeman was way ahead of his time. Too bad his son got greedy. He should have never bought out the Superstore. Prfetty much same as Al Copelin did when he bought out Churchs Chicken.

I do remember Schwegeman going to Mississippi for milk and Oklahoma for liquor until he was stopped by state. I assume if he did win his suit the law was "corrected" to stop that running around end. That was back in the 60's as I recall.

[noze]

Get back to the topic of GAS, we all remember when 911 came to pass, Bush and his team said I will get the gas prices down so that the economy can help itself get back to business. He did it. He and his PALS have the power to do it again. But their greed is getting them richer. Like I said befor, they will put it at 5 dollors so get ready to help the rich get what it is that they need to keep the working people down. May God help the common people.

[noze]

Does anybody Know why our leaders will not do a thing to help gas prices go down? That's right, they never have to pay for gas. We pay for all of their gas. Every elected official gets gas for FREE. But we pay for it. They do not care if it does go up to the 5 dollor a gallon. Remember the more you pay the more tax money they collect, and the more they can waste on their pork. These people will soon have La. a slave to politicans. All the billions that came from the storms is gone and not a dame thing has been fixed. All you hear is we need more money to fix our coast. Well the only reason that they want to fix the coast so bad is so they (BIG LAND OWNERS) can keep their oil royalties. Truth is the water washed it out so the State should claim it. Thats Law. Where is the state on claming it's land. What a sorry excuse for leadership. Where is AG's Office on this one.

[zoe10850]

Well Noze, probably because they can't. They do not make more tax money when price goes up because tax is a "per gallon" assessment, not a percentage.

The reason "nothing" is fixed is because the politicians are trying to please everyone, not to do what is right regardless of political consequence.

As for the state not stealing property owners royalties due to coastal erosion, the same applies to the federal govt, which has not adjusted the 3 mile limit either. They have not taken what belonged to the state but should be lost due to adjusted coastline and the state has not taken from landowners. And they should not. Who cares if they are "big" landowners ? They have rights just like you and I.

If Louisiana took from landowners because of erosion, the feds would do the same to state and rob us of royalties.

[noze]

At least the state would benifit not the people who run the state, Big oil, Big Landowners, and Big Timber. They are the ones who keep the state in corruption. Do things their way not the right way. I am not against anyone keeping what is theirs, but this the Laws that were made. Abide by the laws not make more new ones.

[zoe10850]

I don't think you got my point; The Louisiana coast has been eaten away (and we are talking miles, not inches like in Florida) due to years of uncontrolled shell dredging, canals which allowed salt water intrusion and destroyed marsh and swampland/ No more barrier islands, no buffer zones etc. The coast is in nearly three miles from where it started when drilling began. According to you, the state should take royalties from people who lost their land through no fault of their own, and then the feds should take royalties from state for same reason. Yes, lets give the feds more of our precious state.

I still think Louisiana should secede from the union because at least we could get foreign aid.

[noze]

If you were to go to the court house and look and see how much land was lost due to coastal erosion you would see that not one acre of land is missing. Why do we make laws is they are not inforced. Why do you think we pay our assessers so much, to make sure big land owners do not lose their minerals therefor they have the power.