Full of gas

George Will’s faith in free markets knows no bounds. Any suggestion that gas prices are too high results in all sorts of unrestrained sophmoric vitriol–supported by research from the American Enterprise Institute of all places. As always, an argument can be made that gas is not as high as it used to be (adjusted for inflation and so forth), but that’s not really the point. Gas has more than doubled in price very suddenly. On top of that, more and more people are dependent on it being cheap (don’t get me wrong, that’s not a right). That creates a good deal of shock. But the fact that people keep driving doesn’t mean they don’t care about the price, as Will seems to think:

>Democrats, seething at the injustice of gasoline prices, have sprung to the aid of embattled motorists. So resolute are Democrats about defending the downtrodden, they are undeterred by the fact that motorists, not acting like people trodden upon, are driving more than ever. Gasoline consumption has increased 2.14 percent during the past year.

It means they don’t have a choice. The more relevant question would be whether people continue to engage in frivolous driving. Or if people who engage in unnecessary driving make cuts elsewhere. In either case, the simple fact of continued gas buying doesn’t establish anything about the mental state of the purchaser.

But here’s the real gem of whiny sophomoric libertarianism:

>Pelosi announced herself “particularly concerned” that the highest price of gasoline recently was in her San Francisco district — $3.49. So she endorses HR 1252 to protect consumers from “price gouging,” defined, not altogether helpfully, by a blizzard of adjectives and adverbs. Gouging occurs when gasoline prices are “unconscionably” excessive, or sellers raise prices “unreasonably” by taking “unfair” advantage of “unusual” market conditions, or when the price charged represents a “gross” disparity from the price of crude oil, or when the amount charged “grossly” exceeds the price at which gasoline is obtainable in the same area. The bill does not explain how a gouger can gouge when his product is obtainable more cheaply nearby. Actually, Pelosi’s constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi — by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California’s various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation’s third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi’s San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent — higher than the state’s average for local sales taxes.

The absence of an entire quotation ought to be a sign to the kids out there that a straw man is in the works. Why not just tell us what the law says in its own words–like snot-nosed internet critics do for you? Here’s an example:

>B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions (whether real or perceived) or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably.

That seems far less unreasonable than the selective quotes. He doesn’t even link to the text of the bill. If he had, he could make a stronger case for his position. But having distorted the purpose and content of the bill, Will now grasps even further: but the government gouges too! Jeez. That’s not even close. If you don’t know what “gouges” means, look it up in the dictionary.

6 thoughts on “Full of gas”

  1. It seems as though I’ve been responding to Will’s posts lately in the same fashion – He failed to make a cogent argument for his position, but I see how one could be made. Just for reference, I’ve just been over to the Thomas Database over at the Library of Congress, and took a look at the bill that Will is referring to. The bill begins by declaring illegal “excessive” prices, and encouraging market transparanceny, and more defined punishments for violators. While there’s nothing in this bill that strikes me as paritularily problematic, I don’t really see its usefulness. Nearly everytime the US goes through a scare Congress, responding from pressure from the citizenry, lanuches new investigations into price gouging. I am not convinced, as Pelosi and other members of Congress are, that they are is anything dubious about our higher than average gas prices. Consumer demand is increasing. In any market, in any industry, when consumer demand increases, price must alway increase too. Often times we see higher prices, because oil companies are pricing risks in their supply. WIll’s describing the high California tax on gas, isn’t evidence of “gouging” – clearly he’s using the term incorrectly, but I’m sure a decrese in the tax on gas in that state will do more for people than this bill.

  2. I didn’t see the link as I perused the page. Either way, Thomas is a very user-friendly, and incredibly extensive database.

  3. The fact that taxes are responsible for a 58 cent increase in the price of gasoline is important and relevant information for determining the magnitude of the harm here. (Left unstated however is 1)have the taxes remained constant over time and 2)is it easy or desirable to raise/lower these taxes in response to increased demand?

    Is Will making an argument for the complete elimination of gas taxes (or at least a significant reduction)?

    Inflammatory rhetoric aside, I found this one of the more interesting columns by Will.

  4. ‘Gasoline consumption has increased 2.14 percent during the past year.’

    Right there he draws the wrong conclusion. Or he is just, more likely, starting off with a conclusion — people are happily driving more — and picking “facts” to support it.

    Two percent is so small, perhaps even within any margin of error, to draw any conclusion other than that consumption changes over time. And things usually always increase, so an increase in consumption is actually to be expected: automobile sizes have been increasing; the population is increasing; mass transit is stagnating.

Comments are closed.