Price gouging, or capitalism?

[twency]

i suppose you could argue that the 25% figure is someone's arbitrary idea of "fair". i'll buy that. but that's a new york specific rule. it's not the same in florida, for example, whose FAQ i posted.

We have a point of commonality which I had overlooked in reading the various posts prior to this. We agree that 25% is indeed an arbitrary number. This is a bad law, and it should be changed.

More generally, though, I guess where you disagree with me (and I assume others here, although I certainly don't speak for them) is the idea that it's ok for the government to apply tests to determine what's fair and right in free-market, arms-length transactions. Whether the test be a percentage (eg. increase in retail price more than 125% of increase in wholesale price) or a smell test (to paraphrase a court decision on another topic, "I can't define gouging, but I know it when I see it"), it's neither right nor just for the government to decide what price private individuals and companies can sell their property for.

You say that what those of us "guys" are missing is the problem of occasions when "the change in price can't be reasonably explained by increased cost or supply/demand." I say, speaking solely for myself, that there should be absolutely no reason why a price increase needs to be "explained" by increased cost or supply/demand for the transaction to be legal. If a gas station owner decides he wants to buy a yacht, so he increases prices by 50%, that's his right.
Even in a time of crisis.
Whether or not his costs actually go up.
Just because it's his property.
He should get to determine how much he sells it for.
Any alternative is a form of socialism or communism.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
(Oh, wait, yes there is.)

I have yet to see the law against gouging which I think is morally justifiable.

_________
-twency

 

[taliv]

If people are willing to pay $3/gallon for gas as opposed to $2/gallon then by default demand for that product increased.

see item a). demand for necessities is relatively inelastic and doesn't vary with price.



twency, that line of reasoning is logically consistent. but yes, we do disagree. let me try to cast this in context.

do you believe the bill of rights protects "shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater"? i do not.
do you believe you should be able to turn your suburban yard into a pig and chicken farm? i think zoning ordinances are constitutional infringements on your otherwise free behavior.

there are countless examples where peoples' rights inevitably clash. unfortunately, each of those restrictions can, and often are, be abused. it's still better than the alternative.

the point is, economic theories aside, yes, i think a prohibition on profiteering is constitutionally consistent and the right thing to do morally.

edit:

is the idea that it's ok for the government to apply tests to determine what's fair and right in free-market, arms-length transactions.

i agree with you here too. what my posts above attempted to explain si that frequently during a crisis, the market ceases to function as it's normal efficient self. it's not free. it's segmented and isolated. only then do i think it's ok for the gov to apply tests...

 

[R.H. Lee]

Set aside the gouging accusations for a moment, and examine the so-called 'free market' that sets gas prices. Let's compare it with a couple of other free markets, housing and groceries, both as essential (if not more so) than gasoline.

Housing & groceries
In any given geographic area, there are a number of sellers unrelated to each other. There are individual property owners and builders with new tracts. There are chain supermarkets and mom and pops and specialty stores. There may be niche markets that have limited buyers (high end homes and gourmet groceries). Sellers are in direct competition with each other, and are forced to objectively price their products if they expect to sell them. The result is that buyers have choices, and the market is free from coercion. Some buyers may choose to shop at the budget supermarkets that have lower prices, but fewer conveniences; you might have to bag your own groceries. Other buyers are willing to pay higher prices in exchange for better service and brand names.

Nationally, there are hundreds of thousands of sellers of both housing and groceries, unrelated to each other who must compete in their individual areas. The result is that prices are truly market driven and meet the definition of 'fair market value';

It is the most probable price at which a good or service will exchange, expressed in terms of cash or equivalent, in a free market assuming:

1) A knowledgeable and willing seller unencumbered by undue pressure to sell and acting in his own best interest

2) A knowledgeable and willing buyer unencumbered by undue pressure to buy and acting in his own best interest

3)A reasonable time for exposure in a free and open market


Now let's examine the price setting environment for gasoline.

Gasoline
In any given geographic area there are an ample number of retail outlets, all selling essentially the same product. It would appear that competitive pricing is the primary incentive to attract buyers. However, competitive pricing is not possible due to the identity of ownership among the sellers; they are comprised of groups who are related to each other; they cannot compete with themselves. Moreover these groups set prices in unison because together they maintain an oligopoly.

The result is that buyers do not have choices; if they want the gas, they must pay whatever price has been set by the limited number of sellers who control the supply. The 'fair market value' test has not been met because a) the buyer is subject to undue pressure and cannot act in his own best interest b) there is no 'reasonable time for exposure' when prices increase as often as twice a day.

When the sellers pool is expanded nationally, there remains an identity of ownership among the sellers. The same 6-8 sellers who dominate the local markets also dominate the national market. It is absurd to deny that this group is incapable of controlling the supply and thereby the price of gasoline.

Furthermore, those who contend that the oil companies increased prices are solely the result of OPEC crude oil price increases are ignoring the record profits enjoyed by the refiners and distributors. Profits are the results of sales minus cost of goods sold and expenses. When profits increase disproportionately to the CGS & expenses, artificially high sales prices are the culprit and price fixing is the only other explanation.

 

[Oleg Volk]

You have yet to tell me why sellers won't simply close their doors when the prices fixed by law become too low relative to what they'd want to charge. Soviets made "hoarding" illegal. What should the American response be?

 

[Alex45ACP]

Good dicussion so far. I have to say I agree with Justin, Marco Kloos, etc. I can not condone government forcing someone to lower their prices at gunpoint, under any circumstances.

 

[Art Eatman]

You can always look at government success in its impact on housing markets; just think of rent control.

On this gas deal: If I think gas will cost me $3.00/gal the next time I fill my retail store's storage tanks, it's okay to raise my price to $4.00? Okay, what if I'm nervous and scared and think the next refill will cost me $5.00 and I raise my price to $6.00. My competitors aren't as goosey, and all think, "$3.00 sounds about right." and only go up to $4.00/gal for their customers.

You gonna tell me that because I'm wearing a tinfoil hat that I'm a gouger? Just because gas didn't go to $5.00 doesn't mean it could not have. I'm supposed to believe some Guvmint guy who never worked retail in his whole life?

But to play with this "gouging" label: Not all gas-station guys gouged. If a gouger guy sees that his competition is not gouging, his prices will come down--as really happened in the real world. As always happens in the real world.

Shall we next worry about plywood?

Art

 

[ID_shooting]

The impasse of this debate is frustrating to say the least. Oleg, I do not think anyone is suggesting a massive socialist movement and bringing on a market reminiscent of Communist Russia.

It seems that there are those with the opinion that you are either for a restriction-free market system or you are a “commie” and an un-educated dolt that needs to take a class in basic economics.

Until we can meet in the middle, this issue will never be resolved.

No the government should not force companies to sell items at fixed prices, that would be absurd. In the same token however, allowing companies to take advantage of people in need is just as wrong.

Anytime you have people that are in dire need and you are in possession of a commodity that those people need to avoid severe suffering, you are morally wrong to take advantage of that need to gain gross profits. Now, I am not talking about Joe schmuck with a few gallons of gas in the ground, he has ample competition to keep his prices down. I am talking about the holders of the fuel that purposely withhold supplies to artificially create a shortage and using public fear to create a demand then using that demand as an excuse to bump prices up beyond what they normally would be to make their “record profits.”

What would you say if the sole provider of insulin decided to charge $1,000,000.00 a dose and didn’t care if people died or not? Certainly they are free to charge what they want aren’t they? After all, people are free not to buy it if they don’t want to, right?

Like I said, we are not talking the extreme. Nobody wants complete socialism, but a free and unrestricted market will prove evil in the end. Like I stated in an earlier post, given the time to run its course, one group will end up owning everything in a free market, just like a huge game of monopoly.

 

[jefnvk]

Anytime you have people that are in dire need and you are in possession of a commodity that those people need to avoid severe suffering, you are morally wrong to take advantage of that need to gain gross profits.

So now we legislate on morals?

What would you say if the sole provider of insulin decided to charge $1,000,000.00 a dose and didn’t care if people died or not?

Saying this as a diabetic, it is their product, and theirs to do with as they wish. No one forced them to come up with that medicine. They did it to make money. Unfortunately, they are not going to make money at $1M a unit. Not even Bill Gates could pay for that for too long. So it would be dumb to do that. They would not make money.

The profit drive is what pushes people to do things. You think these gas stations would stick around if the didn;t think they could make the money they thought they could make?

Do you think companies would pump money into R&D, if they knew they would have to give it away because it is the moral thing to do?

 

[taliv]

You have yet to tell me why sellers won't simply close their doors when the prices fixed by law become too low relative to what they'd want to charge. Soviets made "hoarding" illegal. What should the American response be?

oleg, keep in mind that as i've said, if sellers are raising their prices because of costs, that's ok. gov isn't going to stop them. if sellers want to close their doors, that's fine too, even in an emergency. e.g. if a hurricane's comign through and you lock the pumps and get the heck out of dodge, no problem. it's no different than when truck drivers stopped driving because gas cost them more than they were making. if it's not working out for you, close the doors.

as far as i'm concerned, anti-hoarding laws are way, way over the line. i'm against those (for no economic reason, just property rights) the same as i'm against any form of emminent domain, the same as i'm against the gov confiscating or commandeering my property. (e.g. if some hollywood police officer runs up and tries to take my car to chase a bad guy... they can get bent.


art, you pretty much nailed it, eh? the gov screws everything up. even communism looks good on paper, but somehow the implementation, it just never pans out. the restrictions on these laws are about as narrow as i can imagine and still be effective. gov itself is a necessary evil.

 

[Marko Kloos]

even communism looks good on paper, but somehow the implementation, it just never pans out.

You know, I keep hearing that, but I've never agreed with it. Communism looks horrible even on paper. I mean, abolishment of private property?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" makes the able slaves to the needy forever. It greatly encourages need and discourages ability. It's a terrible basis for a societal system, even on paper.

Capitalism has proven infinitely superior to socialism and communism when it comes to raising the standard of living for everyone, despite the lofty goals of the latter systems. It proves that humans are at their most productive and industrious when you let them deal with each other on the basis of rational self-interest, not state-enforced altruism.

 

[jefnvk]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" makes the able slaves to the needy forever. It greatly encourages need and discourages ability. It's a terrible basis for a societal system, even on paper.

And it breaks as soon as people realize they don't have to put in to get out.

 

[Flyboy]

There is no such thing as "price gouging."

OK, I'm going to break from my usual stance, and I'm going to concede that price gouging does, in fact, exist. Furthermore, I'm going to cite a noted (conservative) economist in defense of that claim. To wit:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/12/21/179874.html

The consumer rip-off
Dec 21, 2005
by Walter E. Williams

Since allegations of oil company price-gouging have become topical, let's look at real price manipulation. Suppose a dairyman wants to sell a gallon of milk for 25 cents less than his competitors, would you want him fined or jailed? Federal Milk Marketing Orders would do just that. Americans pay four times the world price for sugar as a result of tariffs and quotas on foreign imports. That leads to higher profits and wages in the sugar industry and higher prices for sugar products. Since consumers are far more numerous than businessmen, one might ask how in the world is it politically possible for businessmen to get congress and state legislators to allow them to rip us off?

There's a phenomenon economists refer to as narrowly dispersed large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. Take the case of a dairymen association. Members agree to contribute money to lobby federal and state legislators to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their state agricultural agencies to enact minimum milk price laws. Since dairy producers have narrow interests and are small in number, compared to dairy consumers, their organization costs are low. Their spending of several million dollars to lobby legislators to mandate minimum milk prices might mean hundreds of millions in higher profits and wages in the dairy industry.

That's the benefit side, the costs of which are borne by the tens of millions of milk consumers who're forced to pay maybe $20 or $30 more per year than they'd have to pay if there weren't congressionally-mandated minimum prices. Which one of us is willing to bear the expenses to go to Washington or state capitols to try to unseat legislators who created the opportunity for the dairy industry to rip us off? Individually, we correctly conclude that it's cheaper just to pay the $20 or $30 more a year and get on with our lives. Plus, since milk consumers have diverse interests, it'd be costly to organize us to fight the dairy interests and their congressional allies.

It's a different story with the dairy producers. They will spend the resources to try to unseat a congressman or state legislator who doesn't do their bidding and vote in favor of statutory minimum milk prices. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake to be divided among a relatively small group of owners and workers. They hire professionals to justify their agenda, among those justifications are: "To preserve the dairy industry," "to create a level playing field" and incredibly, "to protect the consumer." Congressmen readily do their bidding because they are well aware that you and I won't put up much of a fight -- we'll just pay the higher price.

There are hundreds of statutory minimum prices, including gasoline in some states. There are numerous agricultural import restrictions and production quotas. All of these government-sanction market manipulations represent seller collusions against consumers. You say, "Williams, how can that be? The Sherman Antitrust Act gives the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to prosecute and levy fines or imprisonment for price-fixing." You're absolutely right. Price-fixing is illegal, and you will face fines or imprisonment, but with one caveat: unless you get permission from congress or your state legislator. If you get permission, price-fixing becomes legal and it's non-price-fixing that's illegal.

There's a little-appreciated fact about collusions. They have a tendency to break down. Why? Because each party to the collusion is alert to the private gains to be made from cheating on the collusive agreement, such as charging a lower price or producing a larger quantity. Collusions need government enforcement in order to work. Part of the unstated mission of some federal agencies in Washington is the enforcement of collusions. That includes the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Justice and Labor. One of the surest ways to detect a seller collusion is to see whether there are statutory minimum prices, import restrictions and production quotas.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980.

So there you go: a prime example of true price gouging--that is, collusion in the market to artificially increase prices. When you've solved this one (and a whole bunch of others), then you can come whining about gasoline (which was most certainly not gouging).

 

[Art Eatman]

So I own a business and I pay for the product I sell. But, if somebody thinks I'm trying to sell for too much money, government should have the "right" (Duh?) to tell me to drop my prices. (I don't equate having the power with having the right to exercise it.)

Which brand of "ism" is it where you own the business, but government tells you how you can operate it? What did they label the Germany of the 1930s? Same deal, there...

Art

 

[ReadyontheRight]

When someone says "product X" is priced too high or they're "gouging" us, I always say, "If you think they're making easy money, why don't you go into that line of business?" You'll find out soon enough why prices are so high.

Another Okie -- I think you've nailed this topic.

As much as I appreciate Oleg's (rather scary) point, What in the heck is stopping ANYONE in the USA from getting into the game if they think it's so good? When oil companies are growing, they are also hiring.

Or...put some capital together and -- BOOOM -- you ARE J.R. Ewing! What in the heck is keeping you naysayers from BUYING an oil field?

But wait! There are risks????! Prices might go DOWN? (Well- yes -- gas prices have gone down significantly in the past few months...here's your monthly mortgage bill on your spankin' new oil rig).

Government-sanctioned monopoly utilities like gas pipelines, electricity networks, telcom networks, etc. invest capital in exchange for a regulated rate of return - around 11%.

Oil/Gas companies get no such guarantee. They are NOT a utility. They are business men and women. So, of course, they make good and bad decisions
based on what they know of the market. It is a high risk, high reward business, and it drives the worldwide economy.

How in the heck do you expect to get whatever you make and sell to your customer without oil or gas?

Wildcatting for oil is a heck of a lot different than building a regulated power plant. Hence you can regulate one, but not the other.

It's a rather boring topic, but I have a lot more opinions (worth what you'll pay) on utility regulation if you want to PM me.

 

[sm]

Gut Check

I appreciate the responses of Art and Marko's.

It is interesting, as pointed out, how folks justify exceptions to core beliefs when some subject hits close to a nerve.

During the Carter Administration, we had a problem with gas. Back then lines and shortages. In fact some stations did in fact close due to being out of gas. Gas was "as high as $1.50 a gal." in some places. I had been paying on average $1.35 a gal.

I had gone to bury someone, I also in that life , and that work, had security reasons to be out on the road. I was filling up when I hit a half tank used. Coming out of between Gavelston and Houston way...a bit west.

I could not find a station open. It was 85*F at night and I was down 3/4 of a tank all of a sudden. I had them valuables on person and being caught out on the road was NOT an option.

I found a station, had gone off the freeway in search. All the stations were closed/ out. I paid $2.50 per gal for gas. I paid it. Fella noticed I was not upset, figured I was/ had a need. "Sir,say your mileage plummeted, how far you have to go?" I told him. Seems my rubber fuel line was cracked at the filter.

I paid regular price for the parts, fella assisted me in changing the lines and new filter. He did not charge me for his time. Seems I was the first person that had not griped about his pricing.

He had gas, other folks did not, I needed gas.

Yes I have paid $50 for hamburgers, and 'box lunches" for $100.

Monies went to a kid(s) at a Children's Hospital (or similar) "Make a Wish" and wishes from going hunting with dad and grandpa, to wanting to shoot , to fishing trips. Some stuff one cannot put a value on.

Would I pay $100 for a hamburger? Yep. Under the correct circumstances I would. Might be your child in need.

Gov't meddling would not have helped me, or those kids.

Steve

 

[afasano]

*sigh*... I thought we'd done this one about a thousand times by now. The price you pay is not for the gas in the tank, it's for what it will cost to replace the gas in the tank. As supply disruptions, or the appearance thereof (which was really hard to miss after katrina) occur, gas stations raise their prices to offset their own costs in the coming market changes.

Artificially set prices are one of the cornerstones of the communist system. When you fix the price, the place sells out and does not make enough money to refill the tank in the ground. Thus, nobody has gasoline. Take the USSR for an example: the government set price controls on everything. In theory, it was all cheap and plentiful, except that it was neither plentiful in real supply, nor was it cheap when you had to resort to the black market to buy it.

If one station owner is being a jackass about gas prices, and really is artificially inflating the price, find another station. With the unbelieveable amount of focus on gas prices, the next station will have a lower price because the owner knows he will have more business.

What he said, you're paying for his next load of fuel to keep him in business and the price of that can change a few times a day.

 

[gm]

while you are all setting back enjoying your nicely heated homes and paying ridiculously high heating bills,consider this,the economy here is not very good,in fact there are no good paying jobs locally so one must commute. and even those jobs are still no where near the average reported of 12-14 an hour, its more like 6-9 and hour.I dont know bout you folks but we just got our gas heating bill,it was very near 3 weeks pay for the month of november,which is ridiculous as we conserve and our thermo is set at 66 degrees.the folks next door got theirs and cant pay it,theyve already tried energy assistance but are 345 bucks over the limit.I cant help them because Im scraping the barrel now and wondering how Im going to pay mine.I only mention this as the whole business is making someone rich to the tune of billions in excess profits.

I was watching the stocks on tv and heard the guy say how the economy is so much better,maybe there but not here.people cant even afford to pay their gas bills let alone medical and other bills and Im supposed to think that its ok because its a "free market" or something?something is wrong here,very wrong.alot of folks are going to go on welfare because their income just isnt enough to pay all the skyrocketing costs and thats everyones problem,we all pay taxes.we all have to pay for welfare.so are you willing to pay higher taxes because some oil exec needs an extra 10 million?

theres no way anyone can convince me that someone is not getting filthy rich off this, theres no way anyone can convince me its ok to charge whatever one wants for things that people absolutly must have for survival like heating their homes and gas to drive to work.it may not be a crime in a legal sense but it sure makes me sick thinking folks could be so inconsiderate just to line their pockets with yet more millions of dollars while alot of good folks are having to sacrific meds and food just to pay their heating bill..here in the US of A and that to me anyways IS a crime.


I may be off topic but I felt it needed to be said.flame away.

 

[Glock Glockler]

gm,

You are more correct than you know, I have my finger on the pulse of the New England economy and I have friends that through their business know the pulse of the rest of the country's economy and most folks are just barely getting by. Part of this is due to people's foolish spending habits but there are a lot of people that are really struggling: daycare and medical care are very expensive, local and state taxes have been skyrocketing, businesses are just keeping their heads above water.

The main reason for all of this is govt action.

Govt is taxing and regulating this country to death, for all the gripe you hear coming from people about illegal immigration the problem wouldnt be 1/100th as bad if the govt wasn't paying for their welfare, healthcare, daycare, and schooling.

The govt is actively encouraging businesses to leave the country and outsource. I know a few guys that work in a machine shop that is a subcontractor for GE, due to a massive govt contract that GE has they require a certain amount of their stuff to be done in China. They called my friend's company and told them in order to continue doing business with GE they needed to open up a production facility in China. They offered to perhaps cut their rates to keep the contract open but GE said that the price wasnt the issue, the Feds required GE to require them to have a location in China. We are talking about a dozen yankees in New England, they're not going to open a location in China.

Does this have anything to do with free market competition where a company will go for the best value?

I could go on for hours but the main problem is that the govt is sticking it's paws where they shouldnt be, we need less govt regulation, not more.

 

[wingman]

theres no way anyone can convince me that someone is not getting filthy rich off this, theres no way anyone can convince me its ok to charge whatever one wants for things that people absolutly must have for survival like heating their homes and gas to drive to work.it may not be a crime in a legal sense but it sure makes me sick thinking folks could be so inconsiderate just to line their pockets with yet more millions of dollars while alot of good folks are having to sacrific meds and food just to pay their heating bill..here in the US of A and that to me anyways IS a crime.

I agree, while I do believe in capitialism in order for it to work long term
there must be checks and balance, or morals/standards and for certain
we are losing that.
The very idea that some products such as oil is bought/sold in a free market
is naive. Yes, many are making large $'s in the stock market, yes, profit is
good but at what cost to the country as a whole. The idea of if I get
my share all else is good is simply wrong.
No, I do not want government to set prices but for sure we cannot trust
large corporations who have no respect for the consumer and for sure not
for America.
Consumers need to be savvy, but most are beat down trying to have the
American dream so they pay inflated prices in most part for poor quality
products.
I think I am certain about greed will be our down fall in time, it will be an
eye opening suprise for many.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Regulation of private industry is not automatically a bad thing, nor is it anti-capitalist. Both banks and insurance companies are highly regulated, yet they seem to consistently provide highly reliable services, are highly competitive, and make good profits for their shareholders.

 

[Warren]

Regulation of private industry is not automatically a bad thing

You are threating peaceful acting people with guns, so yeah it is a bad thing.

Both banks and insurance companies are highly regulated, yet they seem to consistently provide highly reliable services, are highly competitive, and make good profits for their shareholders.

What is seen and what is unseen. What are we losing out on die to these regualtions? Maybe better services at lower cost or maybe a different type of money storage scheme that would be better overall than what we have now.

 

[Glock Glockler]

RH Lee,

Regulation of private industry is not automatically a bad thing

If you grant the govt the legitimacy to regulate industries then you've granted them the legitimacy to regulate them into the ground. Cheer on as this country is economically strangled

 

[Art Eatman]

Back around 1966 I stopped at a friend's booth at the Laguna Gloria art festival in Austin, Texas. He'd sold a bunch of really hokey stuff, and was some $3,000 to the good for the first two days, with a day to go. '"I've paid for my Eurpoean vacation this summer! Ya know, if you price it right, you can sell (poop) on a stiick!"

I've never forgotten that. Helped me make money at many a gun show and coin show. And sell used cars I'd rebuilt.

So, as we saw, some stations "gouged" for a day or two and got few sales and they fell back in line with the other retailers. They'd already quit "gouging" before anybody from Guvmint showed up to hassle them, on account of too much poop on hand.

The "hand" of the marketplace can slap a fool real quick, and commonly does.

Art

 

[taliv]

for the record, i disagree fundamentally and completely with everything gm said. of course people are getting filthy rich off it. that's not a bad thing. of course people are having difficulty paying their bills. that is supply/demand and the market will have to sort that out and people to use less oil.

in fact, i saw a show the other day about people buying these heaters that ran on corn oil or vegetable oil something like that. crazy, but cheap.

regulation of an industry... we have to be careful how we say this. regulating prices, imho, is always a bad thing. i can't point to a single successful example of the gov stepping in and fixing a problem. i can point to dozens that they've screwed up.

some types of regulations are ok. the FCC needs to allocate frequencies. the FAA needs to organize airplanes the same way the DOT manages stop lights and stop signs.

self-regulation has worked well for many important industries. e.g. doctors are regulated by the AMA, not a gov agency. stock brokers are regulated by the NASD (although the SEC keeps their fingers in the works too)

 

[R.H. Lee]

Oleg Volk wrote:You have yet to tell me why sellers won't simply close their doors when the prices fixed by law become too low relative to what they'd want to charge. Soviets made "hoarding" illegal. What should the American response be?

My point was not an advocacy of price controls on gasoline; I think price controls are counterproductive in the long term. My point is that the 'free market' does not exist in the oil industry due to the oligopoly of the oil industry.

Keep in mind also that government regulation of industry has historically been in response to some abuse by that industry, going back to the Sherman Antitrust Act which broke up Standard Oil. The result served us well for a hundred years, now the oil companies are at it again, aggregating power and market share under fewer and fewer umbrellas. President Theodore Roosevelt again vigorously enforced antitrust regulation when the railroads became abusive by charging ever increasing extortionist prices to farmers to get their goods to market.

Unrestrained capitalism is no better than unrestrained government.