5 ms·

They are literally charging people what they are willing to pay. It’s not as if people didn’t need energy two years ago when prompt WTI went negative, it’s just

They are literally charging people what they are willing to pay. It’s not as if people didn’t need energy two years ago when prompt WTI went negative, it’s just the market was out of balance. We have the opposite issue now, and charging less doesn’t solve anything. Prices have to go up so that people use less of the thing we don’t have enough of. If they could manipulate markets as you seem to imply, they would do it 100% of the time.

klyrs 4y ago
I need gas to drive to work. Therefore, the ultimate ceiling on the value of a tank of gas is about as much as I make at work in a week. I can't just go to a different gas station; they all set their prices within a nickel or two per gallon. This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  If they "set" their prices lower, they'd run out of gas. Their competition would be selling for higher margins. You could also get a motorcycle.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    It's rainy and snowy about 2/3 of the year where I live. So, yes, I could buy a motorcycle but that would be throwing good money after bad.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      That's the Invisible Hand telling you to move to San Diego.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Some say it's the invisible hand telling me to accelerate climate change, people near the equator and/or sea level be damned. The invisible hand is an idiot.
  - feet 4y ago
    They definitely would not run out of gas. They have more than enough production capacity that they purposely are not using so they can restrict supply artificially and raise prices. They state this blatantly in earnings calls.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      The context here was gas stations, not oil companies. The oil companies, as well, would only be slow-walking physical gasoline in hope of future price increases or, for refineries, cheaper inputs. Otherwise, they're missing out on profits by not selling it at current prices.
- gruez 4y ago
  > This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke. okay but if oil production is down then at least one of the following must happen: 1. higher prices, which should encourage alternative means of oil production to come online 2. people being priced out of gas and withdrawing their demand Thinking that everyone can continue to same amount of gas as before is pure fantasy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- benj111 4y ago
  I don't think you understand what a free market is.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  That's not how this works. If petrol were 10x the current price, you wouldn't commute that distance. You'd move or get a different job. I don't work in San Francisco because flying there every day would be too expensive, the airlines don't have the ability to force me to pay an infinite amount to them...
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    True but "you wouldn't have chosen that job" is a very different situation from "you now have to find another". To use your analogy, if the travel was subsidised maybe you would actually take the plane. If the plane company suddenly stops because of strikes, this affects you, not some theoretical shmuck who shouldnt be using planes.
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      I mean, in a basic sense, if you choose to live so far away from your job that there only exists one possible transport mechanism, then yes, you are dependent on that one transport mechanism. If e.g. a city metro ramped prices then many people in outer zones would have the choice to either pay it, move job, or cycle/walk in. If they bought a house next to a station with no other good transport links and no local work, well, it's not as if that wasn't known...
  - aahortwwy 4y ago
    > If petrol were 10x the current price, you wouldn't commute that distance. You'd move or get a different job. This doesn't happen in practice. Instead, people get stuck in poverty traps.
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      Could you clarify? I suspect you mean that people would prefer to spend a lot of money on fuel rather than moving. Maybe they feel that overall moving would be a quality of life decrease. That's not a trap, it's a preference.

klyrs 4y ago

I need gas to drive to work. Therefore, the ultimate ceiling on the value of a tank of gas is about as much as I make at work in a week. I can't just go to a different gas station; they all set their prices within a nickel or two per gallon. This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke.

SamReidHughes 4y ago
If they "set" their prices lower, they'd run out of gas. Their competition would be selling for higher margins. You could also get a motorcycle.
- klyrs 4y ago
  It's rainy and snowy about 2/3 of the year where I live. So, yes, I could buy a motorcycle but that would be throwing good money after bad.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    That's the Invisible Hand telling you to move to San Diego.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Some say it's the invisible hand telling me to accelerate climate change, people near the equator and/or sea level be damned. The invisible hand is an idiot.
- feet 4y ago
  They definitely would not run out of gas. They have more than enough production capacity that they purposely are not using so they can restrict supply artificially and raise prices. They state this blatantly in earnings calls.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    The context here was gas stations, not oil companies. The oil companies, as well, would only be slow-walking physical gasoline in hope of future price increases or, for refineries, cheaper inputs. Otherwise, they're missing out on profits by not selling it at current prices.
gruez 4y ago
> This isn't a free market by any means, people must pay for gas or immediately go broke. okay but if oil production is down then at least one of the following must happen: 1. higher prices, which should encourage alternative means of oil production to come online 2. people being priced out of gas and withdrawing their demand Thinking that everyone can continue to same amount of gas as before is pure fantasy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
benj111 4y ago
I don't think you understand what a free market is.
throwaway22032 4y ago
That's not how this works. If petrol were 10x the current price, you wouldn't commute that distance. You'd move or get a different job. I don't work in San Francisco because flying there every day would be too expensive, the airlines don't have the ability to force me to pay an infinite amount to them...
- tpoacher 4y ago
  True but "you wouldn't have chosen that job" is a very different situation from "you now have to find another". To use your analogy, if the travel was subsidised maybe you would actually take the plane. If the plane company suddenly stops because of strikes, this affects you, not some theoretical shmuck who shouldnt be using planes.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    I mean, in a basic sense, if you choose to live so far away from your job that there only exists one possible transport mechanism, then yes, you are dependent on that one transport mechanism. If e.g. a city metro ramped prices then many people in outer zones would have the choice to either pay it, move job, or cycle/walk in. If they bought a house next to a station with no other good transport links and no local work, well, it's not as if that wasn't known...
- aahortwwy 4y ago
  > If petrol were 10x the current price, you wouldn't commute that distance. You'd move or get a different job. This doesn't happen in practice. Instead, people get stuck in poverty traps.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    Could you clarify? I suspect you mean that people would prefer to spend a lot of money on fuel rather than moving. Maybe they feel that overall moving would be a quality of life decrease. That's not a trap, it's a preference.