what are gas prices at for you?
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,616
From: All over the Central U.S.
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
Down to the $2.80's for generics, and about $2.90's for national brands in Northern Colorado. Who would have thunk we'd be considering this "good".
E85 sells for $2.39 - $2.49 here now.
E85 sells for $2.39 - $2.49 here now.
Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 120
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
To WaltPA - Did you know in Maryland it is actually against the law to sell gas at below cost? Apparently - Maryland legislation does not want the Wawa's and Hess' of the world to push out the Mom and Pop gas stations.
Several Maryland gas stations including Wawa have be told to raise the price or face a fine. And you thought we lived in a free market society where market demands influence the cost of goods more than the government.
Curent Price $2.859 for regular outside of Baltimore, Maryland.
Several Maryland gas stations including Wawa have be told to raise the price or face a fine. And you thought we lived in a free market society where market demands influence the cost of goods more than the government.
Curent Price $2.859 for regular outside of Baltimore, Maryland.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 955
From: Chicago area
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
No, actually, I don't think many of us thought that we lived in a free market society where market demands influence the cost of goods more than the government. Did any of you read about that farm bill that's going through Congress this week? Outrageous, in so many ways- and outrage is what a lot of people are expressing, for various and sundry reasons, several of which I disagree with, by the way.
My main point, however, is that agricultural subsidies skew the price of some of our most basic commodities; they exist for a whole sheaf of archaic political reasons, none of which justify the current policy, in my opinion. How can you possibly be surprised that gas prices are being regulated? Sure, it's counterintuitive that there would be enough political clout by the oil companies to actually regulate gas prices in that particular direction in an entire state, but it's still not really SHOCKing, given the historic power and influence of that industry. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single commodity whose price isn't set with a huge amount of government influence - and the more so because it can be done on a federal level (the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, after all, only gives Congress its jurisdictional hook when the commerce at issue is big enough or consequential enough to impact people across state lines).
Heck, in many areas it's government that runs basic utilities- who sets the price of water? Electricity? Major Supreme Court cases fought over milk prices, and wheat production. So is the Maryland story odd? yeah, maybe a bit unusual, but a huge departure from the norm? Nope.
My main point, however, is that agricultural subsidies skew the price of some of our most basic commodities; they exist for a whole sheaf of archaic political reasons, none of which justify the current policy, in my opinion. How can you possibly be surprised that gas prices are being regulated? Sure, it's counterintuitive that there would be enough political clout by the oil companies to actually regulate gas prices in that particular direction in an entire state, but it's still not really SHOCKing, given the historic power and influence of that industry. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single commodity whose price isn't set with a huge amount of government influence - and the more so because it can be done on a federal level (the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, after all, only gives Congress its jurisdictional hook when the commerce at issue is big enough or consequential enough to impact people across state lines).
Heck, in many areas it's government that runs basic utilities- who sets the price of water? Electricity? Major Supreme Court cases fought over milk prices, and wheat production. So is the Maryland story odd? yeah, maybe a bit unusual, but a huge departure from the norm? Nope.
Last edited by leahbeatle; Jul 30, 2007 at 05:18 PM.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 480
From: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
Just filled up at 2.999.
Don't get me started on the abuse and expansion of the commerce clause.
Recently the supreme court ruled that a california medical marijuana patient that grew her own for only her personal use was in violation because of the commerce clause. Reason, it effects the commerce of marijuana for the entire nation.
In his decenting opinion Clarence Thomas said, "Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States.
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."
That other supposedly conservative "constitutional" judges ruled this as commerce betrays their lack of principle.
I think it's illegal for me to grow tomatoes in my backyard? Is changing my own oil legal, not if jiffy lube decided to sue me with the current supreme court, except that big oil would be on my side and the judges would see it differently, even if it's not.
I'll stop there, I could easily go off on the milk industries far reaching distortion of the market and other countries economies.
Don't get me started on the abuse and expansion of the commerce clause.
Recently the supreme court ruled that a california medical marijuana patient that grew her own for only her personal use was in violation because of the commerce clause. Reason, it effects the commerce of marijuana for the entire nation.
In his decenting opinion Clarence Thomas said, "Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States.
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."
That other supposedly conservative "constitutional" judges ruled this as commerce betrays their lack of principle.
I think it's illegal for me to grow tomatoes in my backyard? Is changing my own oil legal, not if jiffy lube decided to sue me with the current supreme court, except that big oil would be on my side and the judges would see it differently, even if it's not.
I'll stop there, I could easily go off on the milk industries far reaching distortion of the market and other countries economies.
Energy Independence
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,282
From: Richardson, TX
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
Cover those tomatoes, man! The helicopters are searching for them now. I better cover up the rosemary, too, I guess.
I'm in complete agreement with you. This is ludicrous.
I'm in complete agreement with you. This is ludicrous.
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 955
From: Chicago area
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
worthywads- it appears that you're not familiar with Wickard v. Filburn, though as a side note that reminds me of a funny incident in law school which became even funnier when the case you mention, Gonzalez v. Raich, was decided in 2005 relying heavily on Filburn. I won't tell the whole story, though- this thread is already terribly off topic (sorry moderators!)- I'll just mention that there is an unfortunate consonance of sound between the subjects of the two cases; Wheat and Weed.
My only real response to your post is that Filburn was decided in 1942, so the doctrine is neither new nor novel. You do sound like a lawyer (milk industry= Carolene Products) so you probably DO know Filburn and just disagree with it emphatically or something. In my opinion, the real issue isn't whether you should be outraged that the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate something; it's what Congress does with the authority once it has it. Stripping a branch of government of the power to regulate is only one way of dealing with bad regulations, and it's a pretty extreme one- getting new regulations passed or the old ones repealed could work, too.
And to get back on topic, I filled up this morning in a Far West Chicago suburb for $3.13, but I have seen it as high as $3.25 and the radio DJ discussed gas prices this morning with the alarming news that Chicago has the most expensive gas in the country at the moment, at $3.29. I had a 700+ mile tank, by the way, and tied my personal best of 59.4 mpg!
My only real response to your post is that Filburn was decided in 1942, so the doctrine is neither new nor novel. You do sound like a lawyer (milk industry= Carolene Products) so you probably DO know Filburn and just disagree with it emphatically or something. In my opinion, the real issue isn't whether you should be outraged that the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate something; it's what Congress does with the authority once it has it. Stripping a branch of government of the power to regulate is only one way of dealing with bad regulations, and it's a pretty extreme one- getting new regulations passed or the old ones repealed could work, too.
And to get back on topic, I filled up this morning in a Far West Chicago suburb for $3.13, but I have seen it as high as $3.25 and the radio DJ discussed gas prices this morning with the alarming news that Chicago has the most expensive gas in the country at the moment, at $3.29. I had a 700+ mile tank, by the way, and tied my personal best of 59.4 mpg!
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 302
From: Southern California
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
(oops..my bad...jan/feb I saw 3 fillup at around $2.80/gal)
ps. last 3-4 posts were entertaining, regardless. Yes, I better get those fruits off my trees before I get fined!
Last edited by occ; Jul 31, 2007 at 02:19 PM.
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 480
From: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Re: what are gas prices at for you?
worthywads- it appears that you're not familiar with Wickard v. Filburn, though as a side note that reminds me of a funny incident in law school which became even funnier when the case you mention, Gonzalez v. Raich, was decided in 2005 relying heavily on Filburn. I won't tell the whole story, though- this thread is already terribly off topic (sorry moderators!)- I'll just mention that there is an unfortunate consonance of sound between the subjects of the two cases; Wheat and Weed.
My only real response to your post is that Filburn was decided in 1942, so the doctrine is neither new nor novel. You do sound like a lawyer (milk industry= Carolene Products) so you probably DO know Filburn and just disagree with it emphatically or something. In my opinion, the real issue isn't whether you should be outraged that the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate something; it's what Congress does with the authority once it has it. Stripping a branch of government of the power to regulate is only one way of dealing with bad regulations, and it's a pretty extreme one- getting new regulations passed or the old ones repealed could work, too.
And to get back on topic, I filled up this morning in a Far West Chicago suburb for $3.13, but I have seen it as high as $3.25 and the radio DJ discussed gas prices this morning with the alarming news that Chicago has the most expensive gas in the country at the moment, at $3.29. I had a 700+ mile tank, by the way, and tied my personal best of 59.4 mpg!
My only real response to your post is that Filburn was decided in 1942, so the doctrine is neither new nor novel. You do sound like a lawyer (milk industry= Carolene Products) so you probably DO know Filburn and just disagree with it emphatically or something. In my opinion, the real issue isn't whether you should be outraged that the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate something; it's what Congress does with the authority once it has it. Stripping a branch of government of the power to regulate is only one way of dealing with bad regulations, and it's a pretty extreme one- getting new regulations passed or the old ones repealed could work, too.
And to get back on topic, I filled up this morning in a Far West Chicago suburb for $3.13, but I have seen it as high as $3.25 and the radio DJ discussed gas prices this morning with the alarming news that Chicago has the most expensive gas in the country at the moment, at $3.29. I had a 700+ mile tank, by the way, and tied my personal best of 59.4 mpg!
I could hit 700 if I wanted, not bad for the maligned pickup truck.No lawyer, but I am familiar with the whole wheat issue, but if i remember right wasn't the farmer limited due to a quota, it wasn't just personal consumption by a citizen but a regulated farmer. I wouldn't have agreed with the original quota either I'd guess, would that be the beginning of paying farmers to produce or not?
If the pot growers grew more than allowed the 2 cases would be similar.
