Skip to main content

On gasoline "price-gouging" laws

I wanted to hold back from commenting on the idiocy of this latest gasoline price gouging legislation I'd heard about until I got a little more feedback and information.

My first reaction upon hearing of this ill-conceived exercise in demagoguery was a lack of surprise, combined with a head-shaking disgust regarding the undefined nature of the supposed crime.

Assuming that our wise and omniscient politicians were able to "correct" the alleged flaws in the pricing of this commodity, how would they go about identifying the so-called gougers?

Is there a reasonable and logical definition of price gouging as described in the House of Representatives' legislation? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no, there is not.

Here's a taste of what the politicians have cooked up, in their latest attempt to save us all:

The gouging bill would prohibit the sale of gasoline or other refined petroleum products at ``unconscionably excessive'' prices or prices that take ``unfair advantage'' of consumers during a presidentially declared ``energy emergency.

The Federal Trade Commission would be able to issue civil penalties of up to three times the amount of profits or $3 million for those that violate the law. Companies would face criminal fines of up to $150 million, and individuals could be fined $2 million and face up to 10 years in jail.

``I don't know what 'unconscionably excessive' means,'' Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said during debate this morning over the measure. ``It's not defined in statute. As far as I can tell it's not been defined in any case law. Apparently it's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis.''

Splendid. I'll leave it to intelligent readers to guess how that will work out.

But since it's Memorial Day, and you might still be harboring some illusions that this latest piece of advocacy legislation will help you out, here's a little dose of reality for you. Please see the Financial Sense Newshour's May 26 segment on energy with guest expert, Richard Loomis of World Energy Monthly Review (right at the 20 minute mark of the broadcast).

See also, The Wall Street Journal's Monday editorial, "Pains at the Pump", and the Mises blog's recent editorial, "The Giant Gas-Gouging Gaffe".

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance , I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart. So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like.  Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ $BCOR — David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015   For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan , turned to rubble. As detailed in our post, " Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts ", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months.  In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the s

Jesse Livermore: How to Trade in Stocks (1940 Ed. E-book)

If you've been around markets for any length of time, you've probably heard of 20th century supertrader, Jesse Livermore . Today we're highlighting his rare 1940 work, How to Trade in Stocks (ebook, pdf). But first, a brief overview of Livermore's life and trading career (bio from Jesse Livermore's Wikipedia entry). "During his lifetime, Livermore gained and lost several multi-million dollar fortunes. Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively. He subsequently lost both fortunes. Apart from his success as a securities speculator, Livermore left traders a working philosophy for trading securities that emphasizes increasing the size of one's position as it goes in the right direction and cutting losses quickly. Ironically, Livermore sometimes did not follow his rules strictly. He claimed that lack of adherence to his own rules was the main reason for his losses after making his 1907 and

New! Finance Trends now at

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL!  Please bookmark our new web address at Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner .   Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead! As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter . You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter).  Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter .