Sensible Gasoline Boycott

[SteveS]

Come check out this post on my blog about my Sensible Gasoline Boycott

Essentially, the Sensible Gasoline Boycott calls for two things:

1) It calls for us to boycott all gasoline sold at ExxonMobil stations for 6 months from today - unless it's the only gas you can get, or if you're in an emergency situation. No matter how much they drop prices, even if they give it away. At the same time, however, nobody shouldn't be able to drive, nor should they be stranded because of their participation in this boycott.

2) It calls for us to continue, and even increase our patronization of these gasoline stations for everything except Gasoline. Buy milk, eggs, bread, soda, cigarettes, lottery tickets, everything there. No gas station should go out of business because of this boycott.

We have to show ExxonMobil that we are against their gouging the way a free market should - we vote with our feet. As a libertarian, I believe that this is the way our nation should regulate its corporations. At the same time, as a small business owner, we need to show the dealers who sell ExxonMobil's gasoline that we're against the company they buy gas from, not them and their families and workers.

With a $100 Billion in profits last quarter, ExxonMobil can handle the hit. But, this should send a message to ExxonMobil executives and those who run other oil companes - the people of this nation will take it up the rear no longer.

When they miss earnings expectations, Wall Street will punish them too.

Both components of the boycott are equally important, and each requires the other to be successful.

Come, read, comment, and pass the word. All of us have already made a statement by purchasing (or ordering, in my case) a Prius. Let's take that statement one step further and make a statement about being shafted at the pump.

[Marlin]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snopes")</div>

A boycott of a couple of brands of gasoline won't result in lower overall prices. Prices at all the non-boycotted outlets would rise due to the temporarily limited supply and increased demand, making the original prices look cheap by comparison. The shunned outlets could then make a killing by offering gasoline at its "normal" (i.e., pre-boycott) price or by selling off their output to the non-boycotted companies, who will need the extra supply to meet demand. The only person who really gets hurt in this proposed scheme is the service station operator, who has almost no control over the price of gasoline.

The only practical way of reducing gasoline prices is through the straightforward means of buying less gasoline, not through a simple and painless scheme of just shifting where we buy it. The inconvenience of driving less is a hardship too many people apparently aren't willing to endure, however.
[/b]

[ScottY]

Since the day I drive the Prius, I never fill up with Exxon or Mobil. Only stations I went to were Shell or BP. I kind of remember going to Sunoco once.

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Marlin@Oct 28 2005, 01:02 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp

[snapback]146751[/snapback]

The point here is to hurt ExxonMobil's quarterly profits. I realize that prices at other stations may go up temporarily, but the point is to show these companies that we can and will hurt them. To show them that if we want to, we can send their stock price tumbling.

Plus, I don't think that everything on Snopes is accurate. I think that this kind of thing could be effective, especially once it catches the attention of the Media.

How do you or Snopes know it won't be effective? Have you tried it before? We at least have to do something. The only other option is suicide bombings


Not to mention the fact that my boycott has a specific component in it to keep us from hurting the station owner in the process. Which, by the way, I think is just as important - if not more important - than the boycott part.

[Kiloran]

I understand the profit was ~$10b with ~$100b in revinue.

Also, Shell and BP were right behind them in profits.
Should they be boycotted too.

I think it would be better to petition our legislators to take back this money through a windfall profits tax.
--my 2p

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Kiloran@Oct 28 2005, 01:08 PM
I understand the profit was ~$10b with ~$100b in revinue.

Also, Shell and BP were right behind them in profits.
Should they be boycotted too.

I think it would be better to petition our legislators to take back this money through a windfall profits tax.
--my 2p

[snapback]146754[/snapback]

Maybe eventually they should, but the point is to send a message that we're not going to take this anymore, and that we can - and will hurt them. Maybe we'll have to keep doing this - I refuse to believe that the stock market will ignore a major dip in the #1 oil company's earnings. We have to do something... all the bitching we do about it isn't going to change a damned thing... but maybe... just maybe... something like this will.

As a libertarian, I ask, how is raising taxes better? Doesn't the government get enough of our money? Now, we need them stealing it indirectly through taxing "windfall profits" ? It's not bad enough they rob our Social Security fund every year for pork, now they have to take the money we spend on gasoline? When does it stop? Not to mention the problem of determining what is a windfall profit and what isn't...

We are a free market and in a free market the regulation is us - the consumer. We have the power - we get to vote with our feet and our dollars.

[Marlin]

The point is that you would still be buying Exxon's gas, just not from Exxon stations. And you would be paying more for it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snopes")</div>

Economics Prof. Pat Welch of St. Louis University says any boycott of "bad guy" gasoline in favor of "good guy" brands would have some unintended (and unhappy) results.

. . . Welch says the law of supply and demand is set in stone. "To meet the sudden demand," he says, "the good guys would have to buy gasoline wholesale from the bad guys, who are suddenly stuck with unwanted gasoline."

So motorists would end up . . . paying more for it, because they'd be buying it at fewer stations.

And yes, oil companies do buy and sell from one another. Mike Right of AAA Missouri says, "If a company has a station that can be served more economically by a competitor's refinery, they'll do it."

Right adds, "In some cases, gasoline retailers have no refinery at all. Some convenience-store chains sell a lot of gasoline — and buy it all from somebody else's refinery."
[/b]

Think about it for a minute. Gasoline refineries in the US are already at capacity. If motorists suddenly start buying gas from stations other than Exxon, while keeping their consumption the same, where do you think those other stations are going to get gas from? From their parent companies who would increase their production? How would they do that, since their refineries are at or near capacity already?

The answer is that the other oil companies would get the additional gas they need from Exxon, who would have excess gas laying around. So, Exxon still sells all their gasoline, but they do it by selling it through other companies. In addition, your boycott would at least temporarily raise the price of gas because you created a supply shortage while not reducing demand. By doing so, you might actually increase Exxon's quarterly profits, or at least make up for anything they lose by selling the gas wholesale rather than through their stations.

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Marlin@Oct 28 2005, 01:20 PM
The point is that you would still be buying Exxon's gas, just not from Exxon stations.  And you would be paying more for it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Snopes")

Economics Prof. Pat Welch of St. Louis University says any boycott of "bad guy" gasoline in favor of "good guy" brands would have some unintended (and unhappy) results.

. . . Welch says the law of supply and demand is set in stone. "To meet the sudden demand," he says, "the good guys would have to buy gasoline wholesale from the bad guys, who are suddenly stuck with unwanted gasoline."

So motorists would end up . . . paying more for it, because they'd be buying it at fewer stations.

And yes, oil companies do buy and sell from one another. Mike Right of AAA Missouri says, "If a company has a station that can be served more economically by a competitor's refinery, they'll do it."

Right adds, "In some cases, gasoline retailers have no refinery at all. Some convenience-store chains sell a lot of gasoline — and buy it all from somebody else's refinery."

Think about it for a minute. Gasoline refineries in the US are already at capacity. If motorists suddenly start buying gas from stations other than Exxon, while keeping their consumption the same, where do you think those other stations are going to get gas from? From their parent companies who would increase their production? How would they do that, since their refineries are at or near capacity already?

The answer is that the other oil companies would get the additional gas they need from Exxon, who would have excess gas laying around. So, Exxon still sells all their gasoline, but they do it by selling it through other companies. In addition, your boycott would at least temporarily raise the price of gas because you created a supply shortage while not reducing demand. By doing so, you might actually increase Exxon's quarterly profits, or at least make up for anything they lose by selling the gas wholesale rather than through their stations.

[snapback]146759[/snapback]

[/b][/quote]

I think it would have some effect... maybe not as far reaching as we would like, but I think some effect is better than no effect. How do you know unless you try?

83% of people know you can find an expert to make up some statistic in favor of whatever you want.

[Kiloran]

<_< I just don't see how taking my business away from #1 and giving it to #2, #3, or whoever that is behaving the same way, albeit with slightly less success, is going to make any difference whatever.

<_< I am just as disgusted with the government as you but at least if the government takes it, it would might reduce the huge deficit slightly for a short time.
--Wishful thinking, but not very.

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Kiloran@Oct 28 2005, 01:24 PM
<_< I just don't see how taking my business away from #1 and giving it to #2, #3, or whoever that is behaving the same way, albeit with slightly less success, is going to make any difference whatever.

<_< I am just as disgusted with the government as you but at least if the government takes it, it would might reduce the huge deficit slightly for a short time.
--Wishful thinking, but not very.

[snapback]146763[/snapback]

I dunno, every Shell station I see is at $2.39, but the Exxon up the street is still $2.59. We have to do something...

And really, the whole government thing... You have to know that they won't pay off debt with it or repay the social security fund with it. It will go to starting another war or researching the mating habits of tree slugs or to not improving levees around new orleans or something else spurious and wasteful.

(edit) Really, this situation is entirely different than the Prius. No gas company is going to come out with new and clean gasoline. All we can do is try to make a difference. Even if this doesn't result in lower prices and only calls more attention to the issue - productive attention - we will have accomplished our goal.

How can you all be so defeatist and refuse to try something that somebody who's credentials you have no idea about and who may have some kind of agenda (or just be plain wrong) tells you it won't work.

I understand supply and demand, but, we have to try something. Like I said, a boycott is first... then come the chest bombs (j/k)