NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the state legislature of Wisconsin has come up with one of the most stupid laws I've seen, since the end of the Nixon wage and price controls. They have fixed the amount a gas station owner can charge, thus limiting his discretion to provide discounts and sales. The state (or Fed) has no business messing around with what a private business does with pricing -- so long as it doesn't represent any kind of collusion, fraud, etc...

Certainly giving a discount to seniors and sports boosters isn't fraudulent. But it is illegal.
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/WDH0101/705080562/1981

MERRILL -- With gasoline prices rising, a Merrill service station made an attractive offer: Save 3 cents on each gallon and support local youth sports at the same time.

Senior citizens also paid less for gas, saving 2 cents a gallon.

That was until the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection heard about the offers and informed Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari his discounts were too good to be legal.

Bhandari said he was unaware the offers -- a card supporting the Merrill Youth Hockey Association and a senior discount -- violated Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires retailers to sell gasoline for about 9.2 percent above the wholesale price.


Another stupid law, written by stupid legislators that can't understand the difference between gross margin and gross profit. Ireland is starting to look more and more like the model we should be following. Is Haughey still alive? Can we get him to run for office here in the U.S.?

If Wisconsin really wants to control gas prices maybe they ought to repeal the gas tax.

If Wisconsin really wants to control gas prices maybe they ought to repeal the gas tax.

The Georgia Legislature did exactly that a couple years back. Not a total repeal, but a reduction.

I think that might be more popular than fining owner/operators that want to make a promotion or two.

The gas tax here in Wisconsin won't be lowered one bit until we solve our current budget crisis.

I'm going to have to go with the lawmakers on this one. There are plenty of programs for youth sports in this state, and I do not view seniors as any more deserving of a discount on gas than working parents or full-time students.

It might be interfering with the business owners right to run his operations as he sees fit, but we all know that gas is another animal altogether.

Nothing's stopping him from discounting his soda or his candy or his cigarettes. Just his gas.

Nothing special.

Is Haughey still alive? Can we get him to run for office here in the U.S.?

Thankfully he died a few years back. The depths of his corruption are still being revealed.

The thread title is VERY misleading and sensationalist.

thus limiting his discretion to provide discounts and sales.
Oh no, they can't jack up the prices then provide a "discount" to what the price should be! At worst that hurts their advertising. But wait, if it's a blanket law, it doesn't matter!

Another stupid law, written by stupid legislators that can't understand the difference between gross margin and gross profit.
Laws like this don't get passed for no reason, legislators don't know enough shit about shit to do that. Either a big oil lobby or a grassroots lobby had their hand in it no doubt.

I know you don't like state intervention in the economy, but isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? Or is a petrol station Wisconsin's only industry?

Or is a petrol station Wisconsin's only industry?

well, that and selling those cheese hats

Thankfully he died a few years back. The depths of his corruption are still being revealed.
But he did take the economy of Ireland out of the toilet and made it one of the strongest in the world, didn't he?

Laws like this don't get passed for no reason, legislators don't know enough shit about shit to do that. Either a big oil lobby or a grassroots lobby had their hand in it no doubt.

It wouldn't be to the oil industries' advantage to limit sales prices to 9.2% of wholesale, so it must be some concerned citizens that don't know the difference between gross margin and gross profit. And the legislators don't either. Ignorance and hysteria are powerful weapons.

It wouldn't be to the oil industries' advantage to limit sales prices to 9.2% of wholesale,
Except when you realize free lance gas station owners often sell gas notably cheaper than those with the pretty logos of some major oil company. (Around here it can be 2 cents to 10 cents a gallon cheaper)

According to Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act (also known as the minimum mark-up law) it is illegal (with certain exceptions) to sell products at retail at less than cost with the intent or effect of diverting trade from a competitor.

so it must be some concerned citizens that don't know the difference between gross margin and gross profit.
I don't think they give a fuck.

And the legislators don't either.
They definitely don't give a fuck.

The thread title is VERY misleading and sensationalist.

Yeah. Like a Hearst newspaper headline.

Yeah. Like a Hearst newspaper headline.

Made you look...

Stupid, but not even in the same stupidity-ballpark as say, invading Iraq.

Freeze prices too low, and you create shortages, freeze prices too high, you create surpluses. Either way, it is a bad thing, and is inevitable when the government gets into the business of setting prices. Gasolene prices in Wisconsin should rise and fall with supply and demand, as it should do with all commodities.

The reason these laws are passed is simple, and it is not economic, it is political. The reason is populism. Lowering prices on something in high demand tends to create a little cheap popularity, and their spin doctors will blame the oncoming economic chaos in the sector on the nasty oil companies.

There is no economic reason for these laws, if the government were looking for the best economic solution, they would never pass such laws, and repeal most of their existing regulations.

Wisconsin does stuff like this all the time. Not too long ago they accidentally banned mining with a new environmental regulation.

But he did take the economy of Ireland out of the toilet and made it one of the strongest in the world, didn't he?

Eh, no. He told everyone to famously 'tighten their belts' ... all the while he fucked off to Paris once a month to buy Charvet shirts at the tax payers expense. There was that whole brown paper envelopes thing, the planning/zoning bribes, cronyism, making millions through corrupt local officials etc etc.

Not a particularly liked person, even by his own party's standards. Try crossing Thatcher with Mugabe, and add a dash of Chavez for the type of sentiment generated towards his legacy.

Ireland's economy is mainly due to the EEC/EC/EU's infrastructural input and the establishment of multinational companies (from Wyeth Medica, to Siemans, to Intel, to Google, Microsoft etc etc)

Eh, no. He told everyone to famously 'tighten their belts' ... all the while he fucked off to Paris once a month to buy Charvet shirts at the tax payers expense. There was that whole brown paper envelopes thing, the planning/zoning bribes, cronyism, making millions through corrupt local officials etc etc.

Not a particularly liked person, even by his own party's standards. Try crossing Thatcher with Mugabe, and add a dash of Chavez for the type of sentiment generated towards his legacy.
Then if it wasn't Haughey's leadership, what did happen to make the Irish Miracle? There's no doubt that something (tax cuts, reduced regulation, etc) brought the economy up the shining example of capitalism that it is today. Companies don't drift towards failing economies that are over regulated. We know that from our experience of watching them go offshore. In other words, someone made it favorable for companies to relocate to Ireland. And good for them, too.

Ireland's economy is mainly due to the EEC/EC/EU's infrastructural input and the establishment of multinational companies (from Wyeth Medica, to Siemans, to Intel, to Google, Microsoft etc etc)
Didn't the EU ask Ireland to dial back their growth?

And I liked Thatcher (except for her promotion of global warming theory).

Made you look...

You and your pranks.

Wisconsin does stuff like this all the time. Not too long ago they accidentally banned mining with a new environmental regulation.

I must have missed that one...and I live here.

Source?

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Companies and individuals should be free to charge what they want; there is absolutely no logical economic justification for mandating that someone charge a set amount above wholesale. If you can afford to sell at or below wholesale, you should be allowed to; all this "unfair sales law" does is fuck over consumers and impair the free market by forcing an artificial price floor.

In all honesty, gas stations don't make a lot of money of of gas sales to begin with; they make money off of the convenience sales and all the other stuff. Honestly, most gas stations only sell gas so that people will buy things from their store, not to sell gas in and of itself. If someone wants to sell their product below wholesale, they should be allowed to, especially if it has a positive effect on the local community as well as the station owner.

It always baffles me that a country so gung-ho for the free market in principle can be so blatantly ignorant about it in practice.

Ya know... for somebody who's been hepped on states' rights in the past, I've got to wonder, what's it to you?

If this ticks off enough of us 'sconnies, we'll pick up the phone and give our rep what for and then vote accordingly at the next election. This just isn't that big of a deal locally, despite being picked up by national news. I figure Paris' first day in jail will take care of that...

Ya know... for somebody who's been hepped on states' rights in the past, I've got to wonder, what's it to you?

If this ticks off enough of us 'sconnies, we'll pick up the phone and give our rep what for and then vote accordingly at the next election. This just isn't that big of a deal locally, despite being picked up by national news. I figure Paris' first day in jail will take care of that...


Wait a minute!

There's someone else from Wisconsin here? When did this happen? :p

Wait a minute!

There's someone else from Wisconsin here? When did this happen? :p*points at geezer join date* :D

There was someone from Sheboygan for awhile... but that's too close to Milwaukee to count. ;)

*points at geezer join date* :D

There was someone from Sheboygan for awhile... but that's too close to Milwaukee to count. ;)

*saw join date...was being silly* :)

Free Soviets used to live in Sheboygan, but I believe he moved to Idaho.

Big improvement. :rolleyes: :p

Free Soviets used to live in Sheboygan, but I believe he moved to Idaho.

Big improvement. :rolleyes: :p

and he's getting the hell out of idaho in a couple of days, assuming his thesis defense doesn't bomb tomorrow

and he's getting the hell out of idaho in a couple of days, assuming his thesis defense doesn't bomb tomorrow

Thesis defense?

and he's getting the hell out of idaho in a couple of days, assuming his thesis defense doesn't bomb tomorrow

No, really, this is risible.

It is 'your' thesis defense which is on the line?

Of course I am sure that your thesis will 'make' the revolution come quicker.

So I shouldn't laugh at you.

and he's getting the hell out of idaho in a couple of days, assuming his thesis defense doesn't bomb tomorrow

And going where? Back to Wisconsin?

Were I in your position, that would depress me to no end. :p

I'm actually curious to know how his 'thesis' allows for jockstrap sniffing.

As I have maintained for a long time, none of these people are actually socialist in their outlook. They are merely fighting amongst themselves for legitimacy. Either way, it is feudalism through the back door.

And going where? Back to Wisconsin?

Were I in your position, that would depress me to no end. :p

ah, but you haven't lived in idaho. you'd be amazed how that can change your perception of things. and yeah, for the summer i'll probably be semi-nomadic between sheboygan and chicago.

I could see setting a price maximum, but not a price minimum, so this seems silly.

The reason these laws are passed is simple, and it is not economic, it is political. The reason is populism. Lowering prices on something in high demand tends to create a little cheap popularity, and their spin doctors will blame the oncoming economic chaos in the sector on the nasty oil companies.But in this case, the law was activated because the prices were too low for the legislators' liking. Why should the government be against low prices if it's populism driving it?

As I have maintained for a long time, none of these people are actually socialist in their outlook. They are merely fighting amongst themselves for legitimacy. Either way, it is feudalism through the back door.Of course, you're the expert, and none of us knows anything.

All enterprise in Wisconsin is based around selling gas?

ah, but you haven't lived in idaho. you'd be amazed how that can change your perception of things. and yeah, for the summer i'll probably be semi-nomadic between sheboygan and chicago.

Yeah, I suppose if any state can make Wisconsin look good, it's Idaho. :p

All enterprise in Wisconsin is based around selling gas?

Yep...hence the cheese and the beer. We need more gas. :p

But in this case, the law was activated because the prices were too low for the legislators' liking. Why should the government be against low prices if it's populism driving it?

Populism tends to drive price maxima, and price minima. They're just worded differently, the political argument for price minima is rooted in several things:

The interests of certain producers (mainly applying to agruculture), or in the interests of "competition", or more accurately, the mathematical theory of competition, which holds that the ideal shape of an industry is many firms, little/no product differentiation, and no price differentiation.

Have you ever heard of "predatory pricing"? Populists (especially the ones wanting to be seen as being behind small businesses) will attack people who lower their prices, especially if its large companies, as "predators".

Of course, you're the expert, and none of us knows anything.

That's right.

Populism tends to drive price maxima, and price minima. They're just worded differently, the political argument for price minima is rooted in several things:

The interests of certain producers (mainly applying to agruculture), or in the interests of "competition", or more accurately, the mathematical theory of competition, which holds that the ideal shape of an industry is many firms, little/no product differentiation, and no price differentiation.

Have you ever heard of "predatory pricing"? Populists (especially the ones wanting to be seen as being behind small businesses) will attack people who lower their prices, especially if its large companies, as "predators".I suppose if you use a broad definition of populism, this would make sense.

That's right.Then in the next thread about communism, I expect you to enlighten us all.

Then in the next thread about communism, I expect you to enlighten us all.

About what? How I impressed my university professor on my summer holidays?

There is nothing to be enlightened about. A fair days pay for a fair days work. That's all you need to know. If either side breaks down we are fucked. And sitting around in universities doesn't help.

I must have missed that one...and I live here.

Source?
1997 Wisconsin Act 171 - Signed in April 1998 by Governor Tommy Thompson.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/1997/data/acts/97Act171.pdf

It established environmental standards for new mines which are impossible to meet.

1997 Wisconsin Act 171 - Signed in April 1998 by Governor Tommy Thompson.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/1997/data/acts/97Act171.pdf

It established environmental standards for new mines which are impossible to meet.

Looks like it was intended to prevent acid runoff into water sources from sulfide-ore mines. It also seems to require monitoring of closed mines by mining companies for at least ten years to monitor pollutant levels.

So...not all mines, and for a good reason, and holds mining companies accountable for the damage they do.

Admittedly, my legalese is bad, so I may have been missing something here.

But it works for me. Mining isn't exactly a big industry around here anyway. We specialize in dairy products and paper, mostly.

Something Tommy Thompson did that was actually a good idea...that's a shocker. :p

But it works for me. Mining isn't exactly a big industry around here anyway. We specialize in dairy products and paper, mostly.

not to mention the lake-based tourism up where they keep the mines

Something Tommy Thompson did that was actually a good idea...that's a shocker. :p

i think i remember him doing something else that was nearly praiseworthy once. but i may be mistaken.

i think i remember him doing something else that was nearly praiseworthy once. but i may be mistaken.

Anything worthwhile that he may have done as Wisconsin's governor is completely offset by the deficit spending that went on during his 16 years in the position, which is why Wisconsin is facing it's current budget crisis.

...and the man is running for President! Thank the FSM he'll never win!

Looks like it was intended to prevent acid runoff into water sources from sulfide-ore mines. It also seems to require monitoring of closed mines by mining companies for at least ten years to monitor pollutant levels.

So...not all mines, and for a good reason, and holds mining companies accountable for the damage they do.

Admittedly, my legalese is bad, so I may have been missing something here.
But in order to start a new mine you had to find a relevantly similar example (proximity to water sources, same minerals, same local geology) somewhere in the US or Canada that operated for at least 10 years and had been shut down for 10 years without causing any harm. First of all, even finding a mine that similar would be extremely difficult, but then you'd need to show that it produced no adverse environmental impacts, even though the set of mines is necessarily limited those those mines of at least 20 years earlier, when technology and environmental regulation was far different.

It simply isn't possible to satisfy the conditions of this act.