Would you support gas rationing like during WWII if it gets very bad?

I'm not talking about freezing gasoline prices. I'm talking about each person getting X amount of gas and not one drop more for daily usage. I'm talking about encouraging car pooling if possible and other initiatives. I'm talking about doing everyday things people did in the darkest years of the Second World War. If the situation explodes in the Middle East, we are look at some hefty gas prices. Do you think gas rationing is in order?

Being a biker anyway it wouldn't have much impact on me. But I'd love seeing all those huge gas guzzling SUVs parked for weeks on end. Maybe the American auto industry would get back on track and finally come to grips with making an economical vehicle.

No question, we should use less.

We had rationing in the '70s. Wasn't draconian, just mostly odd/even. Some stations limited sales.

It would be interesting to see how society would survive on limited gas rations. People in the U.S. need two things, TV and their cars. All else is secondary, even food and shelter to a degree.

If your car has a 4 cylinder engine, you will be taxed this amount, but if you are driving a 6 cylinder or an 8 cylinder, you'll be taxed another amount for the 6 and yet another amount for the 8 cylinder? Is that roughly it?

One rotor is the equivalent of two cylinders in a piston engine--there are two spark plugs and two combustion areas in each rotor housing.

IIRC all the Mazda rotary-engine cars they brought into the US were two-rotor designs. (In Japan they've got quite a few rotary-engine cars, including one with three rotors.) Therefore, all US-spec Mazda rotaries would be taxed as four-cylinder cars.

Would some official be posted at every filling station to open the hood and count spark plugs? How about a engine that cuts off cylinders at cruise speed? Would that be an eight or a six? Would a 4-cyl motorcycle pay the same as a car?

2-cylinder motocycle = $1 a gallon
4-cylinder compact car = $2 a gallon
6-cylinder midsize car = $3 a gallon
8-cylinder luxury car = $4 a gallon

Interesting. Might work... :think:

Gas rationing in WW2 was to insure an adequate supply of petroleum products for the war effort.

The situation is much different now and I for one have no interest in making any sacrifice for the US occupation of Iraq. Any rationing--which currently is simply a polite euphemism for contrived shortage to drive up prices--would simply boost oil company profits while screwing the working class.

act as a decreasing factor on gas prices, not an increasing factor.

But we don't live there. It wouldn't take very many weeks for the oil companies to notice they were selling less gas and had to raise prices. Which of course would reduce consumption resulting in even higher prices until a loaf of bread is $27 and no-one can afford even to ride the bus to work. Remember, when fuel prices go up, they go up for everybody, not just the CEO in his Escalade.

The law of supply and demand states that if demand relative to supply drops, then prices must also drop to account for decreased demand.

Rationing is not a free market.

Where it doesn't apply is if you did like Nixon and froze gas prices. Then prices would not reflect the dynamics of supply and demand. All gas rationing does is manipulate one side of the equation, not attempt to ignore it altogether by freezing the price.

They'd sell less gas if the prices started going up and large chunks of the country quit buying. Then you really would see the market kick in and prices spiral even further out of control from there. Everything else would follow, the bottom would fall out, and we'd have a major Depression on our hands.

As long as the our great leader walked the walk as well. But something tells me he would still take his bullshit 50 flights-a-day Air Force One rides to hardware stores and shoe factories.

I would be able to work from home more often then! :)

(Oh yeah, and there'd be some conservation goin' on, which is way past due.)

...$2.00/gallon (if necessary) and offer a rebate of, say, $1000 per household at tax time.

Is the issue a need to conserve to support a war effort? If the answer is no, then the reason must be a need to hold down consumption to keep prices low. My idea suppresses consumption, and rewards those who use less than 500 gallons/year, who effectively get their gas subsidized.

You should probably mail a rebate check once every month instead of a check once a year. People need money on hand to buy groceries and pay bills.

Besides, I was thinking of gas rationing as more of an emergency stop-gap measure, a short-term one to partially shield the population from any supply shocks by allowing oil reserves to be built up to absorb the hit. Your solution sounds very doable, but it seems more like an intermediate to long-term policy.

Here, in Southeastern Michigan, we have (essentially) no mass transit ... many of our low paying jobs are located in or near very affluent suburbs (with no affordable housing).

What would the working poor do? With that kind of plan what would lower middle and working class folk do?

Just askin'

The working poor who burn less than 500 gallons per year of fuel should approve. The working poor who burn more (just like the working rich who burn more) should be encouraged to conserve.

The conservation effect of the tax would suppress the price of fuel somewhat offsetting cost of the tax. A portion of the tax could be used to support local transit services.

The working poor are separated from jobs by fairly significant distances.
Metro Detroit has no real transit system to be supported by a tax such as this. My experience with the poor is that they are forced to drive old, less than efficient cars.

The answer for my region is the development of a regional mass transit system, but again, we would be starting from 'nothing'. I believe we still have the highest unemployment rate in the nation ....and Detroit was ranked the poorest city in the nation.

The information I have been reading indicates that fuel prices will likely nOT be suppressed by a decline in American usage due to the rapidly increasing demands of both China and India.

Maybe your proposal would work, over all ... I just have (not implying you lack) major concerns r/t to the very tenuous situation the working poor are in.

the market prices will do this in a defacto way. Or the average person will barely be able to afford driving to work and back.

However, there must be allowances for people who really need it. Say, someone who needs a van to go to distant medical appointments. People who have to operate a vehicle for their business (cabs, painters/contractors, florists who have to deliver, etc.)

People want to talk about a Depression, let gas prices go up to $5 a gallon and watch the poor sink even lower and it all tumble down from there. If the wealthy aren't allowed to consume regardless of the price, then the prices will be kept at a price everyone can afford, and the economy should stabilize. But only if we look like we're heading north of $4.00 a gallon.

If I have no job, what difference does it make?

Hopefully I'll find the cure for the gas woes.

And then share it out of a form of altruism the uber-weathy wouldn't have a clue about.

If we have rationing now, it would be on Repug/necon terms. Then, I would be against it. However, it would be nice to see a balanced program that eliminated privilege and entitlement. I just don't think that the current government is capable of doing that.

me and render me unable to earn a living.

In addition, way back when during the depression, my grandparents were able to walk to the store, the kids walked to school. Now, everyone's just too spread out.

And how could we escape in an emergency. Emergency also meaning right before Martial Law is declared. And any "taxing" of gas just goes right into the Regime's pocket.

and other folks who don't drive much.

I fill my tank about one a month. I'll gladly sell my fuel ration coupons for a couple bucks a gallon to the hummer drivers. Ebay will have an entire extra category for gas coupons.

In reality, no, I won't support it. Prices will adjust accordingly and self rationing will occur naturally.

People who have to commute a long distance for work should be allowed to get more in gas rationing.

I also think that the government should be giving tax breaks or other incentives to companies for every employee they allow to telecommute from home. There are many jobs which employees could do from home, and wastes gas to get there, for absolutely no good reason.