“When losses happen, somebody’s got to pay for it.”

Called Freedom Fuel Network, the enterprise encompasses dozens of gas stations throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, USA Today reported, although it isn’t exactly clear which locations are open for business. Plastered in American flag decals and “Freedom Fuel” branding, the gas stations seem to be selling unleaded gasoline for the fixed-price of $3.47 per gallon, about 32 cents cheaper than the current average price in the US.

According to GasBuddy, nearby prices range from $3.85 to as much as $4.49 — no doubt reflecting the slower drip of oil from the president’s costly war on Iran, which burst back into active fighting this week.

As head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy Patrick De Haan told the Philadelphia Inquirer, the current price of crude oil means there’s no way Freedom Fuel’s $3.47 price point can turn a profit.

“Stations selling at this price, it’s not sustainable,” De Haan explained. “Generally, when losses happen, somebody’s got to pay for it.”

De Haan raises an obvious question: who is paying for it? If the stations are losing money on every gallon, somebody has to make up the difference somewhere — whether out of Trump’s pocket, that of a friendly donor, or the taxpayer’s. And if it’s a private company taking the hit, how long until they stop subsidizing Pennsylvania drivers?

Already, the stunt seems to be distorting local markets. As of Wednesday, a nearby Sam’s Club in Dresher dropped its price to match the $3.47 figure — surely good news for anybody buying gas in South Eastern Pennsylvania, but as always, the devil is in the details.

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 111 points 4 months ago

@cannedtuna Let me get this straight...City-run grocery stores selling at-cost: Communist Bread LinesGas stations with government-controlled gas prices: Freedom Fuel Network

  • source
  • [–] 367 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (30 children)

    Come join the anticommunist Republican party. They've got:

    1. Price controls
    2. Closed markets
    3. State-owned industry

    Edit adding a 4th

    1. The living-or-dead status of party members as closely guarded state secrets
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's owned by Trump not the state. Closer to authoritarian dictatorship than communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    All my libertarian friends hate it, but somehow keep voting for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Libertarians are just conservatives + weed - religion. They claim to not be cons but still vote 100% in that direction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Libertarians are just insanely stupid people who wish to appear intelligent. Because they think those views make them seem intelligent, lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    A number of the ones in my acquaintance circles are just being propagandized.

    The first 10 or so talking points speak well to prepper adjacent and it kinda feels like it wouldn't be that hard for things to fall over. Then they start the fiscal republican tract, so their businesses can make as much money as possible.

    By the time they get down to the nuts and bolts of what a true free economy would look like, they check out with we'd figure that out real quick instead of figuring out that it's just another pyramid scheme putting their own people in absolute power stealing every last cent of money that goes to keeping up roads and anything having to do with food provisioning and safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Yeah my assessment is too simplistic. First, the person is looking to find a way to codify their self-serving desires (ie. the business owner like you mention). Then they decide it needs to sound smarter than it is. BOOM: libertarianism is the perfect fit. Or at least that's always been my impression. When they try to explain their views, they seem really focused on how much sense they make and how logically consistent they are being. Inconvenient facts are never acknowledged though, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    What else would they do?

    Vote for a democrat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    I’m hoping they keep their asses at home…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I suppose they must not live in a state with a modern voting system. Staying at home shouldn't proclude anyone from voting, but here we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Well yeah, but "staying home" is a colloquialism for not voting. I don't think that meant that mail in voting is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I knew what they meant obviously, and I didn't think they were saying mail in voting was bad, but I will admit it took me a half second to remember that some states still require in-person voting.

    This is also coming from someone who learned that going to the polls wasn't a historical thing when I was like 22, when polls being closed made national news or I saw a article about how racist/classist in-person voting was or something. I always just thought America had moved on from that a long time ago, as I grew up in Washington, and I didn't know a time when my parents had to vote in person. One of the many things keeping me attached to this state I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    If they want less authoritarianism, yes!

    Or better yet, somebody who calls themselves "socialist" or "progressive," because at least they tend to be decent on civil rights, if not necessarily stuff like economic policy. It's ridiculous, but Bernie Sanders is one of the most actually-libertarian people in Congress.

    If some of the "progressives" could give up on some of their overly-bureaucratic ideas with excessive means-testing (like welfare instead of UBI, "affordable" [i.e. "subsidized"] housing instead of zoning reform to reduce costs, etc.) they'd be perfect actual-libertarian candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Silly person, that’s not what communist means. It means “anything/anyone we don’t like.”

    It’s more of an amorphous ideal than a concrete set of “rules”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Any time you step out of the classroom political labels become meaningless.

    "Capitalist" America built a giant interstate highway network that seized millions of acres of private land.

    "Communist" China has a few score billionaires.

    And don't get me started on the National Socialist Party and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 77 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    When the (Venezuelan) oil is stolen and the wars are paid for by the taxpayers, everything is profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Forgot about this oil reserve, I was thinking he’s laundering Russian oil

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I've been waiting for it to crop up. Right after the illegal attack on Venezuela, Trump bragged about personally having a tanker of oil that no one ended up wanting. We had a stable oil supply. Then not too long after that, the attacks on Iran started. I have no idea if it's anything in the grand scheme of grifting and cons and murder but I'm guessing it was a factor in some way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I always assumed he decided he needed Venezuela’s oil after he was told he would be attacking Iran soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I've assumed Trump thought oil= money, not realising Venezuelan oil is among the most expensive to refine. America does however have refining capacity for that type of oil, as to turn the Venezuelan oil profitable he'd attack Iran and hurt international energy trades

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago*

    My immediate thought is that his billionaire friends (likely oil barons) are subsidizing it until the day after the election, at which point they will reap the profits/bribes. My money is on stolen Venezuelan oil as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Its probably just an advertising campaign to try to win the midterms. "SEE, FREEDOM.GAS. VOTE FOR FASCISM PLZ."

    Also, isn't there already a gas station chain branded Freedom? Are they violating trademarks?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    The economics of importing Russian oil and distilling it into gasoline illicitly do not add up. More likely this is just regular ol gas being sold at a discount as funded by our billionaire overlords

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 4 months ago

    The Gang Solves the Gas Crisis

  • source
  • [–] 91 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    He's draining our reserves. God we're fucked.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    He paid a bunch of existing gas stations to change their name and lower their prices. He will make up the difference by subsidizing the gas stations using tax payer money. I guarantee you this will not be noticed by the majority.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    This is all you need to know.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Get an electric vehicle and install solar panels ASAP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    My brother in Christ, I own nothing and am going back to Monke. Like fr fr.

    Be the change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    I am being the change. No kids. Electric vehicle. Don't eat beef. Actively post about climate change. Promote solar/nuclear power. We can't go back to monke, we must move forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    Together we have hope. We will never meet and live far away from one another, but we are not alone and one day we will prevail.

    Sometimes we need to go back to monke to remember what is is to be man.

    One love.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Did you let them take your future family away or did you never want one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Can't speak for the other being, but I have no desire to inflict this world upon another conscious entity. To do so would just be fucking cruel, knowing what's coming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    I really take issue with your point of view. It's fine to think that way, but keep it to yourself. Others believe there will be a future that conscious entities will enjoy. Will lives be as easy as those of American baby boomers? Probably not. Will lives be filled with endless suffering? Probably not. Why would you want to tell people you think there won't be a future? That's just unnecessary and a bit cruel, imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I didn't say there wouldn't be a future.

    I heavily implied it would be a fucking dark one, for at least a generation or two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah I know you didn't say that exactly, but implying its a fucking dark one basically means the same thing. What about my other question?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Oh I see what happened, you dodged my original question with a technicality. So why are you telling people (who didn't ask) that you think there won't be a future worth living in? Do you really think people want to hear that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Are you hearing yourself?

    The truth gives no fucks for who wants to hear it. It simply is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    Oh you're just a doomer. That's cute. Keep that shit to yourself, don't drag people down into your pit of despair.

    There's going to be a reasonable future kiddo. I understand why one would be bearish on humanity today, but there will be reason to be optimistic in our lifetimes. You best invest in yourself today so you have something to lean on later. You're not going to get to say "I told you so," but I will.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    This is like something out of a third world country. "Here is some cheap gas so keep supporting me."

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The Roman's what? If you pluralize that way, why not also write year's?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    I think the practice is more common with proper nouns and abbreviations. I'd take the underlying principle to be "proper noun and/or abbreviation is special, and we can't just tack on extra letters as we would with other stuff, so apostrophe to the rescue". To be clear, I am not agreeing with this, it just seems to be the driving logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It’s going to turn out that he is waiving the federal gas tax for some buddies and a cut.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    This is not plausible.

    The only two things I've seen that are plausible:

    • Loss leader - they're using this to make a splash and prices will rise later
    • Some political group is subsidizing for political purposes
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Wouldn't it be convenient if this "private retailer" somehow got free access to US fuel reserves?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago

    "Out of Trump's pocket" LMAO whatever they're on, I'd like to have some.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    If it's 25% cheaper, it's probably 40% water.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    what happens when your cheap gas is no longer available but all the competitors already dried up?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago

    They will use up everything they can. And when they lose blame everything on Democrats.

    If they win, they don't care about people complaining.

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This is ILLEGAL to Undercut the Competition!

    -Free Market Republicans!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Trump Freedom Fuel now with more high fructose syrup.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    27 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post