a more physical/literal/boring thought I wanted to share.

but first, I very much enjoyed this quote...

Psychologists have long identified a tendency for individuals to be fooled by the illusion that they have some control over situations where, in fact, none exists. In one study, subjects were seated in front of a computer screen divided by a horizontal line, with a ball fluctuating randomly between two halves. The people were given a device to press to move the ball upward, but they were warned that random shocks would also influence the ball so that they did not have complete control. Subjects were then asked to play a game with the object of keeping the ball in the upper half of the screen as long as possible. In one set of experiments, the device was not even attached, so the players had absolutely no control over the movements of the ball. Nevertheless, when subjects were questioned after a period of playing the game, they were convinced that they had a good deal of control over the movement of the ball. (The only subjects not under such an illusion turned out to be those who had been clinically diagnosed with severe depression.)

(From A Random Walk Down Wall Street > Behavioral Finance > Biased Judgments (Burton G Malkiel)) _{pretty sure this is neither MLA nor Chicago Style..)}

I just think that's wild. At first glance, the severe depression lending that insight strikes me as significant. But then I remember the cliche that depression leads you to feel that your actions have minimal consequences, and it seems less novel.

As to my theory, it seems that automobile fuel prices stay elevated in such a way as to incline one to think "wow, they shoot up like a rocket but come down so slowly!" and while this idea is probably well discussed and already pondered,

Plus, not only am I not an expert, I'm not terribly good at looking this stuff up. But maybe I'll add an extra challenge and avoid getting insights from AI.

I think it's just a question of inventory with a soupcon of psychology, rather than being so simply explained by greed. (Though, if economics is just figuring out how semi-rational actors try to make the "best" decisions for themselves and gain the most profit, greed is just normal?)

I think the perception exists in part because petrol stations store their fuel. (revolutionary). So yeah, I guess one place to start is the assumption that there's anything to deviate from. i.e., if our "underlying costs" of fuel are already intrinsically shaped with a sharp initial spike and a gradual lessening/curve downward, then this theory wouldn't make sense, and we wouldn't bother asking why the middle-man has an effect where there is none to be seen. To this point, so far as I can tell, I might be half right. Looking at the graphs ^[oil][gas] of brent crude over time, unless I'm smoothing out too much, there doesn't seem to be that sort of asymmetry in the chart. That said, I've definitely heard the asymmetry described in expert interviews in the past. So maybe that's the real cause and I'm just lost.

Assuming it's not just a result of upstream factors, I'll next point at human psychology. Usually I just pick a random bias and move on, but for funsies I'll just go look up the list

• Frequency illusion -- once you notice a couple times that the price spikes and you think it comes down slowly, you figure it's a thing.
• Negativity Bias -- I figure this is a big one. You are more likely to notice that the price is high. If you were comfortable at $5 and $5.15... and now it's $6... and still $6... and now it's $5.95... you might not have paid so much attention to the movement before, but now it definitely sticks in your mind.
• von Restorff effect -- honestly never heard of this but it's true. You'd see this jump in price as unique, not just negative...

But really I just figure that the gas station pays for the gas it has underground. And this could be completely wrong. But once they pay to fill up, that asset is paid for. The market value might go up to $6 but they're still doing "fine" to charge what they had originally intended for the shipment.

But once they have to refill, then they have to consider the "market reality" and pay $6 for the shipment. Unluckily for them, the market drops again and leaves them with a difficult asset. Compounding matters, if things get too high, consumers might defer purchasing, slowing demand. They might even go elsewhere for a better deal. So, they keep charging comparably higher for longer until their store is reduced, or they eat the loss...

I think I see this happening with the rural vs. urban setup around here. The rural pumps had that lag I'm describing, where they don't need to refill their storage as often, but therefore have a delay in reflecting the market. I think urban pumps get more traffic and are more readily able to restock and reprice.

Of course, that point could be explained by other factors. Maybe they feel stronger pressures to reduce prices in order to stay competitive in urban environments. I feel like there's probably a "market hypothesis" where you can't just overcharge, even if there is less competition, as in this case there's no such thing as a pump with 0% competition. Ah well, more things to learn.

tl;dr: I think automobile fuel prices might be slightly less driven by greed, and maybe slightly more driven by physical reality. But I can't really prove it.