Gas
05-02-2008, 10:44 AM
#101
Drifting
You cannot just "Ditto Above" and dismiss everything that is anti Bush. Yeah there are people who have been doing and saying things against Bush that are not deserved but by and large the Bush Admin has been a Train Wreck. He has had his eye off the ball ...in point of fact I don't think his eye was ever on the ball after he deverted resourses from Afganistan.
At the time we went into Afganistan I disagreed that going into Iraq was a direct response to Saddam trying to "Off" George Senior but now I am not so sure. In addition "W" wearing of his faith on his sleeve has absolutely NO PLACE in American Government. He got elected because the lunatic fringe right wing evangleical nut cases united and supported him. He does not represent the majority of Americans but he does represent an organized minority..the Falwell crazies, the Robertsen nut jobs and the James Dodson Focus on the Family yoyo's united for him.
As someone who had to face the decision to discontinue life support for a loved one when there was no longer any hope believe me that what "W" did in the Schiavo case was absolutly out of bounds. The last thing I wanted was the federal gvernment telling me what I should do about my Mom's health care. When she could not speak for herself the decisions are between me and her Doctor and NOBODY else least of all an Evagelical Politician.wearing his bible on his sleeve. Fortunately for America in the Schiavo case the Atlanta Federal Court slammed George declaring that the "law" they passed during the dark of night was unconstitutional. Even Laura Bush has her head on backwards. Discussing Schiavo she said "I believe that whenever human life is in the balance the Federal Government should be involved". Give me a break Laura.
As for Hillary and the "You cannot drill / refine here " people. I agree that they did it. I want a leader who can do something about what the Eco nuts have done, George has no incentive ....he is a "Bought and paid for Boot Licker" of the oil companies. As for Obama and his liberal ideas he is WORSE than Hillary if that is possible. . I don't like eather of their ideas / proposals but George has offered NOTHING as far as leading the country out of the mess that the Eco ***** have created.
He has offered nothing, that is, but dead soldiers and HUGH deficits based on invisible WMD in Iraq. I have seen and heard all this "We cannot leave now" crap already ...upclose and personal.......during an another war we should NEVER have been involved in. Perhaps if "W" had been down in the MUD he would have thought twice about entering Iraq. If nothing else he would have understoood that going in light and expecting MIRACLES was foolhardy. Unfortunately for almost 4000 American kids George was fighting the air war over Texas while others of his generation were suffering and dying in a real war.
It is indeed a perfect storm. Some of the components of the storm are blowing harder than they should be because George had his eyes off the ball. If the Dems do something stupid then it is up to the Pres to work around that stupidity not just wait tlll year 7 of an 8 year term and then stutter and stammer out "speeches" telling the Dems to do something different.
At the time we went into Afganistan I disagreed that going into Iraq was a direct response to Saddam trying to "Off" George Senior but now I am not so sure. In addition "W" wearing of his faith on his sleeve has absolutely NO PLACE in American Government. He got elected because the lunatic fringe right wing evangleical nut cases united and supported him. He does not represent the majority of Americans but he does represent an organized minority..the Falwell crazies, the Robertsen nut jobs and the James Dodson Focus on the Family yoyo's united for him.
As someone who had to face the decision to discontinue life support for a loved one when there was no longer any hope believe me that what "W" did in the Schiavo case was absolutly out of bounds. The last thing I wanted was the federal gvernment telling me what I should do about my Mom's health care. When she could not speak for herself the decisions are between me and her Doctor and NOBODY else least of all an Evagelical Politician.wearing his bible on his sleeve. Fortunately for America in the Schiavo case the Atlanta Federal Court slammed George declaring that the "law" they passed during the dark of night was unconstitutional. Even Laura Bush has her head on backwards. Discussing Schiavo she said "I believe that whenever human life is in the balance the Federal Government should be involved". Give me a break Laura.
As for Hillary and the "You cannot drill / refine here " people. I agree that they did it. I want a leader who can do something about what the Eco nuts have done, George has no incentive ....he is a "Bought and paid for Boot Licker" of the oil companies. As for Obama and his liberal ideas he is WORSE than Hillary if that is possible. . I don't like eather of their ideas / proposals but George has offered NOTHING as far as leading the country out of the mess that the Eco ***** have created.
He has offered nothing, that is, but dead soldiers and HUGH deficits based on invisible WMD in Iraq. I have seen and heard all this "We cannot leave now" crap already ...upclose and personal.......during an another war we should NEVER have been involved in. Perhaps if "W" had been down in the MUD he would have thought twice about entering Iraq. If nothing else he would have understoood that going in light and expecting MIRACLES was foolhardy. Unfortunately for almost 4000 American kids George was fighting the air war over Texas while others of his generation were suffering and dying in a real war.
It is indeed a perfect storm. Some of the components of the storm are blowing harder than they should be because George had his eyes off the ball. If the Dems do something stupid then it is up to the Pres to work around that stupidity not just wait tlll year 7 of an 8 year term and then stutter and stammer out "speeches" telling the Dems to do something different.
05-02-2008, 11:12 AM
#102
Intermediate
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lower consumption is the answer
This is nothing more than the invisible hand staying out of commerce, and the market regulating itself. The current price of fuel is yet to reach equilibrium, as the price keeps rising and demand is yet to be affected. So, it's still under-valued, and thus it does no good to complain about profits or complain about not being able to run your 427 or your giant SUV. Read into that as far as you wish, because it's a waste of time to try to convince anyone what he/she isn't going to believe anyway, even if substantiated with facts.
Really, what else do you think is going to happen when you have very little competition, and no real reason to do business differently than in the past? What we currently have is a combination of the lack of a bargaining position from the perspective of a global economy within a country built with suburbs that in general doesn't embrace mass transit. This equation is a no-brainer.
What's going on is a smelling-salt for everyone-- Just an indication that you have a choice, and if you're willing to put up with 10 mpg, that you have to pay the royalty, or "excise tax" if you will. What's going on is the most effective way for a general population to change their habits regarding consumption; rather than legislation, which would cause an even-bigger public outcry, this is a gentle way to steer the battleship. Maybe this is at the expense of the consumer, but the only thing you can do is boycott the product, and if you choose not to, you have to play ball. Yes it's regressive, but when has a penalty levied against the general population been fair?
Really, what else do you think is going to happen when you have very little competition, and no real reason to do business differently than in the past? What we currently have is a combination of the lack of a bargaining position from the perspective of a global economy within a country built with suburbs that in general doesn't embrace mass transit. This equation is a no-brainer.
What's going on is a smelling-salt for everyone-- Just an indication that you have a choice, and if you're willing to put up with 10 mpg, that you have to pay the royalty, or "excise tax" if you will. What's going on is the most effective way for a general population to change their habits regarding consumption; rather than legislation, which would cause an even-bigger public outcry, this is a gentle way to steer the battleship. Maybe this is at the expense of the consumer, but the only thing you can do is boycott the product, and if you choose not to, you have to play ball. Yes it's regressive, but when has a penalty levied against the general population been fair?
Last edited by smart_art; 05-02-2008 at 11:21 AM.
05-02-2008, 01:31 PM
#103
Drifting
This is not a political statement. Both the Republican nominee for president, Senator McCain, and one of the Democrat’s candidates, Senator Clinton, are advocating a temporary gas tax holiday. This in my opinion is the most egregious example of political pandering I have ever seen. Whether or not the new President is a Republican or a Democrat, the price of gasoline (per gallon) four years hence will be higher than it is today – much higher. Since both senators are intelligent, and presumably have intelligent advisors, they must understand the global energy squeeze. Simple induction leads to the conclusion that $5, $6 or $7 gasoline is on the way. In our society the price mechanism is the only way to conservation – unfortunately. Couple days ago, I listened to a campaign speech by Senator Clinton. In it she blamed the Big Oil companies for our $3.65 (average in major cities 4/28/08) gasoline today and indicated she would change that if elected.
Canadian gasoline is about C$1.24 per liter (approx. US $4.70 per US gallon). CIBC analysts expect Canada’s gasoline to move to C$1.40 this summer (US$5.32). CIBC also expects Canada’s gasoline to rise to $2.25 per liter by 2012 (equivalent to $8.55). According to the McCain and Clinton plans “Big Oil” would be taxed (Windfall Profits Tax) so that roads and bridges can still be built. Under the Clinton plan, a temporary gas tax holiday would ensue this summer. It would remove 18.4 cents per gallon from the price of US gasoline. The average price could fall to $3.42 per gallon. A motorist using 40 gallons per week over the summer would save about $160.00. Big Whoop....In addition Senator Clinton said she would stop rampant speculation in the gasoline and energy futures market citing “credible evidence” of malfeasance. She said she would lower the cost of a barrel of oil by $20. Tell that to the OPEC honchos. Senator Clinton must surely know that exploration and discovery will be key to increasing supply – both domestic and foreign. By taxing “windfall profits” she will ensure that exploration wells will be fewer and new technologies such as shale oil will not come on stream. Since 70% of global oil resources are owned by national governments, the Clinton and McCain plans would assure that the US remains energy dependent.
In my opinion, this would NOT be good....
Canadian gasoline is about C$1.24 per liter (approx. US $4.70 per US gallon). CIBC analysts expect Canada’s gasoline to move to C$1.40 this summer (US$5.32). CIBC also expects Canada’s gasoline to rise to $2.25 per liter by 2012 (equivalent to $8.55). According to the McCain and Clinton plans “Big Oil” would be taxed (Windfall Profits Tax) so that roads and bridges can still be built. Under the Clinton plan, a temporary gas tax holiday would ensue this summer. It would remove 18.4 cents per gallon from the price of US gasoline. The average price could fall to $3.42 per gallon. A motorist using 40 gallons per week over the summer would save about $160.00. Big Whoop....In addition Senator Clinton said she would stop rampant speculation in the gasoline and energy futures market citing “credible evidence” of malfeasance. She said she would lower the cost of a barrel of oil by $20. Tell that to the OPEC honchos. Senator Clinton must surely know that exploration and discovery will be key to increasing supply – both domestic and foreign. By taxing “windfall profits” she will ensure that exploration wells will be fewer and new technologies such as shale oil will not come on stream. Since 70% of global oil resources are owned by national governments, the Clinton and McCain plans would assure that the US remains energy dependent.
In my opinion, this would NOT be good....
05-02-2008, 01:36 PM
#104
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: Northern Indiana. SW FLA
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it'll stop when demand falls off or supply increases. Oil company profits are about the same percentage wise as other industries. Their shareholders (the owners of the companies) expect them to make a profit. If it's so easy to make tons of money, go start your own oil company and sit back while you rake it in.
We have not built a new oil refinery in this country in 30 years. We're also prohibited from exploring for almost all new domestic sources of oil. That means we're at the mercy of foreign suppliers. And China and India now have the money (our money they received in exchange for selling them all the cheap Chinese stuff we buy from them) to go out and buy lots of gas, which makes it more expensive for us.
We have not built a new oil refinery in this country in 30 years. We're also prohibited from exploring for almost all new domestic sources of oil. That means we're at the mercy of foreign suppliers. And China and India now have the money (our money they received in exchange for selling them all the cheap Chinese stuff we buy from them) to go out and buy lots of gas, which makes it more expensive for us.
It is just more interesting to believe in conspiracy theories
Scott
05-02-2008, 02:09 PM
#105
Drifting
This is not a political statement. Both the Republican nominee for president, Senator McCain, and one of the Democrat’s candidates, Senator Clinton, are advocating a temporary gas tax holiday. This in my opinion is the most egregious example of political pandering I have ever seen. Whether or not the new President is a Republican or a Democrat, the price of gasoline (per gallon) four years hence will be higher than it is today – much higher. Since both senators are intelligent, and presumably have intelligent advisors, they must understand the global energy squeeze. Simple induction leads to the conclusion that $5, $6 or $7 gasoline is on the way. In our society the price mechanism is the only way to conservation – unfortunately. Couple days ago, I listened to a campaign speech by Senator Clinton. In it she blamed the Big Oil companies for our $3.65 (average in major cities 4/28/08) gasoline today and indicated she would change that if elected.
Canadian gasoline is about C$1.24 per liter (approx. US $4.70 per US gallon). CIBC analysts expect Canada’s gasoline to move to C$1.40 this summer (US$5.32). CIBC also expects Canada’s gasoline to rise to $2.25 per liter by 2012 (equivalent to $8.55). According to the McCain and Clinton plans “Big Oil” would be taxed (Windfall Profits Tax) so that roads and bridges can still be built. Under the Clinton plan, a temporary gas tax holiday would ensue this summer. It would remove 18.4 cents per gallon from the price of US gasoline. The average price could fall to $3.42 per gallon. A motorist using 40 gallons per week over the summer would save about $160.00. Big Whoop....In addition Senator Clinton said she would stop rampant speculation in the gasoline and energy futures market citing “credible evidence” of malfeasance. She said she would lower the cost of a barrel of oil by $20. Tell that to the OPEC honchos. Senator Clinton must surely know that exploration and discovery will be key to increasing supply – both domestic and foreign. By taxing “windfall profits” she will ensure that exploration wells will be fewer and new technologies such as shale oil will not come on stream. Since 70% of global oil resources are owned by national governments, the Clinton and McCain plans would assure that the US remains energy dependent.
In my opinion, this would NOT be good....
Canadian gasoline is about C$1.24 per liter (approx. US $4.70 per US gallon). CIBC analysts expect Canada’s gasoline to move to C$1.40 this summer (US$5.32). CIBC also expects Canada’s gasoline to rise to $2.25 per liter by 2012 (equivalent to $8.55). According to the McCain and Clinton plans “Big Oil” would be taxed (Windfall Profits Tax) so that roads and bridges can still be built. Under the Clinton plan, a temporary gas tax holiday would ensue this summer. It would remove 18.4 cents per gallon from the price of US gasoline. The average price could fall to $3.42 per gallon. A motorist using 40 gallons per week over the summer would save about $160.00. Big Whoop....In addition Senator Clinton said she would stop rampant speculation in the gasoline and energy futures market citing “credible evidence” of malfeasance. She said she would lower the cost of a barrel of oil by $20. Tell that to the OPEC honchos. Senator Clinton must surely know that exploration and discovery will be key to increasing supply – both domestic and foreign. By taxing “windfall profits” she will ensure that exploration wells will be fewer and new technologies such as shale oil will not come on stream. Since 70% of global oil resources are owned by national governments, the Clinton and McCain plans would assure that the US remains energy dependent.
In my opinion, this would NOT be good....
Profit is what is left after all expenses like exploration, salaries and most important to the oil executives.BONUSES are taken out.
Profit is exactly what it is called, profit
05-02-2008, 02:38 PM
#106
Race Director
If the Govt decided that i make too much money manufacturing my suppressors, and decided it needed an even bigger share than they already take, I sure as hell wouldn't work harder to make up the difference just to get back to my status quo, or spend more of my money on new equipment to make my procucts more efficiently, I would simply cease to operate my business and invest my money where it wouldn't get taxed as much.
If there is no incentive, people, or companies, will not produce.
Doug
05-02-2008, 02:41 PM
#107
Intermediate
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you are correct. Very astute accounting.
That's why your only choice when it comes to filling up your gas-powered vehicle is gasoline-- You know this, and more importantly, they know this. So, it's pretty simple-- Either buy what is being sold, formulate and distill your own gasoline, or take your money elsewhere...
In my mind's eye, that's why the only way to skin this cat is to just buy less. Or, in the case of choice #1, you can buy oil company stock, and then profit from the perceived "gouging" that is the current market, thus getting in on a piece of the action.
That's why your only choice when it comes to filling up your gas-powered vehicle is gasoline-- You know this, and more importantly, they know this. So, it's pretty simple-- Either buy what is being sold, formulate and distill your own gasoline, or take your money elsewhere...
In my mind's eye, that's why the only way to skin this cat is to just buy less. Or, in the case of choice #1, you can buy oil company stock, and then profit from the perceived "gouging" that is the current market, thus getting in on a piece of the action.
05-02-2008, 03:54 PM
#108
Pro
Member Since: Jan 2001
Location: Northport New York
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it'll stop when demand falls off or supply increases. Oil company profits are about the same percentage wise as other industries. Their shareholders (the owners of the companies) expect them to make a profit. If it's so easy to make tons of money, go start your own oil company and sit back while you rake it in.
We have not built a new oil refinery in this country in 30 years. We're also prohibited from exploring for almost all new domestic sources of oil. That means we're at the mercy of foreign suppliers. And China and India now have the money (our money they received in exchange for selling them all the cheap Chinese stuff we buy from them) to go out and buy lots of gas, which makes it more expensive for us.
We have not built a new oil refinery in this country in 30 years. We're also prohibited from exploring for almost all new domestic sources of oil. That means we're at the mercy of foreign suppliers. And China and India now have the money (our money they received in exchange for selling them all the cheap Chinese stuff we buy from them) to go out and buy lots of gas, which makes it more expensive for us.
Interesting note in today's paper about ExxonMobil stock taking a hit yesterday as their prices of gasoline has not kept pace with the rising price of crude which tells you that the price of gas is undervalued.
05-02-2008, 04:02 PM
#109
Drifting
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: No. 13
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=65coupe;1565286362]Oil companies Percentage profit margins are the lowest of all industries (8% Cheron to 10% ExxonMobil). Most other industries are 30% and up.
That's not true for a VERY large part of our economy...Department of Defense (and other Federal Department) contractors are limited to the amount fee (aka profit) they can make as part of any government contract...typically 5 to 10 percent.
However, there are some exceptions - mostly when the DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) are either ignored or waved...like the obscene profits made in some Iraq support and rebuilding efforts.
That's not true for a VERY large part of our economy...Department of Defense (and other Federal Department) contractors are limited to the amount fee (aka profit) they can make as part of any government contract...typically 5 to 10 percent.
However, there are some exceptions - mostly when the DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) are either ignored or waved...like the obscene profits made in some Iraq support and rebuilding efforts.
05-02-2008, 04:19 PM
#110
Pro
Member Since: Jan 2001
Location: Northport New York
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=RGGregory;1565286478]
You know what I mean...Fortune 500 companies but your post does indicate how low the margins are for oil companies as they are in parity with the the Army/Airforce, Navy and Marines.
Oil companies Percentage profit margins are the lowest of all industries (8% Cheron to 10% ExxonMobil). Most other industries are 30% and up.
That's not true for a VERY large part of our economy...Department of Defense (and other Federal Department) contractors are limited to the amount fee (aka profit) they can make as part of any government contract...typically 5 to 10 percent.
However, there are some exceptions - mostly when the DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) are either ignored or waved...like the obscene profits made in some Iraq support and rebuilding efforts.
That's not true for a VERY large part of our economy...Department of Defense (and other Federal Department) contractors are limited to the amount fee (aka profit) they can make as part of any government contract...typically 5 to 10 percent.
However, there are some exceptions - mostly when the DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations) are either ignored or waved...like the obscene profits made in some Iraq support and rebuilding efforts.
05-02-2008, 04:47 PM
#111
Drifting
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: OZ City, Kansas, The Land of AHHHHHHS!
Posts: 1,864
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I think what has gotten everyone so riled up about is the short amount of time it took for gasoline prices to spike. Rather than a slow gradual increase were people slowly adapted, like cars & housing prices, it kind of hit us, WHAM!
$1.50-$2.75 gallon slowly, and then suddenly from $2.75 to $3.75+ seemingly overnight. That's what got everbody's attention...
But really, this seems like de ja vu all over again from the 1970's; when we "encouraged" new technology to solve this dependence on foreign oil once and for all! So we put up ugly solar panels on roof tops, bought locking gas caps, lowered the thermostat, wore sweaters, bought Vegas, Pintos, & Gremlins because they were less gas thirsty, used fireplace woodburning stoves, wrapped the hot water heater, turned out the lights at Christmas, speed limit was 55 mph, on and on...but as soon as most people adapted to the higher prices, we're in the same old predicament again.
And this too, shall pass.
$1.50-$2.75 gallon slowly, and then suddenly from $2.75 to $3.75+ seemingly overnight. That's what got everbody's attention...
But really, this seems like de ja vu all over again from the 1970's; when we "encouraged" new technology to solve this dependence on foreign oil once and for all! So we put up ugly solar panels on roof tops, bought locking gas caps, lowered the thermostat, wore sweaters, bought Vegas, Pintos, & Gremlins because they were less gas thirsty, used fireplace woodburning stoves, wrapped the hot water heater, turned out the lights at Christmas, speed limit was 55 mph, on and on...but as soon as most people adapted to the higher prices, we're in the same old predicament again.
And this too, shall pass.
05-02-2008, 08:25 PM
#112
Drifting
If you are not alllowed to make a profit, why invest money?
If the Govt decided that i make too much money manufacturing my suppressors, and decided it needed an even bigger share than they already take, I sure as hell wouldn't work harder to make up the difference just to get back to my status quo, or spend more of my money on new equipment to make my procucts more efficiently, I would simply cease to operate my business and invest my money where it wouldn't get taxed as much.
If there is no incentive, people, or companies, will not produce.
Doug
If the Govt decided that i make too much money manufacturing my suppressors, and decided it needed an even bigger share than they already take, I sure as hell wouldn't work harder to make up the difference just to get back to my status quo, or spend more of my money on new equipment to make my procucts more efficiently, I would simply cease to operate my business and invest my money where it wouldn't get taxed as much.
If there is no incentive, people, or companies, will not produce.
Doug
You may not be an astute business man if you would cease to reinvest in your company because you actually had to pay a tax. I mean forgoing obscene profits because you should, god forbid, pay your fair share is not a good business practice when you are raking in billions of profit after taking obscene salaries and bonuses.
Hell I am in business and I have to pay taxes. No one is giving me tax breaks. I have longterm employees contributing to the tax base of the US, should I get a tax break? NO, if we all did none of our beautiful country would exist.
Oil companies make profit on volume, you seem to be asking me to feel sorry for them because they are taxed on the "profit" they make after they figure out how much bonus they all should receive.
05-02-2008, 08:30 PM
#113
Drifting
Yes, you are correct. Very astute accounting.
That's why your only choice when it comes to filling up your gas-powered vehicle is gasoline-- You know this, and more importantly, they know this. So, it's pretty simple-- Either buy what is being sold, formulate and distill your own gasoline, or take your money elsewhere...
In my mind's eye, that's why the only way to skin this cat is to just buy less. Or, in the case of choice #1, you can buy oil company stock, and then profit from the perceived "gouging" that is the current market, thus getting in on a piece of the action.
That's why your only choice when it comes to filling up your gas-powered vehicle is gasoline-- You know this, and more importantly, they know this. So, it's pretty simple-- Either buy what is being sold, formulate and distill your own gasoline, or take your money elsewhere...
In my mind's eye, that's why the only way to skin this cat is to just buy less. Or, in the case of choice #1, you can buy oil company stock, and then profit from the perceived "gouging" that is the current market, thus getting in on a piece of the action.
Yes, invest in the oil companies, I decided to do this last year to offset fuel costs. In one year I doubled my money. It is helping to offset the rse in gas prices
05-02-2008, 10:17 PM
#114
Drifting
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: No. 13
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=65coupe;1565286739]Sorry I wasn't clearer...I wasn't talking about the armed forces directly...I'm talking about defense contractors who are all over the Fortune 500 - BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, L3, General Dynamics, Northrop Grummann, etc. They are all capped by Federal Acquisition Regs as to what is a reasonable profit (called "fee" in DoD contract terms) - typically no more than 10 percent. They can earn incentives, depending upon the contract type - cost plus, fixed-fee, etc...boring stuff...but the bottom line is I'm not a cheerleader for the oil industry, just a 10 percent net profit isn't out of line.
05-02-2008, 10:25 PM
#115
Drifting
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: No. 13
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is nothing more than the invisible hand staying out of commerce, and the market regulating itself. The current price of fuel is yet to reach equilibrium, as the price keeps rising and demand is yet to be affected. So, it's still under-valued, and thus it does no good to complain about profits or complain about not being able to run your 427 or your giant SUV. Read into that as far as you wish, because it's a waste of time to try to convince anyone what he/she isn't going to believe anyway, even if substantiated with facts.
Really, what else do you think is going to happen when you have very little competition, and no real reason to do business differently than in the past? What we currently have is a combination of the lack of a bargaining position from the perspective of a global economy within a country built with suburbs that in general doesn't embrace mass transit. This equation is a no-brainer.
What's going on is a smelling-salt for everyone-- Just an indication that you have a choice, and if you're willing to put up with 10 mpg, that you have to pay the royalty, or "excise tax" if you will. What's going on is the most effective way for a general population to change their habits regarding consumption; rather than legislation, which would cause an even-bigger public outcry, this is a gentle way to steer the battleship. Maybe this is at the expense of the consumer, but the only thing you can do is boycott the product, and if you choose not to, you have to play ball. Yes it's regressive, but when has a penalty levied against the general population been fair?
Really, what else do you think is going to happen when you have very little competition, and no real reason to do business differently than in the past? What we currently have is a combination of the lack of a bargaining position from the perspective of a global economy within a country built with suburbs that in general doesn't embrace mass transit. This equation is a no-brainer.
What's going on is a smelling-salt for everyone-- Just an indication that you have a choice, and if you're willing to put up with 10 mpg, that you have to pay the royalty, or "excise tax" if you will. What's going on is the most effective way for a general population to change their habits regarding consumption; rather than legislation, which would cause an even-bigger public outcry, this is a gentle way to steer the battleship. Maybe this is at the expense of the consumer, but the only thing you can do is boycott the product, and if you choose not to, you have to play ball. Yes it's regressive, but when has a penalty levied against the general population been fair?
Well said...Adam Smith would be proud..simple laws of a free market economy and the laws of macroeconomics....It's been a while, but if I recall correctly Smith stated that rational self-interest and competition would lead to the economic well-being....key word is rational.
Our economy is not a perfect system, but like democracy, there doesn't seem to any better at the moment..ask all the former Marxist economies and governments...now consigned to the trash heap of history, with the notable exception of a couple of hangers-on (but hey, if they want to be destitute and starve - i.e., North Korea and Cuba, then they can observe that natural law as well).
05-03-2008, 12:00 AM
#116
Race Director
There is not some one fatcat who raked in 15 billion personal profit last quarter that owns all of Big Oil..
And if you own a mutual fund or 401K, SEP-IRA, i can pretty much guarantee that you own part of Shell, Chevron, etc.
Or maybe you don't have any investments in stocks, in which case any profit anybody except you makes would be unjustified, as you see no benefit to anybody else making a profit as it just costs you more money.
I see the goverment school indoctrination programs of the last 40 years are working out well, socialism and Marxism has taken root qute well.
John Galt
05-03-2008, 12:44 AM
#117
Drifting
Everybody seems to forget that no one person owns the oil companies, they are owned by millions of stock holders. Each stock holder eceive a dividend or not, depending on whether a profit was made, or not. If there is no dividend, nobody would invest their money in a company, as the idea is to increase ones wealth, not **** it away in the name of social progress.
There is not some one fatcat who raked in 15 billion personal profit last quarter that owns all of Big Oil..
And if you own a mutual fund or 401K, SEP-IRA, i can pretty much guarantee that you own part of Shell, Chevron, etc.
Or maybe you don't have any investments in stocks, in which case any profit anybody except you makes would be unjustified, as you see no benefit to anybody else making a profit as it just costs you more money.
I see the goverment school indoctrination programs of the last 40 years are working out well, socialism and Marxism has taken root qute well.
John Galt
There is not some one fatcat who raked in 15 billion personal profit last quarter that owns all of Big Oil..
And if you own a mutual fund or 401K, SEP-IRA, i can pretty much guarantee that you own part of Shell, Chevron, etc.
Or maybe you don't have any investments in stocks, in which case any profit anybody except you makes would be unjustified, as you see no benefit to anybody else making a profit as it just costs you more money.
I see the goverment school indoctrination programs of the last 40 years are working out well, socialism and Marxism has taken root qute well.
John Galt
How much did Exxon give its last CEO for retirement..........hmmm.......lets see....................oh yeah 400 Million Dollars.........$400 Million Dollars...............like he earned that
puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese
05-03-2008, 06:36 AM
#118
Melting Slicks
John McCain admits yesterday at a campaign rally that the reason we went to war was because of Iraq oil. I'm sure thats very comforting to the loved ones of the 4000 soldiers, who they thought died, because they were fighting terror, and protecting our freedom. Alan Greenspan in his book says," I'm going to state what most people already know,the real reason we went to war was for oil." It would appear,that we have been lied to for the past 5 years. Either that,or John McCain and Alan Greenspan are lying.
05-03-2008, 09:43 AM
#119
Racer
Member Since: Jun 2003
Location: Torrington Ct
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John McCain admits yesterday at a campaign rally that the reason we went to war was because of Iraq oil. I'm sure thats very comforting to the loved ones of the 4000 soldiers, who they thought died, because they were fighting terror, and protecting our freedom. Alan Greenspan in his book says," I'm going to state what most people already know,the real reason we went to war was for oil." It would appear,that we have been lied to for the past 5 years. Either that,or John McCain and Alan Greenspan are lying.
05-03-2008, 01:33 PM
#120
Race Director
Rotflmao You really need to read my posts, not just the first line
How much did Exxon give its last CEO for retirement..........hmmm.......lets see....................oh yeah 400 Million Dollars.........$400 Million Dollars...............like he earned that
puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese
How much did Exxon give its last CEO for retirement..........hmmm.......lets see....................oh yeah 400 Million Dollars.........$400 Million Dollars...............like he earned that
puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese
My point, was that "obscene" profits aren't obscene when a change from 6% profit to 8% profit, goes straight to the equity of the companies investors, those widows living on their investments, the $40K a year guy paying into his 401K each month, that 15 billion $$ was distributed to millions of investors in the form of dividends or simply increases equity worth; adding an extra tax to that just because they chose to invest in an oil company instead of a software company, serves no purpose, penalizes those widows and orphans,and guys hoping someday to retire, and is simply more government looting, of oridinary people, disguised at getting back at those nasty greedy oil companies, used to buy votes from people who want something for nothing and are envious of anybody that saves money when they didn't.
Where are the people protesting Microsoft and having to pay $800 for MS Office? Hell, that little round disc couldn't have cost more than a $1 to make? Why should you have to pay hundreds of dollars for it? What about the $40 Billion that Bill gates has? Talk about a fat cat, he makes the CEOs of the oil companies look like amatures. Where are the calls for excess profits tax on him?
John Galt