American Company Sets All-Time Record for Quarterly Profit

[Bronco_Beerslug]

10 billion for 3 months work. Is that obscene or what :crazy:

---------------------------------------------------
By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

IRVING, Texas - Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books. The world's largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion in quarterly sales.

Net income ballooned to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 per share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year ago.

Excluding certain items, earnings were $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, versus $6.23 billion, or 96 cents per share, in the 2004 quarter.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, predicted earnings excluding items of $1.38 per share.

Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/d6bqp

[Rascal]

And you wonder why the price of gas is where it's at.

Anybody see that new Ford commercial about their cars being compatible with ethanol? Hopefully this pushes GM and Chrysler to doing the same thing so we can get off the oil teet.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And you wonder why the price of gas is where it's at.

Anybody see that new Ford commercial about their cars being compatible with ethanol? Hopefully this pushes GM and Chrysler to doing the same thing so we can get off the oil teet.
GM got some good news today, they're being investigated by the SEC for <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bg994">questionable pension and healthcare manipulations</a>.

[W*GS]

10 billion for 3 months work. Is that obscene or what

Not obscene - reflective of the addiction we Americans have to oil.

[Rascal]

GM got some good news today, they're being investigated by the SEC for <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bg994">questionable pension and healthcare manipulations</a>.

how is that good news?

The american economy cannot afford GM to go bankrupt.

[W*GS]

The american economy cannot afford GM to go bankrupt.

We can less afford keeping them in business.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not obscene - reflective of the addiction we Americans have to oil.

It's also about big oil and gas having their way with Americans, ripping us off and getting away with it.


Shell Profit Leaps on Rising Oil Prices
Thu Oct 27, 7:28 AM ET

LONDON - Royal Dutch Shell PLC, one of the world's largest oil companies, said Thursday its third-quarter profit grew 67 percent to $9.39 billion, as soaring oil prices outweighed lost production and damage to rigs from hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

The results compare with earnings of $5.62 billion a year earlier and were helped by a gain of $1.77 billion, mainly from the sale of pipeline assets held through Gasunie NV in the Netherlands and the valuation of some U.K. gas contracts.

Revenue rose 8 percent to $76.44 billion.

"We are capturing the benefits of high oil and gas prices and refining margins," Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser said.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/9rt79

[Rascal]

We can less afford keeping them in business.

that's a load of BS.

Do you think all those workers are going to find just as good paying jobs? If you think so you are being dilusional.

[W*GS]

It's also about big oil and gas having their way with Americans, ripping us off and getting away with it.

The same can be said of coke dealers and coke addicts, and the tobacco companies (with the help of government) and smokers.

Go bitch at the folks driving SUVs with "Save the Planet" bumper stickers.

[W*GS]

Do you think all those workers are going to find just as good paying jobs? If you think so you are being dilusional.

It's not the current workers that are posing financial problems for GM - it's the GM retirees and their pension and medical care costs. GM will likely dump those pension costs onto PBGC, for which you and I pay.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The same can be said of coke dealers and coke addicts, and the tobacco companies (with the help of government) and smokers.

Go b**** at the folks driving SUVs with "Save the Planet" bumper stickers.

Ignorant comparison at best! Comparing coke dealers and tobacco companies to
big oil. Peoples lives and way of life depend on oil and gas so they have to pay whatever prices the oil companies charge and don't try and pass off your coined argument you've used since the beginning of time that it's Americans fault for being in this position. It is what it is, from a way of life that has been ingrained in our culture for decades and decades.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's not the current workers that are posing financial problems for GM - it's the GM retirees and their pension and medical care costs. GM will likely dump those pension costs onto PBGC, for which you and I pay.

The UAW and GM have a reached agreement that allows GM to cut costs by at least 15 billion by reducing benefits for current and past employees.

[W*GS]

Ignorant comparison at best! Comparing coke dealers and tobacco companies to big oil.

It's quite apt.

Peoples lives and way of life depend on oil and gas so they have to pay whatever prices the oil companies charge and don't try and pass off your coined argument you've used since the beginning of time that it's Americans fault for being in this position. It is what it is, from a way of life that has been ingrained in our culture for decades and decades.

So? Look at the endless bitching about gas prices - for some reason, many many Americans demand that gas be "cheap". Why?

[enjolras]

Ignorant comparison at best! Comparing coke dealers and tobacco companies to
big oil. Peoples lives and way of life depend on oil and gas so they have to pay whatever prices the oil companies charge and don't try and pass off your coined argument you've used since the beginning of time that it's Americans fault for being in this position. It is what it is, from a way of life that has been ingrained in our culture for decades and decades.

It IS our fault... Just because its been that way for decades and decades doesn't make it any less so. Particularly when Americans TODAY just sit around and bitch, but by and large aren't doing anything about it.

When Americans trade in their SUV's for more efficient cars.. when they choose to live close to work instead of taking on a 30 mile commute so they can live in a McMansion... when we start rewarding environmentally conscious companies instead of depending on everything being disposable.. then and only then can we really start to look at taking big oil to task. Until then we are slaves.. because we choose to be.

For the purpose of full disclosure: I myself am trying to change.

I traded my gas guzzling 68 mustang (I did love that car) for a a VW Jetta wagon TDI (diesel). I get 50 miles to gallon and I can get a suprising amount of stuff in the back of the wagon.

I cancelled construction on a large house with a big yard (23 miles from work) and instead bought a new home 6 miles from work that's more than 1000 square feet smaller.

I try to avoid packaged goods as much as possible. I carry items out of the store rather than sacking them. All of these things are small (and sometimes a bit annoying), but I do it all in the name of reducing my personal dependence on oil and energy that I can't control. My reward: I go about a month between fill-ups (saving about $300 or so on my gas bill right now). My heating and cooling bills are much less... and I don't even miss the space I lost.

Its been a huge lifestyle change.. but I feel a whole lot better for it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It IS our fault... Just because its been that way for decades and decades doesn't make it any less so. Particularly when Americans TODAY just sit around and b****, but by and large aren't doing anything about it.

When Americans trade in their SUV's for more efficient cars.. when they choose to live close to work instead of taking on a 30 mile commute so they can live in a McMansion... when we start rewarding environmentally conscious companies instead of depending on everything being disposable.. then and only then can we really start to look at taking big oil to task. Until then we are slaves.. because we choose to be.

For the purpose of full disclosure: I myself am trying to change.

I traded my gas guzzling 68 mustang (I did love that car) for a a VW Jetta wagon TDI (diesel). I get 50 miles to gallon and I can get a suprising amount of stuff in the back of the wagon.

I cancelled construction on a large house with a big yard (23 miles from work) and instead bought a new home 6 miles from work that's more than 1000 square feet smaller.

I try to avoid packaged goods as much as possible. I carry items out of the store rather than sacking them. All of these things are small (and sometimes a bit annoying), but I do it all in the name of reducing my personal dependence on oil and energy that I can't control. My reward: I go about a month between fill-ups (saving about $300 or so on my gas bill right now). My heating and cooling bills are much less... and I don't even miss the space I lost.

Its been a huge lifestyle change.. but I feel a whole lot better for it.


It's our fault that big oil can gouge us without penalty because we depend on oil for our life blood?
It's our fault that Bush just gave 14 billion in subsidies to big oil and gas?

You missed my point I think. I don't deny Americans need to move to alternate and renewable energies, in fact, I've argued many times we should spend 100s of billions to do it NOW instead of later.

I'm saying that just because we are hooked on oil we don't have to be raped by big oil for our addiction.

[W*GS]

I'm saying that just because we are hooked on oil we don't have to be raped by big oil for our addiction.

We deserve it. Our addiction to oil is the prime cause of so many problems. A good 2x4 smack upside our collective heads is what we need to get our lazy asses in gear and fix this ridiculous SPF.

[clarker]

It's our fault that big oil can gouge us without penalty because we depend on oil for our life blood?
It's our fault that Bush just gave 14 billion in subsidies to big oil and gas?

You missed my point I think. I don't deny Americans need to move to alternate and renewable energies, in fact, I've argued many times we should spend 100s of billions to do it NOW instead of later.

I'm saying that just because we are hooked on oil we don't have to be raped by big oil for our addiction.
I think it is you that is missing the point. If people limited their use of oil and gas, that would drive the price down.

When the Broncos have a popular player, they charge as much as the public is willing to pay for their jersey. When that player is not as popular or not on the team, you find their jersey's in the bargin bin.

It works the same way for oil and gas.

Instead of waiting for the government to pass a law to drive the price down, let the market do the work for you.


If the American people continue to use more and more oil and gas the prices will continue to go up. If they use less the price will drop.

Of course they are going to raise prices if the demand is high. That is only good buisness. So it is your responsiblity as a consumer to handle your own spending habits.

That is how it should work and stop waiting for the government to sovle all your problems.

[Rohirrim]

Statement from Exxon: "We're benefitting from increased refining margins." No ****, Sherlock.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That is how it should work and stop waiting for the government to sovle all your problems.
Ah, another one who misses it. The government (BUSH) is part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you give big oil over 14 billion in subsidies to continue their plundering of America and Americans no one wins except oil and their buddies.

Now, if you have a government that understands how important it is to move away from the stranglehold of big oil and gas (and quit funding terrorists in the process), and instead directs all these billions and more at renewable and alternative energies, the time of actual development of these new energies is accelerated with the prices of oil and gas DECREASING as a result.

[clarker]

Ah, another one who misses it. The government (BUSH) is part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you give big oil over 14 billion in subsidies to continue their plundering of America and Americans no one wins except oil and their buddies.

Now, if you have a government that understands how important it is to move away from the stranglehold of big oil and gas (and quit funding terrorists in the process), and instead directs all these billions and more at renewable and alternative energies, the time of actual development of these new energies is accelerated with the prices of oil and gas DECREASING as a result.See this why I hate Dems. They want the government to solve all their problems like they are kids.

I mean your statement that we shouldn't have to pay for our addictions is so dumb that I can't believe an adult said it.

If people change their habits, it doesn't matter who is President or who he is buddies with. If we reduse our consumption the prices will go down, maybe not over night, but in the end they will have to. It will become unprofitable for them.

That is how you get a buisness to lower your prices.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Ah, another one who misses it. The government (BUSH) is part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you give big oil over 14 billion in subsidies to continue their plundering of America and Americans no one wins except oil and their buddies.

Now, if you have a government that understands how important it is to move away from the stranglehold of big oil and gas (and quit funding terrorists in the process), and instead directs all these billions and more at renewable and alternative energies, the time of actual development of these new energies is accelerated with the prices of oil and gas DECREASING as a result.

Just a point of clarification. It is congress that gave the subsidies, not Bush. Bush can push for those subsidies, but it is congress who pulls the trigger.

[W*GS]

Ah, another one who misses it. The government (BUSH) is part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you give big oil over 14 billion in subsidies to continue their plundering of America and Americans no one wins except oil and their buddies.

Indeed - the government is part of the problem - and has been for decades. How many billions (hundreds of billions?) have been spent in direct and indirect subsidy to the fossil fuel industry? How many billions have been spent in military aid to Middle Eastern nations to keep the flow of oil from them coming to us?

The government should get entirely out of any manipulations of the market for energy - including the atrocious energy bill the Republicans in Congress just passed. Let the prices for various forms of energy be set by the market. Please.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just a point of clarification. It is congress that gave the subsidies, not Bush. Bush can push for those subsidies, but it is congress who pulls the trigger.
Bush told them exactly what he wanted. Of course, they try and attach their own little projects. Can you name any legislation that he has vetoed?

[clarker]

Indeed - the government is part of the problem - and has been for decades. How many billions (hundreds of billions?) have been spent in direct and indirect subsidy to the fossil fuel industry? How many billions have been spent in military aid to Middle Eastern nations to keep the flow of oil from them coming to us?

The government should get entirely out of any manipulations of the market for energy - including the atrocious energy bill the Republicans in Congress just passed. Let the prices for various forms of energy be set by the market. Please.That being said, The American people's over use of gas and oil are big part of the problem. And there is something they can do about it, but it is easier to blame the whole problem on Bush.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

See this why I hate Dems. They want the government to solve all their problems like they are kids.

I mean your statement that we shouldn't have to pay for our addictions is so dumb that I can't believe an adult said it.

If people change their habits, it doesn't matter who is President or who he is buddies with. If we reduse our consumption the prices will go down, maybe not over night, but in the end they will have to. It will become unprofitable for them.

That is how you get a buisness to lower your prices.

And this is why I hate a lot of the republican agenda.
Tell me what is more important to this country, our security and well being or a select few making more money than they could ever spend at the expense of our country's security?

It is absolutely CRITICAL to move away from oil ASAP! It's common knowledge that a substantial percentage of money we spend on ME oil goes to terrorists. Every day we hesitate to break free from controlling forces that the Middle East exerts on us is one day closer to possible chaos and catastrophe here in the U.S.

I don't know about you but I can't stand the thought of our very livelihoods in the control of these people and our government not moving to eliminate this threat.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Bush told them exactly what he wanted. Of course, they try and attach their own little projects. Can you name any legislation that he has vetoed?

I'm just saying there are 500 guys in congress that share in any blame for the subsidies. We don not have a dictatorship, even if it seems that way some times. If we want to win back control of the government from special interests, we need to start with congress.

[enjolras]

Ah, another one who misses it. The government (BUSH) is part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you give big oil over 14 billion in subsidies to continue their plundering of America and Americans no one wins except oil and their buddies.

Now, if you have a government that understands how important it is to move away from the stranglehold of big oil and gas (and quit funding terrorists in the process), and instead directs all these billions and more at renewable and alternative energies, the time of actual development of these new energies is accelerated with the prices of oil and gas DECREASING as a result.

Your dealing with two seperate issues here..

Issue #1: Record profits for big oil and high energy prices in general. I stand by my original post, high energy prices are our fault. If every american reduced their energy consumption by just 30% (simply dumping SUV's and Trucks would do that) then the price of energy would decrease along with it. Its simple economics.. (with a caveat, coming in #2)

Issue #2: Government subsidies to big oil. These should be criminal. Every congressman that subsidizes huge companies to invest in their own supply should be considered a criminal. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

It is, however, a seperate issue from the original point of this thread.

Investing in alternative energy IS absolutely essential. The one energy problem we have right now is incredible collusion from our major oil suppliers (who in most cases hate us). OPEC exists to artificially subvert the market keeping prices artificially higher than they probably should be. We have no good way of dealing with that, save moving away from the oil that they supply.

[clarker]

And this is why I hate a lot of the republican agenda.
Tell me what is more important to this country, our security and well being or a select few making more money than they could ever could spend at the expense of our country's security?

It is absolutely CRITICAL to move away from oil ASAP! It's common knowledge that a substantial percentage of money we spend on ME oil goes to terrorists. Every day we hesitate to break free from controlling forces that the Middle East exerts on us is one day closer to possible chaos and catastrophe here in the U.S.

I don't know about you but I can't stand the thought of our very livelihoods in the control of these people and our government not moving to eliminate this threat.You don't get it do you. If you want the big oil and gas companies to stop making money or push us toword new fuel choices or car makers to make cares with better gas miliage, then quit useing there products like a drunken sailor on leave.

I think it is bullsh*t that you want the government to cover our own habits.

The less we buy oil and gas, the lower the prices. If the price demand goes down enough, they will have to come up with a new fuel sell.

I believe we have more power to change things than you do. You wait for the government to hold you hand. I don't.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You don't get it do you. If you want the big oil and gas companies to stop making money or push us toword new fuel choices or car makers to make cares with better gas miliage, then quit useing there products like a drunken sailor on leave.

I think it is bullsh*t that you want the government to cover our own habits.

The less we buy oil and gas, the lower the prices. If the price demand goes down enough, they will have to come up with a new fuel sell.

I believe we have more power to change things than you do. You wait for the government to hold you hand. I don't.
Another regurgitation of the same anti social government BS you multi-posted here. Since you have no idea what my "habits" are the rest of your rant on "my" energy "habits" is moot.

"If the price demand goes down enough, they will have to come up with a new fuel sell."
Really? Why would "they" have to "come up with a new fuel sell" if the price was rock bottom?

Are you delusional?

[clarker]

Another regurgitation of the same anti social government BS you multi-posted here. Since you have no idea what my "habits" are the rest of your rant on "my" energy "habits" is moot.


Really? Why would "they" have to "come up with a new fuel sell" if the price was rock bottom?

Are you delusional?Because if the prices hit rock bottom and they don't come up with a new fuel to sell or a car with better gas milage, then someone else will. Then the new guy will put the old guys out of business.

BTW, I should have said if the American people want prices lowered...

[El Guapo]

And you wonder why the price of gas is where it's at.

Anybody see that new Ford commercial about their cars being compatible with ethanol? Hopefully this pushes GM and Chrysler to doing the same thing so we can get off the oil teet.


actually its the other way around.. GM already has manufactured 2500 silverados that have what we call a E-85 engine. it can run off of 85% ethanol. the trucks can get about 475 miles to a tank. The only problem is, everything is on hold till they can get gas stations to carry the ethanol laden gas.

[W*GS]

I don't know about you but I can't stand the thought of our very livelihoods in the control of these people and our government not moving to eliminate this threat.

What are you doing to "eliminate this threat"?

Besides begging the State to do it for you, that is.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Because if the prices hit rock bottom and they don't come up with a new fuel to sell or a car with better gas milage, then someone else will. Then the new guy will put the old guys out of business.

BTW, I should have said if the American people want prices lowered...
I think you overloaded you arse here. What's the incentive to move to alternative or renewable energies if oil and gas is priced at rock bottom?

[clarker]

actually its the other way around.. GM already has manufactured 2500 silverados that have what we call a E-85 engine. it can run off of 85% ethanol. the trucks can get about 475 miles to a tank. The only problem is, everything is on hold till they can get gas stations to carry the ethanol laden gas.One you get a few gas stations to carry it and enough people to by the type of cars/trucks you talked about. Then other stations will have no choice but to carry it, if they want to stay in buisness.

[clarker]

I think you overloaded you arse here. What's the incentive to move to alternative or renewable energies if oil and gas is priced at rock bottom?Money. If we cut back on the demand, the price will go down. Pure and simple.

When any body in buisness can't make a profit, they have to think of something else.

I don't trust any company to do the right thing, simply because it is the right thing, but I do trust them to do what makes them money.

If the demand for oil and fuel goes down for long enough, either they will come up with a new fuel that people will buy or go broke.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What are you doing to "eliminate this threat"?

Besides begging the State to do it for you, that is.

I'm not begging anyone to do anything, especially the state of TX.
BUT,
I inform as many people as I can about the current government not doing anything about our oil problem when, in fact, they are encouraging it.

Driving far less (but have been for years).

Write editorials to several papers, write my representatives on semi regular basis and attend city council meetings occasionally.

Quit driving to work.

I work with several conservation groups.


So what does W*GS do to help move the country from oil?

[loborugger]

All the oil companies are reporting record profits from the last quarter.... while the rest of the US economy suffers. This gives me a couple of thoughts

1. These companies have to know that our economy suffers badly when oil prices sky rocket. Therefore, they arent overly concerned about the US economy. Now, most rich folks here would be concerned about that. Therefore, I get the feeling that most of the CEOs of Exxon, Arco, etc are foreigners.... either that or they are cold hearted bastards. Long gone is the days when a domestic corp looked out for people and worked thru hard times.

2. As there was plenty of raw crude, but not enough gasoline, that tells me that we have a refinery problem. It would be nice to see Congress, the administration, etc to put some freakin pressure on these folks to build some damn refineries. I see, now only after these companies report record earnings is some one in Washington talking about the idea that possibly they should consider maybe putting some pressure on the oil companies. And (shock) its not coming from the White House.

3. To build refineries, it will take approval to build them, ie environmental studies. As I am typing now, every earth muffin, progress hating, lets all live in the stone age, environmental grp will find a reason why no refineries can be built any where for any reason - and they will fight in courts to block them. Hopefully no one that is a member of Green Peace will complain in the future about gas prices if they manage to block refineries.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Seems that the pressure is too great from America for republicans to ignore any longer.

----------------------------------
Frist orders oil price probe
Thu Oct 27, 4:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record-high earnings from oil companies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday ordered a Senate hearing with testimony from major oil company executives on why energy prices are high.

The unexpected announcement by the chamber's top Republican showed the growing political pressure as American consumers brace for higher winter heating costs at the same time energy companies are reporting fat profits.

"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans, they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed," Frist said in a statement.

The Senate leader also asked the chamber's permanent subcommittee on investigations to launch an inquiry into energy price profiteering. "And ultimately, if the facts warrant it, I will support a federal anti-price gouging law," he said.

Democrats have already introduced several proposals to outlaw oil price profiteering. The nationwide average retail gasoline price topped $3 a gallon soon after Hurricane Katrina hit and crude oil soared to a record $70 a barrel.

Prices have since eased somewhat, but the U.S. government forecasts winter heating costs will be sharply higher for consumers.

The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he welcomed the hearing and investigation.

"It's long past time the Senate addressed the record high prices consumers have faced the past months," Reid said in a statement. "While oil companies have reaped record profits, middle-class families have been left wondering whether anyone had noticed."
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/de3f4

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that's a load of BS.

Do you think all those workers are going to find just as good paying jobs? If you think so you are being dilusional.

W*GS couldn't care less as long as it doesn't affect him personally.

Until it does affect him personally, he just dismisses it as "whining" by some poor loser the sole cause of whose misfortune must be weakness, stupidity, or irresponsibility.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What are you doing to "eliminate this threat"?

Besides begging the State to do it for you, that is.

You, of all people, have absolutely no right to ask this question of others.

All you "do" is lash out at any suggestion that the government should regulate oil companies (or any other big business.)

[Mile High Shack]

once again proving that big oil is gouging america

supply and demand my ass

[bendog]

It's not exxon's fault that china and india and s. america have benefited from free trade to the extent they now consume more oil, and supply is not unlimited. They do pay more for nondomestic crude. However, exxon bases its margin, apparantly, on a % of the cost of refined gas. So, it's making more money despite the fact it's actually producing less product and faces rising costs. In a free market, that should not occur.

It won't happen, but I don't see rationally why an "windfall profits" tax shouldn't apply to profits that don't go into R&D or capital improvements on the amount of increased profits, with the taxes going to hurricane relief. Exxon itself would benefit from getting Tex, LA and Miss up and running.

[enjolras]

once again proving that big oil is gouging america

supply and demand my ass

What is proved how?

[BroncoInferno]

once again proving that big oil is gouging america

supply and demand my ass

If people will simply cut back on their gasoline usage, the market will respond accordingly. You make matters much worse when you try to manipulate the market.

[Mile High Shack]

If people will simply cut back on their gasoline usage, the market will respond accordingly. You make matters much worse when you try to manipulate the market.

which is what big oil is doing

they are manipulating the market in their favor

but whatever

I have already cut back on my end

[W*GS]

W*GS couldn't care less as long as it doesn't affect him personally.

The arrogance here is all on you. Think about that before you post and make an even bigger ass of yourself. Again.

[W*GS]

What are you doing to "eliminate this threat"? Besides begging the State to do it for you, that is.

You, of all people, have absolutely no right to ask this question of others.

I can ask any question I want. There you go deciding who has the right to ask what questions - again.

All you "do" is lash out at any suggestion that the government should regulate oil companies (or any other big business.)

Baloney. Yet another LABF strawman!

The government already heavily regulates oil companies and all businesses - what other regulations do you have in mind?

[BroncoInferno]

which is what big oil is doing

they are manipulating the market in their favor

but whatever

I have already cut back on my end

If the people pay the prices the oil companies charge, however exorbant, then that is how much the oil is worth. Things are going to get particularly ugly this winter as people start getting their billed for heating. If more folks like you will cut back on usage, perhaps even downsize their vehicles, you will see the prices fall to more reasonable standards. If the gov't meddles with oil prices to appease the electorate, then you have problems. There would certainly be short term relief. But if you satisfy the consumer by artificially manipulating the market, they will have no motivation to conserve, and therefore the prices long term will not drop as much as they otherwise would have.

[TheDave]

Just curious... how is this not price fixing? Staying with the Gasoline example, if the cost is artificially raised as some here have said, and all major suppliers are adhearring to this "Artificial" price how is that not a text book example of price fixing by the Oil companies?

[Mile High Shack]

Just curious... how is this not price fixing? Staying with the Gasoline example, if the cost is artificially raised as some here have said, and all major suppliers are adhearring to this "Artificial" price how is that not a text book example of price fixing by the Oil companies?

that is my point

thanks for seeing that

true supply and demand let's the market set the price

the oil companies are over-inflating the price to begin with, so it's not a fair starting point

[alkemical]

I think oil is made by the earth and we won't really run out of it anyway.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

which is what big oil is doing

they are manipulating the market in their favor

Exactly.

(Jeez, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with this guy about something.)

The major players have been caught red-handed in the act of deliberately limiting refining capacity in order to drive up prices.

Links to this story have already been posted.

If this isn't market manipulation, then I don't know what is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What is proved how?

For starters...

FTCR: Internal Memos Show Oil Companies Intentionally Limited Refining Capacity to Drive Up Gasoline Prices

9/7/2005 9:00:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jamie Court, 310-392-0522 ext 327; Tim Hamilton, 360- 495-4941, both of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights; Web: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits. The exposure comes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as the oil industry blames environmental regulation for limiting number of U.S. refineries.

The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco (available at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/ show different ways the oil giants closed down refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business. The confidential memos demonstrate a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage the major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s in order to raise the price at the pump.

"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, California refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."

"It's now obvious to most Americans that we have a refinery shortage," said petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton, who authored a recent report about oil company price gouging for FTCR. (Read the report at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/rp/ ) "To point to the environmental laws as the cause simply misses the fact that it was the major oil companies, not the environmental groups, that used the regulatory process to create artificial shortages and limit competition."

The memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco show the following.

-- An internal 1996 memorandum from Mobil demonstrates the oil company's successful strategies to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. The document makes it clear that much of the hardships created by California's regulations governing refineries came at the urging of the major oil companies and not the environmental organizations blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "....buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market. Read the Mobil memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5105.pdf

-- An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." It then discussed how major refiners were closing down their refineries. Read the Chevron memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf

-- The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)" As a result of such pressure, Washington State eliminated the ethanol mandate - requiring greater quantities of refined supply to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol. Read the Texaco memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf

FTCR is nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer group. For more information visit, http://www.consumerwatchdog.org .

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[TheDave]

I think oil is made by the earth and we won't really run out of it anyway.

I think your joking... right?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think oil is made by the earth and we won't really run out of it anyway.

:crazy:
I think we are sucking so much sh*t out of the earth that one day it's just gonna crumble like a empty potato chip bag.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:crazy:
I think we are sucking so much sh*t out of the earth that one day it's just gonna crumble like a empty potato chip bag.

...or turn around and b_tch slap us with earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. ;)

[BroncoInferno]

Look, folks, we all know the oil companies are greedy and are trying to take advantage of this situation to make boat loads of cash. They always do it. Even when you were paying $0.80 a gallon about 7 or 8 years ago I don't doubt for a second they were charging much more than was necessary. This is what corporations do. It isn't new or unusual. People are up in arms now because the record prices charged per barrell are making the usual corporate spike that's always there anyway become more noticable. But it's really pretty simple. They will charge as much as the American people are willing to pay. If the American people stop going to the tanks, the prices will adjust themselves accordingly. So, if you are really pissed off about escalating gas prices, stop using so much of it. If enough people do this, gas will get cheaper (at least until the finite supply runs out). I'm actually somewhat glad about the spiked prices because maybe people will now start acting in their best interests and stop guzzling oil like they were Barney on Andy Griffith guzzling moonshine.

[TheDave]

Look, folks, we all know the oil companies are greedy and are trying to take advantage of this situation to make boat loads of cash. They always do it. Even when you were paying $0.80 a gallon about 7 or 8 years ago I don't doubt for a second they were charging much more than was necessary. This is what corporations do. It isn't new or unusual. People are up in arms now because the record prices charged per barrell are making the usual corporate spike that's always there anyway become more noticable. But it's really pretty simple. They will charge as much as the American people are willing to pay. If the American people stop going to the tanks, the prices will adjust themselves accordingly. So, if you are really pised off about escalating gas prices, stop using so much of it. If enough people do this, gas will get cheaper (at least until the finite supply runs out). I'm actually somewhat glad about the spiked prices because maybe people will now start acting in their best interests and stop guzzling oil like they were Barney on Andy Griffith guzzling moonshine.

Though i do agree with you on this (i recently sold my expedition for a 30+ mpg econo box) the combination of gas prices and soon to be heating cost could send this nation right back into a recession. I just don't feel that it is right for big oil (through price fixing) to set records for $ earned in a quarter while most americans are being squezeed left and right. In my opinion this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Both sides of the fence are sitting around and watching this happen to us. My biggest concern here is that there is no end in sight. If prices were at this level due to taxes and that money was being used for R&D to help get us off this rollercoaster i would at atleast feel a little more comfortable with it. As it stands now a few at the top are getting unbelivebly ritch off of something i have no choice but to buy. 9 out of 10 i am fine with companies making sick amounts of money, but this just doesn't feel right...JMO

[BroncoInferno]

Though i do agree with you on this (i recently sold my expedition for a 30+ mpg econo box) the combination of gas prices and soon to be heating cost could send this nation right back into a recession. I just don't feel that it is right for big oil (through price fixing) to set records for $ earned in a quarter while most americans are being squezeed left and right. In my opinion this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Both sides of the fence are sitting around and watching this happen to us. My biggest concern here is that there is no end in sight. If prices were at this level due to taxes and that money was being used for R&D to help get us off this rollercoaster i would at atleast feel a little more comfortable with it. As it stands now a few at the top are getting unbelivebly ritch off of something i have no choice but to buy. 9 out of 10 i am fine with companies making sick amounts of money, but this just doesn't feel right...JMO

I definately see your point here. I'm just not convinced that higher gas prices and heating costs are going to cause a recession. Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich during a time of war probably will. The bigger problem here IMHO is not money...it's our addiction to oil. A lot of people are starting to do what you've done: downsize their vehicles to something more fuel efficient. You will also start to see car companies respond to the market by manufactoring new vehicles that improve on fuel efficiency. My hope is that this whole mess will spark a real movement to ween us off our oil addiction. Unfortunately, it usually takes a lighter wallet to get people sufficiently motivated to respond to such things. So be it.

[Play2win]

Bush's massive tax cuts for the rich during a time of war probably will.
Yep.

[BroncoInferno]

Yep.

The economist Paul Krugman (yes, he's a liberal) could not come up with even one example of a nation cutting taxes during a time of war in the history of civilization.

[Play2win]

The economist Paul Krugman (yes, he's a liberal) could not come up with even one example of a nation cutting taxes during a time of war in the history of civilization.
I can believe it.

It (cutting Taxes during Wartime) is something you just DON'T DO. That is unless your "leader" is completely incompetent and ignorant.

But, I am sure there will be those who will start their RATIONALIZING...

[alkemical]

I think your joking... right?

Nope,

I don't believe that oil is dino-juice. I believe oil is abiotic....

[TheDave]

Nope,

I don't believe that oil is dino-juice. I believe oil is abiotic....


What ever makes you comfortable

[alkemical]

What ever makes you comfortable


Have you done any research on abiotic oil?

Or are you just sticking with what makes you comfortable?

[TheDave]

Have you done any research on abiotic oil?

Or are you just sticking with what makes you comfortable?

Yes i have, and the idea of abiotic oil is groundless. All unrefined oil carries microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. All of these organisms can be traced through the fossil record. The abiotic theories state that oil is created through an inorganic process. Until someone shows me how how an organic compound is made in-organically i will continue to believe the other side.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Have you done any research on abiotic oil?

Or are you just sticking with what makes you comfortable?
It's irresponsible to assume an ever replenishing oil supply and continue our consumption habits based on that theory.



The future of the abiogenic theory

Apart from the Russian interest, active proponents of the abiogenic theory in the west have all but disappeared. Thomas Gold died in 2004, with apparently none of his students following up on his research. Conspiracist Joe Vialls [17] died in 2005. The passing of the torch may go to Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, author of "Black Gold Stranglehold", or Dr. Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation[18](see references). Nevertheless, the theory has received continued attention in the media and scientific organizations (note external links). One day of AAPG's 2005 conference was devoted to the subject, indicating serious professional interest [19].

http://tinyurl.com/alrad

[TheDave]

It's irresponsible to assume an ever replenishing oil supply and continue our consumption habits based on that theory.



The future of the abiogenic theory

Apart from the Russian interest, active proponents of the abiogenic theory in the west have all but disappeared. Thomas Gold died in 2004, with apparently none of his students following up on his research. Conspiracist Joe Vialls [17] died in 2005. The passing of the torch may go to Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, author of "Black Gold Stranglehold", or Dr. Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation[18](see references). Nevertheless, the theory has received continued attention in the media and scientific organizations (note external links). One day of AAPG's 2005 conference was devoted to the subject, indicating serious professional interest [19].

http://tinyurl.com/alrad

Even abiotic theories don't pretend that the earth replenishes oil at any where near the rate it is being used....

[alkemical]

NO, but i firmly believe that those companies whose job it is to make $$$, will only milk and pillage us until it runs out and then introduce the 'next' solution.

[Boogerboots]

Definition of Free Market Economy:

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

Definition of Collusion:

Collusion is an agreement between parties to refrain in participating in an activity that they normally would in order to reduce competition and gain higher profits.

So if all telephone companies decided that they are going to start charging $2 a minute for a long distance call to "maintain the networks" and "upgrade equipment", and make 75% more profit... would they be justified for such price gouging.

To me, these absurd profits that are being raked in by the oil giants signal a dire warning to all consumers. If "competitive" companies can hash out an arrangement to make more profit for themselves and work together, the government won't do anything to stop it.

To me if this can happen to Microsoft...

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-1027598.html


... then oil companies should be in the crosshairs right now.

[Meck77]

10 billion for 3 months work. Is that obscene or what :crazy:

---------------------------------------------------
By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

IRVING, Texas - Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books. The world's largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion in quarterly sales.

Net income ballooned to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 per share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year ago.

Excluding certain items, earnings were $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, versus $6.23 billion, or 96 cents per share, in the 2004 quarter.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, predicted earnings excluding items of $1.38 per share.

Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/d6bqp

I paid my fare share to these pricks. Damn them.

[alkemical]

Definition of Free Market Economy:

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

Definition of Collusion:

Collusion is an agreement between parties to refrain in participating in an activity that they normally would in order to reduce competition and gain higher profits.

So if all telephone companies decided that they are going to start charging $2 a minute for a long distance call to "maintain the networks" and "upgrade equipment", and make 75% more profit... would they be justified for such price gouging.

To me, these absurd profits that are being raked in by the oil giants signal a dire warning to all consumers. If "competitive" companies can hash out an arrangement to make more profit for themselves and work together, the government won't do anything to stop it.

To me if this can happen to Microsoft...

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-1027598.html


... then oil companies should be in the crosshairs right now.


The one thing though, is we are not in a free market.......

[Mile High Shack]

Definition of Free Market Economy:

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

Definition of Collusion:

Collusion is an agreement between parties to refrain in participating in an activity that they normally would in order to reduce competition and gain higher profits.

So if all telephone companies decided that they are going to start charging $2 a minute for a long distance call to "maintain the networks" and "upgrade equipment", and make 75% more profit... would they be justified for such price gouging.

To me, these absurd profits that are being raked in by the oil giants signal a dire warning to all consumers. If "competitive" companies can hash out an arrangement to make more profit for themselves and work together, the government won't do anything to stop it.

To me if this can happen to Microsoft...

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-1027598.html


... then oil companies should be in the crosshairs right now.

again

that is what I've been saying for a long time now

I believe in a free market economy, but what these pricks are doing isn't based on a freek market supply/demand economy

but price fixing and over inflation of dire straights and needs of natural disasters

[bendog]

We outta nationalize them and sell their ass to China.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Definition of Free Market Economy:

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

Definition of Collusion:

Collusion is an agreement between parties to refrain in participating in an activity that they normally would in order to reduce competition and gain higher profits.

So if all telephone companies decided that they are going to start charging $2 a minute for a long distance call to "maintain the networks" and "upgrade equipment", and make 75% more profit... would they be justified for such price gouging.

To me, these absurd profits that are being raked in by the oil giants signal a dire warning to all consumers. If "competitive" companies can hash out an arrangement to make more profit for themselves and work together, the government won't do anything to stop it.

To me if this can happen to Microsoft...

http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-1027598.html


... then oil companies should be in the crosshairs right now.


Hammer, nail, head. :thumbsup:

The only reason the oil companies aren't in the crosshairs ala Microsoft is because the oil companies own the current administration and are essentially writing their own legislation.

It's the "golden rule" in action.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

again

that is what I've been saying for a long time now

I believe in a free market economy, but what these pricks are doing isn't based on a freek market supply/demand economy

but price fixing and over inflation of dire straights and needs of natural disasters

A free market economy without regulation is like a football game with no rules and no refs.

And this is exactly the sort of scenario Team Chimp is creating for Big Oil and the rest of its corporate meal tickets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ricodog-57diff.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ricodog-poop-hs.jpg

[ak1971]

http://www.bartcop.com/ricodog-57diff.jpg
Im going to get ripped as a 'kool-aide drinker' for this. The Nasdaq was artificially inflated during the Clinton years due to the dot.com boom. They were printing shares on toilet paper, and 18 year old pimple faced kids were drinking cristal. P/Es were rediculous.....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Im going to get ripped as a 'kool-aide drinker' for this. The Nasdaq was artificially inflated during the Clinton years due to the dot.com boom. They were printing shares on toilet paper, and 18 year old pimple faced kids were drinking cristal. P/Es were rediculous.....

What about the DOW then, it's at the same level now as when Bush took office. One crystal clear fact between the 2 is Clinton didn't cut revenue and set all-time records for government spending.

[ak1971]

I was just refering to the chart. nothing else.

[patteeu]

I can always count on getting an overdose of stupid when I stop by OrangeMane and read a Broncos_Beerslug thread in the WRP forum.

There is nothing wrong with oil companies making a fair profit even if it is a record setting fair profit. There has been no evidence of inappropriate price fixing (i.e. the kind that requires active cooperation between firms) and these profit margins are well within US business norms. Yes, absolute profits increased dramatically, but so did costs. Exxon's $10 bil profits were on revenues of approx. $100 bil which means that their profit margin was roughly 10%. Is it unreasonable for a business to make 10 cents on the dollar? I don't think so. Are there lots of American businesses who make more than 10 cents on the dollar? Absolutely. Where is the evidence of collusion? What is a reasonable profit margin?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I can always count on getting an overdose of stupid when I stop by OrangeMane and read a Broncos_Beerslug thread in the WRP forum.

There is nothing wrong with oil companies making a fair profit even if it is a record setting fair profit. There has been no evidence of inappropriate price fixing (i.e. the kind that requires active cooperation between firms) and these profit margins are well within US business norms. Yes, absolute profits increased dramatically, but so did costs. Exxon's $10 bil profits were on revenues of approx. $100 bil which means that their profit margin was roughly 10%. Is it unreasonable for a business to make 10 cents on the dollar? I don't think so. Are there lots of American businesses who make more than 10 cents on the dollar? Absolutely. Where is the evidence of collusion? What is a reasonable profit margin?

Can always count on you to defend corporate rape of Americans. Of course, you didn't mention the part about republicans calling for legislation to reign in big oil and gas as winter approaches. (Care to guess on how many Americans have to choose between food and staying warm or die this year because they can't pay there heating bills?).

[patteeu]

Can always count on you to defend corporate rape of Americans. Of course, you didn't mention the part about republicans calling for legislation to reign in big oil and gas as winter approaches. (Care to guess on how many Americans have to choose between food and staying warm or die this year because they can't pay there heating bills?).

Republican demagoguery is no better than that of the democrats.

I don't play games with deathcounts, but no one will die because they have to choose between food and warmth in the US this winter. People may die because they make bad choices but not because they don't have better options available.

Do you care to respond to my two points regarding the oil industry's so-called price gouging?

1) There is no evidence of inappropriate collusion in the oil and gas industry, and

2) There is nothing wrong or out of line with a 10% profit margin

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Republican demagoguery is no better than that of the democrats.

I don't play games with deathcounts, but no one will die because they have to choose between food and warmth in the US this winter. People may die because they make bad choices but not because they don't have better options available.

Do you care to respond to my two points regarding the oil industry's so-called price gouging?

1) There is no evidence of inappropriate collusion in the oil and gas industry, and

2) There is nothing wrong or out of line with a 10% profit margin

You apparently don't recognize collusion when you see it (links and articles posted here many times showing big oil's successes at closing refineries and stopping refinery construction to raise margins).

10 billion dollars profit for 90 days by one company that provides a commodity that is the country's life blood is repugnant to most sane people. It also is NOT a free market when there are no other choices.

[patteeu]

You apparently don't recognize collusion when you see it (links and articles posted here many times showing big oil's successes at closing refineries and stopping refinery construction to raise margins).

The memos referred to in this thread are all internal memos AFAICT. There is nothing wrong with a company (as long as it isn't a monopoly) deciding, unilaterally, to cut production even if it's because they want the price to go up. Your complaint should be with the factors that prevent competitors from increasing their production to take advantage of the mismatch between supply and demand created by that decision.

If it's improper collusion, you have yet to make the case.

10 billion dollars profit for 90 days by one company that provides a commodity that is the country's life blood is repugnant to most sane people. It also is NOT a free market when there are no other choices.

What is repugnant to me is your aversion to capitalism and your desire to have mommy-government protect you from the big bad businessman. If you don't like high gas prices, stop buying gas. Exxon doesn't owe you a full tank.

[W*GS]

10 billion dollars profit for 90 days by one company that provides a commodity that is the country's life blood is repugnant to most sane people.

Why? What makes $10 billion/90d "repugnant" compared to $1 billion/90d or $10 billion/1 year?

It also is NOT a free market when there are no other choices.

And whose fault is that?

[alkemical]

What bothers me is the lack of alternatives -

For instance, i don't shop at wal*mart because i don't like their business practices. But if i don't like how the oil company does business, i'm sort of screwed no matter what. hell even oil is used to make plastic.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The memos referred to in this thread are all internal memos AFAICT. There is nothing wrong with a company (as long as it isn't a monopoly) deciding, unilaterally, to cut production even if it's because they want the price to go up. Your complaint should be with the factors that prevent competitors from increasing their production to take advantage of the mismatch between supply and demand created by that decision.

If it's improper collusion, you have yet to make the case.

What is repugnant to me is your aversion to capitalism and your desire to have mommy-government protect you from the big bad businessman. If you don't like high gas prices, stop buying gas. Exxon doesn't owe you a full tank.
Only an Bush fundamentalist would say something so stupid as stop buying gasoline when talking about not being able to heat homes because of big oil's monopoly on America's citizens.
What's really repugnant is your reading comprehension. Seen anywhere in any posts of mine where I called for the government to step in?

[patteeu]

Only an Bush fundamentalist would say something so stupid as stop buying gasoline when talking about not being able to heat homes because of big oil's monopoly on America's citizens.
What's really repugnant is your reading comprehension. Seen anywhere in any posts of mine where I called for the government to step in?

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with big oil's gasoline prices? Because if you are then I stand corrected on that narrow point.

Now stop whining about high energy prices and adapt. Big oil doesn't owe you one BTU.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are you saying that you don't have a problem with big oil's gasoline prices? Because if you are then I stand corrected on that narrow point.

Now stop whining about high energy prices and adapt. Big oil doesn't owe you one BTU.

I'm saying I have BIG problem with big oil gouging Americans! I didn't say I was in favor of windfall profit taxes. I want my taxes not to go to big oil as subsides but to research and development of alternative and renewable fuels.

[RaiderH8r]

The 5 year avg. profit margin for oil companies is in the single digits. On par with the NYSE avg. Easy there big shooters. It's not collusion, it's not gouging, it's simply supply and demand. I'm still befuddled as to how tree huggers see high gas prices as a problem. We're seeing demand destruction within the oil/gas commodity markets and prices have begun to drop as a result. WTF is the problem? Gimme, gimme, gimme, that's the problem.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The 5 year avg. profit margin for oil companies is in the single digits. On par with the NYSE avg. Easy there big shooters. It's not collusion, it's not gouging, it's simply supply and demand. I'm still befuddled as to how tree huggers see high gas prices as a problem. We're seeing demand destruction within the oil/gas commodity markets and prices have begun to drop as a result. WTF is the problem? Gimme, gimme, gimme, that's the problem.

I'm still befuddled why you're calling republicans "treehuggers".

[RaiderH8r]

I'm still befuddled why you're calling republicans "treehuggers".
Why is the anti resource development crowd disturbed by high oil and natural gas prices?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can always count on you to defend corporate rape of Americans.

Disturbing, isn't it?

It's as if patteeu and his Kool-Aid guzzling, anti-democracy, pro-corporatocracy buddies enjoy taking it in the tailpipe for the dry drunk's Big Oil donors.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why is the anti resource development crowd disturbed by high oil and natural gas prices?

Because it turns out that the high prices are, in no small measure, the result of supply manipulation by the producers - not due to the influence of the "anti resource development crowd."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why is the anti resource development crowd disturbed by high oil and natural gas prices?

The previously documented efforts by the major oil companies to intentionally limit refining capacity in order to drive up prices makes them the "anti resource development crowd."

Therefore, raiderH8r, by dint of his unconditional support for Big Oil, is also a member of the "anti resource development crowd."

[patteeu]

Because it turns out that the high prices are, in no small measure, the result of supply manipulation by the producers - not due to the influence of the "anti resource development crowd."

Supply manipulation won't work if your competitors are free to increase their production. Unfortunately in the case of the oil industry, democrat special interest groups have done a good job of preventing that from happening.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Supply manipulation won't work if your competitors are free to increase their production. Unfortunately in the case of the oil industry, democrat special interest groups have done a good job of preventing that from happening.

Another crock of :bs:

The major players have all deliberately avoided increasing production - they haven't been prevented from doing so by "democrat special interest groups" as you claim.

The article documenting these companies' efforts to restrict their own refining capacity makes this clear.

[patteeu]

Another crock of :bs:

The major players have all deliberately avoided increasing production - they haven't been prevented from doing so by "democrat special interest groups" as you claim.

The article documenting these companies' efforts to restrict their own refining capacity makes this clear.

Just to pick the most obvious example, let's examine ANWR. Who is keeping the oil companies from drilling in ANWR? That's right, democrat special interest groups.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who is keeping the oil companies from drilling in ANWR?

The oil companies themselves - probably because they've done cost/benefit analyses and they realize that, even if the most optimistic estimates re: the number of barrels of recoverable oil are correct, drilling it still isn't sufficiently profitable, given the net energy equation.

That's right, democrat special interest groups.

Bzzzzt!

Another incorrect answer.

[patteeu]

The oil companies themselves - probably because they've done cost/benefit analyses and they realize that, even if the most optimistic estimates re: the number of barrels of recoverable oil are correct, drilling it still isn't sufficiently profitable, given the net energy equation.



Bzzzzt!

Another incorrect answer.

Does the sun rise in the west in your topsy-turvey world?

[BroncoInferno]

The 5 year avg. profit margin for oil companies is in the single digits. On par with the NYSE avg. Easy there big shooters. It's not collusion, it's not gouging, it's simply supply and demand. I'm still befuddled as to how tree huggers see high gas prices as a problem. We're seeing demand destruction within the oil/gas commodity markets and prices have begun to drop as a result. WTF is the problem? Gimme, gimme, gimme, that's the problem.

I couldn't agree more. As a tree hugger myself, I see the oil prices as a great opportunity to start getting Americans to act in their own best interests and start weening ourselves off the **** now that it is hurting their wallets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Does the sun rise in the west in your topsy-turvey world?

Translation:

"I can't deny what he just said about ANWR, so I guess my only recourse is to respond with an ad hominem and pretend I won the debate."

BTW, the idea of a member of that ever-shrinking, delusional, fringe minority who still defend the cesspool of corruption that is Smirk & Sneer misadministration characterizing someone else's world as "topsy-turvey" is just too hysterical for words! rofl ROFL!

[patteeu]

Translation:

"I can't deny what he just said about ANWR, so I guess my only recourse is to respond with an ad hominem and pretend I won the debate."

BTW, the idea of a member of that ever-shrinking, delusional, fringe minority who still defend the cesspool of corruption that is Smirk & Sneer misadministration characterizing someone else's world as "topsy-turvey" is just too hysterical for words! rofl ROFL!

No, I denied it in the same way you denied what I said about ANWR except I didn't have to lie to do it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just to pick the most obvious example, let's examine ANWR. Who is keeping the oil companies from drilling in ANWR?

God? I mean aren't conservatives big on divine intervention?

[patteeu]

God? I mean aren't conservatives big on divine intervention?

Sadly, your lame joke posts are more interesting than your fact-challenged serious ones.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sadly, your lame joke posts are more interesting than your fact-challenged serious ones.
If that were true you would ignore them but knowing how big of a Bush backer you are I understand how gray your world is when the truth is involved.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I denied it in the same way you denied what I said about ANWR except I didn't have to lie to do it.

You lied twice - once in your original statement and once in your sleazy attempt to accuse me of doing what you just did.

Now, what part of what I said about the estimates re: recoverable oil in ANWR, the cost/benefit analysis, and the net energy equation do you claim to be a lie?

I'll even give you a couple of hints before you pull up Google:

1) How many barrels of oil can be recovered from ANWR? (The liberal estimate.)

2) How many barrels of oil per year does the U.S. consume?

[RaiderH8r]

The oil companies themselves - probably because they've done cost/benefit analyses and they realize that, even if the most optimistic estimates re: the number of barrels of recoverable oil are correct, drilling it still isn't sufficiently profitable, given the net energy equation.



Bzzzzt!

Another incorrect answer.
Oil companies fight tooth and nail to open more lands to e&p. The offshore moratoria and federal clamp down on access have contributed heavily to the supply shortages we're seeing.

However, since you didn't take the time to read it the first time I'll say it again. Oil company profit margins for a five year average are on par with the rest of the economy. Additionally, we're seeing demand destruction, meaning people aren't buying gas at $3.50/gal and the price has subsequently adjusted itself downwards to around a $2.60/gal national average.

What people fail to mention is that during the glut of the 90's where the price of crude bottomed out the majors were taking major losses. The equation may not produce a price you like, but it will correct itself. Leave it alone.

Furthermore, the higher prices have produced a more energy conscious and energy conservative nation. People are looking now to alternatives and not making the extra drive down the street so to speak. People are scaling back on their SUVs again demonstrating that the market will work. People will find what best suits their own needs without some federal autocracy imposing its will upon them.

[W*GS]

An oily slope
Nov 3rd 2005
From The Economist print edition

Governments should not seize companies' “excess” profits

http://www.economist.com/images/20051105/CLD786.gif

“Oi companies have failed to tell us and show us what they are doing with these profits that justify them.” With those angry words a Republican senator, Pete Domenici, demanded this week that the bosses of big oil companies testify in front of Congress—a challenge likely to be accepted by Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil (which had just posted record third-quarter profits of nearly $10 billion). Other oil bosses are expected to fly into Washington, DC, next week for what is sure to be the most popular political roasting of corporate chiefs since tobacco bosses were summoned to Congress a few years ago.

Given popular anger over high energy prices, including for heating fuels as winter approaches, it is understandable that politicians want to be seen to be doing something. Unfortunately, the current populist frenzy has produced one really bad idea: the proposal, now being mooted seriously in Britain and America, for a windfall tax on oil companies' profits.

Surely it is no bad thing to grab excess profits on a one-off basis? After all, it raises unanticipated revenues. Windfall taxes might even bring a grim smile of satisfaction to voters' faces. But where should you stop? Why not take a swipe at over-paid hedge-fund managers, sports stars and sundry billionaires as well? Why not slap a tax on farmers if they benefit from a bumper harvest? How about a tax on Apple, which cannot sell its iPods fast enough?

Sadly for politicians, windfall taxes do cause harm. If they want to be trusted and effective, governments cannot go around arbitrarily grabbing legally earned money from successful companies or citizens—they grab plenty already in ways that people and firms can adapt to. And although windfall taxes do indeed bring in short-term revenues, they do significant harm because they distort long-term incentives. Worse, they purport to be able to distinguish between a healthy level of profits and an “excessive” one—something specialist antitrust authorities, not greedy governments, are best placed to judge. In the case of the oil industry, for example, one official investigation after another has failed to prove that consumers are the victims of price gouging at the petrol pump. Rather, prices are set in world trade and by the manipulative efforts of the OPEC cartel.

It is true, however, that oil companies have been happy to ride OPEC's coat-tails. That is why it is in their own interest to meet Senator Domenici's challenge. They need to give a good, public explanation of how they intend to use the overflowing coffers that have resulted from high prices. They should argue that the most pernicious effect of windfall taxes is to dampen future investment and thereby raise prices in the long run. The oil business is cyclical. It also has long lead times, so that today's profits would not be possible without investments made many years ago. A windfall tax would discourage capital investment in risky new oil and gas fields in non-OPEC countries just at a time when western oil companies, still recovering from the cost-cutting caused by the collapse of oil prices (and profits) in 1998, urgently need to begin a new cycle of upstream investment. If non-OPEC production were to stagnate or decline, that would simply increase the market power of OPEC, making it more likely that prices will stay high.

Tax demands

If their interest is in energy policy rather than mere tax-gouging, politicians should address the demand side of oil, not the suppliers. This is particularly true in America, which guzzles far more energy per unit of economic output than its OECD rivals, and where vehicle fuel-efficiency is close to a 20-year low. A bipartisan group of legislators has just introduced a bill to tighten America's fuel-economy law for cars. Even better would be the embrace of an economy-wide carbon tax—a simple, elegant and economically efficient way to reduce energy use and to spur all manner of alternatives to oil (see article). Failing that, why not further raise taxes on consumption? Or make serious efforts to bolster energy-efficiency and conservation? Such humdrum measures may not produce a juicy televised grilling of fat-cat oil bosses. But unlike a windfall tax they might actually do some good.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[bendog]

I'd agree with the last para, though the gop successfuly kept the WJC admin from even trying to change policy. I disagree that a short term windfall tax wouldn't do any good. It could pay for hurricane rebuilding w/o deficit spending.

[Mile High Shack]

I'd agree with the last para, though the gop successfuly kept the WJC admin from even trying to change policy. I disagree that a short term windfall tax wouldn't do any good. It could pay for hurricane rebuilding w/o deficit spending.

that is the only way I'd go for it

my gripe is...big oil is manipulating the market...so we shouldn't try to manipulate it back, but simply force them to play fair

[alkemical]

If we have a minimum wage, should we have a maximum wage?

[patteeu]

You lied twice - once in your original statement and once in your sleazy attempt to accuse me of doing what you just did.

Now, what part of what I said about the estimates re: recoverable oil in ANWR, the cost/benefit analysis, and the net energy equation do you claim to be a lie?

I'll even give you a couple of hints before you pull up Google:

1) How many barrels of oil can be recovered from ANWR? (The liberal estimate.)

2) How many barrels of oil per year does the U.S. consume?


The obstacle to drilling comes from democrats and their interest groups, you'll have to do more than ask a couple of irrelevant questions to dispute this.

[patteeu]

that is the only way I'd go for it

my gripe is...big oil is manipulating the market...so we shouldn't try to manipulate it back, but simply force them to play fair

If you want to be upset about manipulation in the oil market, your attention should be fixed on OPEC not on domestic oil companies. That's where the collusion occurs.

The domestic oil companies are reporting fair profits that are in line with profits made by the broadly defined US business community.

[bendog]

Not to bag on him, in all sincerity, but it's sort of amusing to see Wags whom I believe more closely identifies himself as a libertarian posting an article asserting that the govt should manipulate a market. I agree with him, btw.

And as to profits, it seems to me that xom is trading way low on P/E compared to other industry leaders.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=xom

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ge

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PFE

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SO

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AIG

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IBM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=QCOM

[W*GS]

If we have a minimum wage, should we have a maximum wage?

Set by whom, and how?

[W*GS]

Not to bag on him, in all sincerity, but it's sort of amusing to see Wags whom I believe more closely identifies himself as a libertarian posting an article asserting that the govt should manipulate a market. I agree with him, btw.

A carbon tax or other taxation on oil consumption are very non-libertarian, true. I'd prefer ending the direct and indirect subsidies the oil industry enjoys.

I think a $4/gallon tax on gasoline, as anti-libertarian as that is, is a step in the right direction.

[bendog]

A carbon tax or other taxation on oil consumption are very non-libertarian, true. I'd prefer ending the direct and indirect subsidies the oil industry enjoys.

I think a $4/gallon tax on gasoline, as anti-libertarian as that is, is a step in the right direction.
The tax thing isn't one of my favorites as it would hit the poor and esp rural poor the most. Another irony is that poorer people tend to buy used cars, and if we imposed stricter mpg requirements, they too would be hit, but even so, the mpg requirements seem to me to be the best. However, upwardly mobile suburbanites aren't fond of them.

Subsidies ... yeah.

I'd really be anti-windfall profits tax IF the oil companies put the windfalls into research.

Another idea off the top of my head would be to impose the tax and then use the money to build an new electric grid so wind could be more efficiently utilized.

[bendog]

thinking of profits, I saw this. I was attracted because I have a battle with Little Girl Dog about some of the stuff in this store.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051106/us_nm/retail_abercrombiefitch_dc

[alkemical]

Set by whom, and how?


Well w*gs - I'd say that it should be setup by the DOL ala the min. wage.

I mean, i worked for hershey foods they stated they couldn't pay for benifits for employees, yet the CEO makes $10mil a year - not to mention all of the parachutes that he has, etc -

So why not make a max. wage for people - i mean how much is enough?

[RaiderH8r]

The tax thing isn't one of my favorites as it would hit the poor and esp rural poor the most. Another irony is that poorer people tend to buy used cars, and if we imposed stricter mpg requirements, they too would be hit, but even so, the mpg requirements seem to me to be the best. However, upwardly mobile suburbanites aren't fond of them.

Subsidies ... yeah.

I'd really be anti-windfall profits tax IF the oil companies put the windfalls into research.

Another idea off the top of my head would be to impose the tax and then use the money to build an new electric grid so wind could be more efficiently utilized.
A study by JS Herold shows that independent domestic producers plow back 150% of their capital. Meaning, the use profits plus loans to expand their operations and produce more.

Windfall profits taxation is a punitive measure for PERCEIVED wrongdoing. No wrong doing has been factually demonstrated to the DOJ or any municipal, state or federal court in the US. The 5 yr. averages for profit for Exxon, Conoco, etc are on par with the rest of publicly traded entities. This is nothing more than a matter of perception.

Does a WPT do anything but take away working capital for R&D? No. Should Gov. be in the business of telling citizens and companies how they should spend their $? No. Should Gov. incentivize the tax structure to make it more profitable for companies to engage in what Congress has deemed best available practices? Open for debate.

[RaiderH8r]

Well w*gs - I'd say that it should be setup by the DOL ala the min. wage.

I mean, i worked for hershey foods they stated they couldn't pay for benifits for employees, yet the CEO makes $10mil a year - not to mention all of the parachutes that he has, etc -

So why not make a max. wage for people - i mean how much is enough?
It's never enough. Why should it be necessary to punish those who succeed?

[alkemical]

It's never enough. Why should it be necessary to punish those who succeed?


why is it necessary for those companies to punish their workers by removing benifits and pay, when the guys at the top are clearly making enough?

How is it fair to some factory worker that they remove pay when the people at the top make more than enough by telling them the company doesn't have the money to pay benifits when the guys at the top are making millions? That's like Lattrell sprewell and TO saying they are struggling to feed their kids on $7mil+ a year

[RaiderH8r]

why is it necessary for those companies to punish their workers by removing benifits and pay, when the guys at the top are clearly making enough?

How is it fair to some factory worker that they remove pay when the people at the top make more than enough by telling them the company doesn't have the money to pay benifits when the guys at the top are making millions? That's like Lattrell sprewell and TO saying they are struggling to feed their kids on $7mil+ a year
Life is not fair and no government policy will ever change that. Become a resource within the job market and your services will be sought after. Become an easily replaced automaton and you will be in no position to demand a good wage or benefit package. Fare is what you pay to ride a bus. Life is not fair.

If you are an asset to the company and make money instead of collecting a check for services you can demand more. Make the case for yourself. Christ I'm sick of working to support those who can't just get the job done.

[bendog]

Fair is how we define it, e.g. how fair we politically decide to make wages.

[alkemical]

Life is not fair and no government policy will ever change that. Become a resource within the job market and your services will be sought after. Become an easily replaced automaton and you will be in no position to demand a good wage or benefit package. Fare is what you pay to ride a bus. Life is not fair.


LOL - you are missing the point. See since you don't understand the bigger picture - let me lay it out for you -

Hershey (as an example) - has bought a mexican candy company - everyone was wondering why they bought a mexican candy company. It wasn't for tamarin flavoured candy i can tell you that. It was to open production in mexico to make hershey's chocolate, which in turn is going to start shifting jobs from hershey PA to mexico.

Thus, the company is going to kill the labor market in central pa. Now with all this talk of outsourcing jobs, etc - this is a big deal - a huge deal.

But since you are for greed, and by your posts do not believe in workers rights or even being treated fairly by employers, you obviously haven't had your share of companies screwing you on pay (as in not paying you), or have you had to deal with other issues in the labour market that are equally important.

So until you've had to deal with these issues - in your otherwise suburban world - you can kindly STFU.

Good Day

[RaiderH8r]

Fair is how we define it, e.g. how fair we politically decide to make wages.
Minimum wages is one of the great boondoggles. Go ahead and raise min. wage to $100/hr. No matter how high you make it it will always be MINIMUM WAGE. The lowest wage one can conceivably live on. Costs of living will go up to compensate for that wage hike and, when corrected, minimum wage earners will be back to the bottom of the wage scale begging for another bump. I guess it's the only way some of these cretins can get a raise. HA!

[RaiderH8r]

LOL - you are missing the point. See since you don't understand the bigger picture - let me lay it out for you -

Hershey (as an example) - has bought a mexican candy company - everyone was wondering why they bought a mexican candy company. It wasn't for tamarin flavoured candy i can tell you that. It was to open production in mexico to make hershey's chocolate, which in turn is going to start shifting jobs from hershey PA to mexico.

Thus, the company is going to kill the labor market in central pa. Now with all this talk of outsourcing jobs, etc - this is a big deal - a huge deal.

But since you are for greed, and by your posts do not believe in workers rights or even being treated fairly by employers, you obviously haven't had your share of companies screwing you on pay (as in not paying you), or have you had to deal with other issues in the labour market that are equally important.

So until you've had to deal with these issues - in your otherwise suburban world - you can kindly STFU.

Good Day
So a more favorable corporate tax climate and competitive wage won out. What's the problem? You mean to tell me the poor in Mexico are somehow better off than the poor here? What a joke. US labor needs to realize people will only pay so much for a Hershey bar. Price of labor goes up, cost to produce goes up, cost to consumer goes up. Consumer decides cost is too high and doesn't buy, Hershey is stuck with an overpriced labor force and 5 tons of candy bars. The close up shop and nobody has a job, not even in Mexico. So they're to commit corporate suicide in an effort to keep overpaid nincompoops happy?

You can't tell me that in all of your otherwise sage-like worldly travels you've never once stumbled upon this concept? Perhaps you have and your solution is to have others coddle and spoon feed the cretins through life.

[alkemical]

So a more favorable corporate tax climate and competitive wage won out. What's the problem? You mean to tell me the poor in Mexico are somehow better off than the poor here? What a joke. US labor needs to realize people will only pay so much for a Hershey bar. Price of labor goes up, cost to produce goes up, cost to consumer goes up. Consumer decides cost is too high and doesn't buy, Hershey is stuck with an overpriced labor force and 5 tons of candy bars. The close up shop and nobody has a job, not even in Mexico. So they're to commit corporate suicide in an effort to keep overpaid nincompoops happy?

You can't tell me that in all of your otherwise sage-like worldly travels you've never once stumbled upon this concept? Perhaps you have and your solution is to have others coddle and spoon feed the cretins through life.

I think employers need to be fair to their workers. But you don't/won't understand that concept, so there is no need to discuss it with you....

And unless a candy bar it $3 a candy bar, people would still buy it - chocolate is a vice and people will always spend $$$ on drugs, smokes, alcohol and candy -

But since i've worked for hershey and know how much money they make and all of the products they make - you are uninformed and don't realize that a CEO doesn't need to make $10mil a year - he could make $5mil a year and the workers could keep their benifits - a wage freeze or slowing i could agree with -

but again - i'm talking to an uniformed person when it comes to this one example.

[RaiderH8r]

I think employers need to be fair to their workers. But you don't/won't understand that concept, so there is no need to discuss it with you....

And unless a candy bar it $3 a candy bar, people would still buy it - chocolate is a vice and people will always spend $$$ on drugs, smokes, alcohol and candy -

But since i've worked for hershey and know how much money they make and all of the products they make - you are uninformed and don't realize that a CEO doesn't need to make $10mil a year - he could make $5mil a year and the workers could keep their benifits - a wage freeze or slowing i could agree with -

but again - i'm talking to an uniformed person when it comes to this one example.
Why is it the CEO's obligation to coddle his workforce through life?

[alkemical]

Why is it the CEO's obligation to coddle his workforce through life?


Why does the CEO have to be so greedy to squash his workers when they earn him that 10mil a year?

[Mile High Shack]

Why is it the CEO's obligation to coddle his workforce through life?

well, I don't like socialism

but when a company does bad, there is no point in a CEO earning that kind of jack

nor is there a point in downsizing the workforce and the CEO not take a massive pay cut himself

[RaiderH8r]

well, I don't like socialism

but when a company does bad, there is no point in a CEO earning that kind of jack

nor is there a point in downsizing the workforce and the CEO not take a massive pay cut himself
At the end of all analysis it's easier to find a pump jockey than a President. That's why the pump jockey will always get screwed...always.

Companies that tank while the CEO is making bank is an issue to be resolved by the company. A national policy based on individual problems makes no sense and does nothing to encourage growth.

[RaiderH8r]

Why does the CEO have to be so greedy to squash his workers when they earn him that 10mil a year?
Could it also be true that the CEO's policies and ideas had created the framework for the company to make the money in the first place. You can always find someone to man machine 15, the Chocolator. It's tougher to find a guy who can administer a workforce, set policies and direction, and make the company a success. The guy on the chocolator is a lot more expendable.

[alkemical]

At the end of all analysis it's easier to find a pump jockey than a President. That's why the pump jockey will always get screwed...always.


See that's where you are wrong - it's not just the people at the bottom that are getting pinched, it's everyone but those at the top.

I just feel that if you remove min. wage - they the pay will drop to less than what it is now - so if you have to have a bar set on how little to pay people, then you should have a bar set on how much people can get paid. I first and formost think it should be applied to public servents. I don't think any public servant should earn over $60k/yr - and i actually think it should be tied to the avg wage of americans (which i read was around $16.50/hr) -

[RaiderH8r]

See that's where you are wrong - it's not just the people at the bottom that are getting pinched, it's everyone but those at the top.

I just feel that if you remove min. wage - they the pay will drop to less than what it is now - so if you have to have a bar set on how little to pay people, then you should have a bar set on how much people can get paid. I first and formost think it should be applied to public servents. I don't think any public servant should earn over $60k/yr - and i actually think it should be tied to the avg wage of americans (which i read was around $16.50/hr) -
Then what would be the incentive for anyone to achieve? If you look at yourself and say, "No matter what, from now on this is the best I'll ever do." Why would any person endeavor to do more?

[alkemical]

Could it also be true that the CEO's policies and ideas had created the framework for the company to make the money in the first place. You can always find someone to man machine 15, the Chocolator. It's tougher to find a guy who can administer a workforce, set policies and direction, and make the company a success. The guy on the chocolator is a lot more expendable.


Well let me tell you something about hershey -

Their IT dept. is almost all contractors, and they sent out a memo stating "that contractors are not people" - So when i asked my contracting house for more $$$ (worked 1yr, never missed a day, worked a crappy shift with no complaint) they stated "money doesn't buy happiness". Well i quit and took a job doing level2 sun support at $10/hr (which is crap $$$) - but i knew doing Sun support would grant me more $$$ in the long run. Well i quit and then i find out that 2/3's of the desktop support area i was in quit. Then their sales peoples #'s go down because they didn't have the people who where there and familiar with the support - they recieved worse workers because the pay was even lower than when i got hired at hershey - Not to mention they take 50% of your contract - (example you make $15/hr they make $15/hr off of you) - this is what i mean by fairness. What would it have hurt them to give me an extra $1-$2/hr when i'm paying $300 a month for health insurance?

So you get what you pay for -

For instance when i was getting paid $10/hr to do level 2 sun support, i didn't give a shiate about that place. I showed up on time, took my alloted breaks - but didn't volunteer any extra.

i'm at a place down doing mainframe stuff - and i'm getting paid $10/hr more than what i wanted - and sure enough - i stay late, i do training for people - i go the extra mile -

[alkemical]

Then what would be the incentive for anyone to achieve? If you look at yourself and say, "No matter what, from now on this is the best I'll ever do." Why would any person endeavor to do more?


So the only motivation is greed?

I'm looking at buying a bookstore - it won't make a ton of money but enough that i can live above the store and be comfortable - i'd probably be taking a pay cut than what i make now in the IT field.......

If motivation is tied to greed - no wonder this country is going down hill.

[RaiderH8r]

So the only motivation is greed?

I'm looking at buying a bookstore - it won't make a ton of money but enough that i can live above the store and be comfortable - i'd probably be taking a pay cut than what i make now in the IT field.......

If motivation is tied to greed - no wonder this country is going down hill.
Then you have established, in your mind, a job that would fulfill your needs and make you happy. Why not let others come to their own conclusions?

And yes, you do get what you pay for. The workplace is as fluid as ever. Always changing. The old man gave me some advice long ago that is true today. Go to work, get your first check. After that, nobody owes the other a thing. Have your resume' handy at all times and nice stash of "fvck you" money squirreled away.

Motivation has always been tied to greed. Motivation starts with the words, "I want..." Same goes for innovation, "We want ..."

[alkemical]

Then you have established, in your mind, a job that would fulfill your needs and make you happy. Why not let others come to their own conclusions?

And yes, you do get what you pay for. The workplace is as fluid as ever. Always changing. The old man gave me some advice long ago that is true today. Go to work, get your first check. After that, nobody owes the other a thing. Have your resume' handy at all times and nice stash of "fvck you" money squirreled away.

Well unions are going to make a comeback if this keeps up for long - I'd like to get an IT union started - this crap of where they make you mgmt when you aren't really mgmt so they can dick you out of OT pay is stupid - i'm glad i'm paid hrly in this case -

Motivation isn't greed - i want to be a really really good drummer - but it isn't greed - it's just that i want to be a good drummer.

Besides for those that are tied to monetary gain - i feel sorry - because enough is never enough - which is the same for power and money.

[RaiderH8r]

Well unions are going to make a comeback if this keeps up for long - I'd like to get an IT union started - this crap of where they make you mgmt when you aren't really mgmt so they can dick you out of OT pay is stupid - i'm glad i'm paid hrly in this case -

Motivation isn't greed - i want to be a really really good drummer - but it isn't greed - it's just that i want to be a good drummer.

Besides for those that are tied to monetary gain - i feel sorry - because enough is never enough - which is the same for power and money.
How do you measure being a good drummer? We've all got our measures and standards we set, some choose money and power.

[alkemical]

How do you measure being a good drummer? We've all got our measures and standards we set, some choose money and power.


By my own level of competence is how i measure being a good drummer -

If you choose money and power - then you have a hole in your soul - and nothign will ever fill that hole and you will rape and pillage people just to get your own satisfaction out of life - thus doing wrong - and it will always come back on you....

[alkemical]

Not to mention - why is it ok for the CEO's to be so spend thrift with company monies?

Another company i worked for - due to my youth - I did not know who mike milken was - had mike milken as our venture capitalist - then 8mo later they lay off 300 people because they have no money - meanwhile the CEO/VP's are all driving new bimmers & mercede's - basically stealing the money that was set to make the company profitible for their own use and abuse.....

[RaiderH8r]

By my own level of competence is how i measure being a good drummer -

If you choose money and power - then you have a hole in your soul - and nothign will ever fill that hole and you will rape and pillage people just to get your own satisfaction out of life - thus doing wrong - and it will always come back on you....
It's a good thing I don't measure my success by money and power then. But I also recognize that of all the things I would like to do in my short life, money is required in almost every single facet of each of them.

For example, did you, or will you, purchase a drum set?

I just resent the fact that some feel it necessary to villify me for the monetary success I've enjoyed in my life. I'm not rich, but I'm not scraping by either. But I've done it with a proud work ethic and relying on good ol' number 1 to get by. I've worked hard to earn what I have and I'll work damn hard to ensure that it is not easily taken from me as well.

[RaiderH8r]

Not to mention - why is it ok for the CEO's to be so spend thrift with company monies?

Another company i worked for - due to my youth - I did not know who mike milken was - had mike milken as our venture capitalist - then 8mo later they lay off 300 people because they have no money - meanwhile the CEO/VP's are all driving new bimmers & mercede's - basically stealing the money that was set to make the company profitible for their own use and abuse.....
That's a matter for the company, the department of justice and the SEC to deal with .

[alkemical]

It's a good thing I don't measure my success by money and power then. But I also recognize that of all the things I would like to do in my short life, money is required in almost every single facet of each of them.

For example, did you, or will you, purchase a drum set?

I just resent the fact that some feel it necessary to villify me for the monetary success I've enjoyed in my life. I'm not rich, but I'm not scraping by either. But I've done it with a proud work ethic and relying on good ol' number 1 to get by. I've worked hard to earn what I have and I'll work damn hard to ensure that it is not easily taken from me as well.

I've bought my drum set with work that i've done under the table to escape the IRS via my computer skills and my work doing plumbing and home remodeling - I understand about $$$ - but i feel that there has to be a level where enough is enough - and screwing an honest person out of a fair deal should not be tolerated. it's like taxes in this country - an argument could be made that our gov'ts exessive taxing is not 'coddeling' our citizens -

[RaiderH8r]

I've bought my drum set with work that i've done under the table to escape the IRS via my computer skills and my work doing plumbing and home remodeling - I understand about $$$ - but i feel that there has to be a level where enough is enough - and screwing an honest person out of a fair deal should not be tolerated. it's like taxes in this country - an argument could be made that our gov'ts exessive taxing is not 'coddeling' our citizens -
Well you've traded goods for services. And really that's all money is except it gives one the option of what goods to purchase for their services. Screwing an honest deal should not, and is not tolerated. Laws and regulations exist. Penalties exist for breaking laws and regulations.

Enough is enough is something each person must decide for themselves. They should be allowed to work as hard and earn as much as they like. There are consequences to this course of action as well. But as individuals we should be allowed to understand our options, evaluate the consequences and benefits of each course of action and move forward based on what is good for ourselves within the context of the law. If such a person earns what others perceive as an excessive amount of money why is that a problem outside of one of perception?

And taxation is coddling, but if you can rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul's support. How is that a fair deal? Sure everyone needs a hand from time to time to bridge the gap. But accepting failure, doing nothing to rectify one's life, and then b!tching that I make too much money will not earn my sympathy or my assistance.

[alkemical]

Well you've traded goods for services. And really that's all money is except it gives one the option of what goods to purchase for their services. Screwing an honest deal should not, and is not tolerated. Laws and regulations exist. Penalties exist for breaking laws and regulations.

Enough is enough is something each person must decide for themselves. They should be allowed to work as hard and earn as much as they like. There are consequences to this course of action as well. But as individuals we should be allowed to understand our options, evaluate the consequences and benefits of each course of action and move forward based on what is good for ourselves within the context of the law. If such a person earns what others perceive as an excessive amount of money why is that a problem outside of one of perception?

And taxation is coddling, but if you can rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul's support. How is that a fair deal? Sure everyone needs a hand from time to time to bridge the gap. But accepting failure, doing nothing to rectify one's life, and then b!tching that I make too much money will not earn my sympathy or my assistance.


Well if you are making $10mil a year and saying you can't afford to pay your people - meanwhile you could - you'd rather just pay mexicans less and make an inferior product - then i'd say it -

now this is where i'm going to bite you on taxation - when taxing peter to pay paul who votes himself a payraise and loots for their own gain - this is where the problem is - See the politicians guile is into thinking it's all welfare - etc - playing class warfare amongst the voting electorate - meanwhile - you should see the perks and benifits lawmakers and judges recieve - it's outrageous -

I firmly believe in a quasi-libertarian world - i believe that there should be a form of welfare, but it should be limited to X yrs - and you must go to some sort of school/trade while on it - then when your 'schooling' is complete - you can either work for a company or go work for the state/fed gov't in some capacity -

But then i'm also anti-public school - so i'm also against property taxes - etc -

actually if i could just pay consumption taxes - i'd be fine - as long as i made a fair deal (When i do stuff under the table, there is a rate - it depends on what i'm doing and what i get out of it, for instance i've done computer work for people for dinner - baring that it only was 2hrs or so, anything more and i need $$$)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Life is not fair and no government policy will ever change that.

There will probably always be winners and losers, but the role of government in a democratic republic is to do as good a job of maintaining a level playing field as possible. Without it, you are left with pure socioeconomic Darwinism.

Arguing that government shouldn't regulate big business is like arguing that football should have no rules and no refs.

[W*GS]

Well w*gs - I'd say that it should be setup by the DOL ala the min. wage.

How would a maximum wage be defined? Would different jobs have different maximum wages?

So why not make a max. wage for people - i mean how much is enough?

You tell us.

The practical problems alone should stop the idea - never mind the moral problems. I'll leave it at those who are doing the paying making the decision on what the person being paid should make.

[W*GS]

There will probably always be winners and losers, but the role of government in a democratic republic is to do as good a job of maintaining a level playing field as possible.

Explain. Provide some examples.

Without it, you are left with pure socioeconomic Darwinism.

With too much of it, you have totalitarian tyranny - Cuba and North Korea come to mind.

Arguing that government shouldn't regulate big business is like arguing that football should have no rules and no refs.

Since there are no anarchists here, you're not arguing with anyone.

Besides, it's not just the government that can change how a business behaves. Remember New Coke? Was there a law that said Coca-Cola couldn't abandon Coke Classic, and that's why it's available?

You seem to argue that only government can regulate the market (and I intentionally do not limit my argument to "big business", since there's far more to the system than MegaCorp Inc., despite it being your favorite target) - competitors and consumers do a pretty damned good job of keeping businesses playing the game straight.

[RaiderH8r]

There will probably always be winners and losers, but the role of government in a democratic republic is to do as good a job of maintaining a level playing field as possible. Without it, you are left with pure socioeconomic Darwinism.

Arguing that government shouldn't regulate big business is like arguing that football should have no rules and no refs.
What's being proposed is not a level playing field, they are punitive measures in the form of taxation to mete out some sense of BS justice for nothing more than a perceived wrong doing. Imagine the temerity of a company making profits, what next?

[bendog]

I was listening to NPR driving home last night, and they had a piece on real estate agent's commissions. We prolly all know the standard commission in 6%, typically paid by seller. But as the piece pointed out, with the real estate market, homes that were 200K are often 400K, and ironically it's actually LESS work for agents now because of the net, and that they don't do as much driving potential buyers around to see houses.

In this market, there's competition with more agents every year, but apparantly there are structural problems to "cut rate agents." Some states actually have laws/regs mandating no lower than the 6% commission. And, the overall Real Estate Agent assoicaiton, or whatever it's name was, has control over the actual internet listing that it's members put on, and it was trying to not let cut rate agents have access.

Apparantly the anti-trust unit at DOJ is sniffing around, but the agent's lobbyists are rich and powerful

[alkemical]

How would a maximum wage be defined? Would different jobs have different maximum wages?



You tell us.

The practical problems alone should stop the idea - never mind the moral problems. I'll leave it at those who are doing the paying making the decision on what the person being paid should make.


Well how do they define the min. wage? I see no difference in the maximum wage setting. For instance, a CEO should have a cap on salary.... as should any public servent. I mean there's a cap on how much i can make - it's not limitless....

[W*GS]

Well how do they define the min. wage? I see no difference in the maximum wage setting. For instance, a CEO should have a cap on salary.... as should any public servent.

A CEO is a public servant?

I strongly disagree.

I mean there's a cap on how much i can make - it's not limitless....

So there is a maximum wage for your job - why is there a need for a law specifying it?

[alkemical]

A CEO is a public servant?

I strongly disagree.



So there is a maximum wage for your job - why is there a need for a law specifying it?


Uhhh, did you read clearly - i said a CEO AS WELL AS any public servant -

[W*GS]

Uhhh, did you read clearly - i said a CEO AS WELL AS any public servant -

So why should CEOs be treated the same as public servants?

[alkemical]

So why should CEOs be treated the same as public servants?


when a % of them rob their workers pension/retirement funds, or steal money and drive the business into the ground - i think that there has to be intervention.

[W*GS]

when a % of them rob their workers pension/retirement funds, or steal money and drive the business into the ground - i think that there has to be intervention.

We already have laws against those sorts of things. I don't see how a maximum wage regulation would keep them from happening. Consider all the non-CEO folks who embezzle.

[alkemical]

We already have laws against those sorts of things. I don't see how a maximum wage regulation would keep them from happening. Consider all the non-CEO folks who embezzle.


And the laws do what good W*Gs? What 2yrs probation for stealing 2million?

White collar crime is more dangerous to america than than all the stuff they show on cops.

[bendog]

I'd settle for taxing dividends and cap gains at the individual's income tax rate.

[alkemical]

that's a good plan.

[Play2win]

And the laws do what good W*Gs? What 2yrs probation for stealing 2million?

White collar crime is more dangerous to america than than all the stuff they show on cops.
Yeah, but somebody that gets caught with 2 joints in his shirt pocket, has to actually GO TO JAIL!! What a *$@#%!! CROCK!!! :cuss:

[W*GS]

And the laws do what good W*Gs? What 2yrs probation for stealing 2million?

So we should void the laws against murder since OJ got away with it?

[alkemical]

So we should void the laws against murder since OJ got away with it?


Actually it should clarify that if you have money - justice is purchased.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's being proposed is not a level playing field, they are punitive measures in the form of taxation to mete out some sense of BS justice for nothing more than a perceived wrong doing. Imagine the temerity of a company making profits, what next?

:bs:

What's being proposed is tax fairness (as opposed to the blow monkey's current reverse Robin Hood scheme.)

http://www.bartcop.com/anwar-drilled.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/2005-w-budget.jpg

[RaiderH8r]

:bs:

What's being proposed is tax fairness (as opposed to the blow monkey's current reverse Robin Hood scheme.)

http://www.bartcop.com/anwar-drilled.gif
50% on any crude sold bove $40/bl. You can't believe that this will somehow force down overall prices of petroleum products? I guess that would be about in line with ames' maximum wage idea. Supply will be reworked to compensate for the tax, supply will go down, prices up. It amounts to a pretty hefty gas tax in the end. The end user will pick up the tab, they always do when it comes to taxes. By comparison W*GS $4/gal gas tax will seem cheap. Good luck, but my advice for you to study the history and outcome on how this will play out check the Carter Administration's policy on Windfall Profits tax and the subsequent Congressional Research Service study of the effects of that policy. Supplies down, R&D investment down, new E&P projects suspended, pump prices up, heating oil up, petroleum products up. It's bad mojo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Supplies down, R&D investment down, new E&P projects suspended, pump prices up, heating oil up, petroleum products up. It's bad mojo.

Proof that all the major oil companies deliberately limit their own refining capacity in order to drive prices up has already been provided.

Hence, the usual right-wing attempts to blame the consequences of supply manipulation by oil companies on environmentalists, liberals, et al, have been exposed as bunk.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline Prices High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn’t Help

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:CKWAkJxKogQJ:www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf+Oil+Company+Collusion+In+Refinery+C apacity+Reduction&hl=en&start=2

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf&e=9797

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How Gas Companies Manipulate Prices

From the Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; Hearing on Gas Prices: How Are They Really Set?

US Senate, 30 April 2002:

Low inventories have helped to create the conditions for price spikes in the Midwest, which have occurred when demand has increased (near driving holidays) and/or the supply of gasoline was disrupted. Not unlike oil companies nationwide, oil companies in the Midwest have adopted just-in-time inventory practices, resulting in crude oil and product stocks that frequently are just above minimum operating levels. And, in the spring of 2000 and 2001, the conversion from the production and supply of winter-grade gasoline to summer-grade gasoline further contributed to low inventories just prior to a seasonal increase in demand. With the stage set by those two factors, the oil companies took actions over these past two years in accordance with their profit maximizing strategies that significantly contributed to the price spikes when disruptions in supply occurred:

– During the spring of 2000, three major refiners determined it wasn't in their economic self interest to produce any more RFG [reformulated gas] than that required to meet the demands of their own customers, and so in that year they produced 23% less RFG than in the prior year, not enough to supply everyone who wanted to purchase it. That contributed to the short supply in the spot market for RFG, contributing to the price spike of spring 2000. While Marathon did have surplus RFG, it withheld some of it from the market so as to not lower prices.

– In the summer of 2001, major refiners deliberately reduced gasoline production, even in the face of unusually high demand at the end of the summer driving season, contributing significantly to the price spike of 2001.

Nationwide, in the winter of 2001 - 2002, demand fell and inventories rose following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. With reduced demand and higher inventories, prices fell. As a result, refining profits fell and refiners cut back on production in order to obtain higher profits. Along with the increase in the price of crude oil and market speculation, these reductions in production and the increase in industry concentration significantly contributed to the run-up in price in the late winter and continuing into the early spring of this year.

Internal documents from several oil companies confirm that the oil companies view it to be in their economic interest to keep gas inventories low and the supply and demand balance tight.

Several documents from California show that refiners in California sought in the mid-90's to prevent imports into California in order to make the market "tight."

• One internal Exxon memo advises the company to "not do deals that supports other's importing barrels to the West Coast."

• Similarly, an internal Mobil memo counsels against importing gasoline, saying it would depress margins.

•California refiners also sought to limit the overall refinery capacity in the state.

• One Mobil document talks about how to block the proposed startup of the Powerine refinery. "Needless to say," the memo says, "we would all like to see Powerine stay down." It then proposes accomplishing this by buying all its product and marketing it themselves. "Especially," the memo says, "if they start to market below our incremental cost of production." The memo then notes that buying Powerine's product the previous year, when it was below Mobil's "incremental cost of production" had worked and it was "a major reason that the RFG premium . . . went from 1 cent per gallon to 3-5 cents per gallon."

• A Texaco memo discusses how to use changes in fuel specifications to reduce supplies. The memo says, "Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline." One example of a significant event, the memo says would be to eliminate the requirement for an oxygenate which, the memo says, would make oxygenate usage go down which reduces total volume of gasoline supplies. The memo says, "Much effort is being exerted to see that this happens in the Pacific Northwest."

California refiners also exported gas – that is, shipped gas out of California – to keep the market in that state tight.

• An ARCO internal document discusses the need to export to prevent supply from building up in the state. The memo indicates that ARCO should export in order to intentionally alter the supply/demand balance within California and not just as a passive response to the prevailing economic conditions. In that same presentation, one strategy discussed is to "exchange and trade selectively to preserve market discipline."

• Another document in the Subcommittee files indicates that one company would export gasoline out of California to the Gulf Coast, even at a loss, with the rationale that such losses "would be more than offset by an incremental improvement in the market price of the much larger volumes of [gas] left behind."

• Another company's plan indicates that exporting gasoline can "improve market conditions," and that the company was willing to "take [a] hit on price to firm up market."

An internal BP document from 1999 reflects similar thinking with respect to the Midwest. The document reflects a discussion amongst senior BP executives of possible strategies to increase refining margins, and it mentions "significant opportunities to influence the crude supply/demand balance." It notes that these "opportunities" can increase Midwestern prices by 1 to 3 cents per gallon." The memo discusses strategies to reduce the supply of gasoline in the Midwest. It lists some possible options, including: shutting down refining capacity, convincing cities to require reformulated gas that is not readily available, exporting product to Canada, lobbying for environmental regulations that would slow down the movement of gasoline in pipelines, shipping products other than gasoline on pipelines that can carry gasoline, and providing incentives to others not to provide gasoline in Chicago. BP officials told the Subcommittee staff that these ideas were only part of a "brainstorming" session and that none of the options for reducing supply were adopted. We'll go through this document in some detail later this morning. In another document from the Midwest, an internal Marathon document, Marathon even called Hurricane George a "helping hand" to oil producers because it "caused some major refinery closures, threatened off-shore oil production and imports, and generally lent some bullishness to the oil futures market."

And that is the heart of the problem with respect to gas prices in the United States today – in certain regions of the country – the refining market is so concentrated, that oil companies can act to limit supply and from time to time spike prices to maximize profits, and because there is insufficient competition, there is little-to-no challenge to that action. That's the major problem as I see it. The ability to control supply allows oil companies to spike prices in a concentrated market without adequate competition to challenge them.

The Majority Staff made some other significant findings. Oil companies do not set wholesale (rack) or retail prices based solely upon the cost to manufacture and sell gasoline; rather wholesale (rack) and retail prices are set on the basis of market conditions, including the prices of competitors. Most oil companies and gasoline stations try to keep their prices at a constant price differential with respect to one or more competitors. For example one company decided that its station in Los Angeles should price the lower of ARCO stations plus 6 cents per gallon, or the average price of major branded stations in the area. Another oil company followed a pricing policy in Baltimore as follows:

We will initiate upward, we will follow Amoco, Shell quickly... we will be slow to come down in a dropping market.

Because many oil companies and gasoline retailers set their retail price on the basis of the prices of their retail competitors, prices in each specific market tend to go up and down together. And oil companies tend to stake out a position in each market vis a vis the competitors and hold that position. Hence, it will often appear that, over time, gasoline prices in that market move together in a "ribbon-like" manner – so that as a brand moves up and down it nonetheless remains at a constant differential with respect to the other brands. Look at this retail pricing chart for Illinois for June 2001, and this one from Maine for January-August 2001. (Exhibits 9 and 10.)

In Michigan and Ohio, we found a clear leader-follower pricing practice. Speedway, owned by Marathon, has a pricing practice that bumps up the price of gasoline on Wednesdays or Thursdays. As the price leader in Michigan, once Speedway goes up, the other brand follows. The typical pattern after that is for Speedway to come down in price pretty quickly, while the other brands follow them down more slowly. You can see this very clearly in these charts from January to August 2001 and April 2001. (Exhibits 11 and 12.)

Oil companies also use a system of what they call "zone pricing" in order to maximize the prices and revenues at each gas station. Since under the antitrust law, they are prohibited from selling wholesale product at a different price to similarly situated retailers, the oil companies have developed a system for differentiating among retailers in the same immediate area. In doing so, they can charge the retailers different wholesale prices for their gasoline. The way they accomplish this is by dividing a state or region into zones. A zone is supposed to represent a particular market, and the stations in that zone are supposed to be in competition with each other. The oil companies use a highly sophisticated combination of factors to identify particular zones. For example, if most people buy their gas on their way home from work instead of on their way to work, a station on one side of a rush hour street may be treated as in one zone and the same brand station on the other side of the street in another zone. The oil company will then charge those two gas stations different prices for their gasoline, because the station on the side of the street with easy access for evening rush hour traffic may be able to get a higher price for its gas than the station on the other side of the street. That's the kind of thinking that goes into the zone pricing system, and it allows the oil companies to charge the highest possible amount for their gas in a given area.

Another pricing practice the Majority Staff uncovered has to do with how gas station owners set their retail prices. The Majority Staff learned that for those stations that lease from a major oil company (about one-fourth of the 117,000 branded stations) the oil company actually recommends to the station dealer a retail price. Now by law, the oil company is prohibited from telling a lessee dealer what it can charge for gasoline, but that doesn't keep oil companies from "recommending" a price. And the Majority Staff was told by several dealers that if they don't charge their retail customers the recommended price, the next delivery of gas from the oil company will reflect any increase instituted by the dealer. These dealers are saying that if they decide to price their gas at $1.40/gallon when the oil company recommends $1.35, the next delivery of gasoline to the station (and deliveries are sometimes daily for busy stations) will have a 5 cent/gallon increase in the price to the retailer. If these allegations are true, then the practical effect would be that the recommended price is subtly or not so subtly being enforced.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

50% on any crude sold bove $40/bl. You can't believe that this will somehow force down overall prices of petroleum products? I guess that would be about in line with ames' maximum wage idea. Supply will be reworked to compensate for the tax, supply will go down, prices up. It amounts to a pretty hefty gas tax in the end. The end user will pick up the tab, they always do when it comes to taxes. By comparison W*GS $4/gal gas tax will seem cheap.

:laugh:

Sounds like somebody's getting hoodwinked by the GOP Stepford message point bloviators.

Now, for a shot of reality:

An "all the market will bear" approach does not take into account serving the public good. Private financial gain trumps every other consideration. Our Founding Fathers required that corporations had written in their charters serving the public good as their first responsibility even before making profits or serving stockholder interests! Maximizing profits were not their primary mission or reason for existence. The "greed is good" code of business ethics is a fairly new and growing cancer on the American economy. Our current Corporate business leaders are not committed to serving the public good enough to even follow our laws or common standards of decency in many cases.

Oil companies have closed nearly 200 oil refineries that were making profits in order to restrict the supplies of fuel and home heating oil. They seem to have done so in order to drive up the prices they charge American consumers. The huge increases in prices for diesel, gasoline and other fuels are a direct result of supply manipulation. The current shortages seem to be deliberately created by the refineries. The shortages during the California electric energy crisis were created by Enron and other energy companies.

Most oil refineries receive their supplies of crude oil on long-term contracts at prices below or around $20 a barrel. The media has been pushing to the public that oil is trading on the futures market around $60 a barrel. The media has failed to publicize that most oil is not subject to trade in the futures market. The futures market is often known is often known as the "spot" market and reflects a very tiny amount of the crude oil bought and sold worldwide outside of low priced long-term contracts.

Oil refineries are making operating profits in the 265% range on their products at current prices. These profits are far in excess of a "reasonable rate of return." It is questionable if current prices and operating profits are higher than the "market can bear" in the long run. Reasonable Americans would consider 265% profit margins as price-gouging.

The federal government is currently controlled by oil company interests in the form of Bush Republicans. Under the Bush Republicans, many of the largest oil companies have been permitted to merge in recent years. Chevron and Texaco are no longer competing with each other. Phillips 66, Conoco and Unocal are in the same situation. BP and Amoco are no longer competitors. The oil industry mergers have greatly reduced competition for their products which are considered in economic terms relatively "inelastic."

The "inelastic" economic term means that demand does not fall quickly when prices rise because consumers cannot reasonably do without the " inelastic" products regardless of price. Without fuel, goods and services cannot reach consumers, stores or businesses. Without fuel, workers cannot get to their jobs. Without home heating oil and natural gas, Americans will freeze to death. Industries that supply "inelastic" products should be heavily regulated by government to stop price gouging and to foster a competitive business structure in order to hold down excessive profits and prices.

The "reasonable rate of return" standard should be mandated by law if necessary. In extreme cases where Corporate behavior hurts the national interest and national security, government should even consider taking complete control of these industries. They should be taken out of irresponsible private hand and operated on a governmental, non-profit basis. The American people should come before private profits.

- Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, from "A Deep Look at Corruption Culture"

[W*GS]

[...]In extreme cases where Corporate behavior hurts the national interest and national security, government should even consider taking complete control of these industries. They should be taken out of irresponsible private hand and operated on a governmental, non-profit basis. The American people should come before private profits.

- Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, from "A Deep Look at Corruption Culture"

I asked once before if the oil industry should be nationalized, and you deferred answering the question directly.

Now, with this op-ed piece, do you now support the idea?

[RaiderH8r]

Proof that all the major oil companies deliberately limit their own refining capacity in order to drive prices up has already been provided.

Hence, the usual right-wing attempts to blame the consequences of supply manipulation by oil companies on environmentalists, liberals, et al, have been exposed as bunk.
Every company manipulates their supplies to maximize profit margins. Apple doesn't produce more iPods than it can sell, Fender doesn't produce more Stratocasters than it can sell. It's done to keep the supply/demand balance and keep prices at what the market will bear to maximize profits. Is this some sort of revelation to you? You seem to feel that oil companies owe you cheap gas. They don't owe you squat. They pay massive amounts into the treasury. They pay massive amounts in royalties. To say they're not doing their civic duty is proposterous. Nobody owes you or anybody else a damn thing.

[alkemical]

Proof that all the major oil companies deliberately limit their own refining capacity in order to drive prices up has already been provided.

Hence, the usual right-wing attempts to blame the consequences of supply manipulation by oil companies on environmentalists, liberals, et al, have been exposed as bunk.


actually no new refinaries have been built due to EPA regulations.

[alkemical]

Every company manipulates their supplies to maximize profit margins. Apple doesn't produce more iPods than it can sell, Fender doesn't produce more Stratocasters than it can sell. It's done to keep the supply/demand balance and keep prices at what the market will bear to maximize profits. Is this some sort of revelation to you? You seem to feel that oil companies owe you cheap gas. They don't owe you squat. They pay massive amounts into the treasury. They pay massive amounts in royalties. To say they're not doing their civic duty is proposterous. Nobody owes you or anybody else a damn thing.


The problem with oil as an example, is that it's needed. There's no real alternative to drive your car on butter - or used french fry oil that's readily available for mass consumer use. So in some ways, i think the gas prices now are ok - but if it came to $5/gal the econ here would die.

[patteeu]

Every company manipulates their supplies to maximize profit margins. Apple doesn't produce more iPods than it can sell, Fender doesn't produce more Stratocasters than it can sell. It's done to keep the supply/demand balance and keep prices at what the market will bear to maximize profits. Is this some sort of revelation to you? You seem to feel that oil companies owe you cheap gas. They don't owe you squat. They pay massive amounts into the treasury. They pay massive amounts in royalties. To say they're not doing their civic duty is proposterous. Nobody owes you or anybody else a damn thing.

Exactly. All this blather about oil company's manipulating their own production is beside the point. There is nothing wrong with a company manipulating it's own production unless it is doing so as part of a collusive enterprise (which this isn't).

[W*GS]

Our Founding Fathers required that corporations had written in their charters serving the public good as their first responsibility even before making profits or serving stockholder interests!

Really? Prove it.

The FF were many things - but socialists they were not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

actually no new refinaries have been built due to EPA regulations.

We're not talking about new refineries being built - we're talking about oil companies deliberately limiting the capacity of existing refineries in order to manipulate price.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Every company manipulates their supplies to maximize profit margins. Apple doesn't produce more iPods than it can sell, Fender doesn't produce more Stratocasters than it can sell. It's done to keep the supply/demand balance and keep prices at what the market will bear to maximize profits. Is this some sort of revelation to you?

:bs:

You've gotta be sh_ttin' me. rofl

When was the last time you went to a store to buy an iPod or a Fender Stratocaster and found that the price had doubled in just one year and that Apple's or Fender's excuse was "sorry, we just decided to stop making as many iPods and guitars so we could charge you double?"

You seem to feel that oil companies owe you cheap gas. They don't owe you squat.

You seem to feel that crony capitalism and price gouging are American values.

I'm just curious - how could it possibly serve your interests to defend people who are bending you over and anally raping you?

They pay massive amounts into the treasury. They pay massive amounts in royalties.

:bs:

If the amounts they were paying were "massive" in relation to their earnings, then they wouldn't be posting record profits of $100 billion for one quarter.

In fact, they have received one massive tax cut and one corporate entitlement after another under Dim Son.

To say they're not doing their civic duty is proposterous.

:bs:

They're getting tax cuts and corporate welfare out the yin yang while the middle class gets squeezed to extinction. Under the smirking sociopath, these companies are not being asked to share ANY of the sacrifices or burdens assumed by a nation at war. None whatsoever.

Nobody owes you or anybody else a damn thing.

:bs:

A taxpayer-funded, representative government owes its citizens a level playing field with regard to consumer protection.

According to your reasoning, if gas companies suddenly decided to charge $50 a gallon for gas, then they would be fully justified and within their rights; government shouldn't make any attempt to intervene, and consumers would have no right to challenge them or to complain.

You're nothing but a cheerleader for socioeconomic Darwinism.

How does this serve your interests? (As I take it you're neither a millionaire nor an oil company.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exactly. All this blather about oil company's manipulating their own production is beside the point. There is nothing wrong with a company manipulating it's own production unless it is doing so as part of a collusive enterprise (which this isn't).

:bs:

In posts #172 and #173 I provided proof that such things are happening while you remain in denial.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just to pick the most obvious example, let's examine ANWR. Who is keeping the oil companies from drilling in ANWR? That's right, democrat special interest groups.

More proof that you don't know your butt from a gopher hole:

House Republicans, after long hours scrounging for votes to pass their five-year budget, Wednesday night dropped a provision that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7188069p-7098475c.html

[W*GS]

A taxpayer-funded, representative government owes its citizens a level playing field with regard to consumer protection.

Even granting that (which is such a broad statement that it's almost meaningless) how do you get to "I want cheap gas" as a conclusion?

According to your reasoning, if gas companies suddenly decided to charge $50 a gallon for gas, then they would be fully justified and within their rights; government shouldn't make any attempt to intervene, and consumers would have no right to challenge them or to complain.

I'd start using gas much more frugally, and do a lot less driving.

BTW, what keeps gas from being $50/gallon? Government regulation? If so, find the part of the USC that specifies such. If there's no such law, then why aren't we paying $50/gallon?

You're nothing but a cheerleader for socioeconomic Darwinism.

You're a poster child for ignorance of basic economics.

How does this serve your interests?

How does it serve anyone's interests to have the State control the economy? It's been tried - and it's failed, horribly, every time. But history, like economics, is not one of your intellectual high points.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If there's one thing W*GS and his buddies on the radical right despise, it's the rule of law...

FTC says it is investigating gas price gouging

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9424585

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether gasoline price profiteering has occurred and if oil companies have constrained refinery capacity to manipulate fuel prices, an agency official said Wednesday.

“A determination that unlawful conduct has occurred will result in aggressive law enforcement activity by the FTC,” John Seesel, an FTC associate general counsel, told a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

The FTC is responding to language in recently passed energy legislation that requires the agency to probe whether gasoline prices have been manipulated by attempts to reduce refining capacity, Seesel said.

[W*GS]

If there's one thing W*GS and his buddies on the radical right despise, it's the rule of law...

As if all laws are good laws - blind adherence to the law isn't always a good thing. Rosa Parks knows what I mean.

Besides, it's clear you "despise" answering direct questions and engaging in actual debate. About all you do is insult people.

[alkemical]

I think the removal of the morgage tax deduction is going to kill our econ

[RaiderH8r]

:bs:

You've gotta be sh_ttin' me. rofl

When was the last time you went to a store to buy an iPod or a Fender Stratocaster and found that the price had doubled in just one year and that Apple's or Fender's excuse was "sorry, we just decided to stop making as many iPods and guitars so we could charge you double?"



You seem to feel that crony capitalism and price gouging are American values.

I'm just curious - how could it possibly serve your interests to defend people who are bending you over and anally raping you?



:bs:

If the amounts they were paying were "massive" in relation to their earnings, then they wouldn't be posting record profits of $100 billion for one quarter.

In fact, they have received one massive tax cut and one corporate entitlement after another under Dim Son.



:bs:

They're getting tax cuts and corporate welfare out the yin yang while the middle class gets squeezed to extinction. Under the smirking sociopath, these companies are not being asked to share ANY of the sacrifices or burdens assumed by a nation at war. None whatsoever.



:bs:

A taxpayer-funded, representative government owes its citizens a level playing field with regard to consumer protection.

According to your reasoning, if gas companies suddenly decided to charge $50 a gallon for gas, then they would be fully justified and within their rights; government shouldn't make any attempt to intervene, and consumers would have no right to challenge them or to complain.

You're nothing but a cheerleader for socioeconomic Darwinism.

How does this serve your interests? (As I take it you're neither a millionaire nor an oil company.)
Fender and Apple have every right to double the price of their product. You don't think their marketing people haven't done their research on what the market will bear? You think their products are arbitrarily priced such that they think they might make a profit but providing a the goods to the people is what is more important?

You seem to think that the business realm owes you their goods and services, they owe you nothing. Just as you owe them nothing.

Their earnings are high despite the royalty stream and tax structure imposed upon them. I suspect that any corporate profits would be too much in the eyes of a Marxist cheerleader such as yourself, Lenin would be proud.

A petroleum company does have every right to raise their prices to $50/gal so long as there's competition in the marketplace and collusion does not exist. There is competition and collusion has not been demonstrated by any city, county, state, or federal prosecution on the matter. Despite your "feelings" that you're getting screwed the facts do not bear out your assertions on this matter.

Consumers have a multitude of protections afforded to them, and many consumers have chosen to avail themselves of those options. However, the facts do not bear out their allegations either.

They're not, as you so eloquently put it, "anally raping" me. They're in business to make money, I'm in business to make money. Prices change, costs go up, costs go down. I'm pretty sure you weren't b!tching in 98 when oil companies were taking it up the tailpipe while you were pumping gas at $1/gal. It's cyclical, so take a Valium and relax.

[alkemical]

It wouldn't matter if there was collusion in the market place, they just buy off congress to brush it under the rug (ala the price fixing scandal in CA) -

I just feel that a business can make money, but when it comes at the expense of the consumer or the workers, that's where you have to draw the line.

[W*GS]

From

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4229419,00.html

Dangerous political theater

A few weeks ago, Microsoft announced a 24 percent rise in quarterly profit. Where is the Senate committee clamoring to investigate this event? Where is the legislation proposing to confiscate the software industry's "excess profits"? Bill Gates has made vastly more money off his business than Big Oil executives - excoriated for greed Wednesday before a Senate panel - have ever pocketed from theirs.

In late July, Starbucks Corp. posted a 29 percent rise in earnings, at which time Reuters cited "price increases" as one of the principal reasons. Doesn't this warrant a "price-gouging" investigation under the principle laid down by this week's indignant senators?

Meanwhile, Whole Foods Market Inc. was reporting a profit surge of 31 percent. Will no senator demand an accounting from CEO John Mackey for making so much money from a product as fundamental as food?

Of course not. There are many very profitable companies, and the selective outrage among senators over only those that happen to be in the oil business is cheap political theater. Unfortunately, it is also dangerous theater, stoking resentment toward an economic system that is allocating investment capital through price signals in precisely the way it should.

[W*GS]

I just feel that a business can make money, but when it comes at the expense of the consumer or the workers, that's where you have to draw the line.

Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

[alkemical]

Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.


So creating profit is an all or non-game wags?

We should all be serfs? The Capitalism machine is oiled by the blood and sweat of the workers, and the reduction of the avg. joe to enterprise is slipping away. The problem with Oil, is the lack of alternative to a big extent. Not like starbucks where at CostCo you can get kirkland brand coffee (which is starbucks btw) for cheaper, or buy millstone (which is tully's in seattle) -

[alkemical]

From

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4229419,00.html

Dangerous political theater

A few weeks ago, Microsoft announced a 24 percent rise in quarterly profit. Where is the Senate committee clamoring to investigate this event? Where is the legislation proposing to confiscate the software industry's "excess profits"? Bill Gates has made vastly more money off his business than Big Oil executives - excoriated for greed Wednesday before a Senate panel - have ever pocketed from theirs.

In late July, Starbucks Corp. posted a 29 percent rise in earnings, at which time Reuters cited "price increases" as one of the principal reasons. Doesn't this warrant a "price-gouging" investigation under the principle laid down by this week's indignant senators?

Meanwhile, Whole Foods Market Inc. was reporting a profit surge of 31 percent. Will no senator demand an accounting from CEO John Mackey for making so much money from a product as fundamental as food?

Of course not. There are many very profitable companies, and the selective outrage among senators over only those that happen to be in the oil business is cheap political theater. Unfortunately, it is also dangerous theater, stoking resentment toward an economic system that is allocating investment capital through price signals in precisely the way it should.



I don't have to use windows - i can use MAC, Linux, et al -


I don't have to buy Starbucks, i can buy foldgers or the generic brand that starbucks sells under -


I can go to a farmers market and buy food from a local producer and not from wholegoods foods -

I can't go and buy oil/nat gas directly - i have to go to whomever is the seller - there is no real alternative.

[bendog]

Mrs Dog bought generic filters and I was eating grinds this am.

[W*GS]

So creating profit is an all or non-game wags?

I don't understand the comment.

The hidden premise in your "I just feel that a business can make money, but when it comes at the expense of the consumer or the workers, that's where you have to draw the line" is that for every dollar a business makes (is that revenue or profit?), a worker or a consumer is out a dollar. In short, in the big picture:

(Business profits) + (worker pay + consumer cost) = 0.

That's not true.

[alkemical]

I don't understand the comment.

The hidden premise in your "I just feel that a business can make money, but when it comes at the expense of the consumer or the workers, that's where you have to draw the line" is that for every dollar a business makes (is that revenue or profit?), a worker or a consumer is out a dollar. In short, in the big picture:

(Business profits) + (worker pay + consumer cost) = 0.

That's not true.


Wags, i don't feel that making a profit should be above a certain responsability to the workers and to the consumers. The market in some respects sets the price, but not for everything. In the case of Oil, whom sets the price per barrel? Not the market, the producers do, or the owners of the fields. Now, what happens, is that since pretty much anything mechanical runs on oil - it can be charged at whatever rate until a solution comes to radically change the landscape.

For instance - if we left the entire job market to be set by employers, that doesn't mean you will get paid well - i mean afterall - that's why unions got started.

I believe that there has to be some sort of line where enough is enough when it comes to profits. Oil isn't like Walmart. I don't have to stop n' shop at walmart - i however can't go put mustard in my car and have it run.


I find it funny that the best example of free enterprise is the blackmarket.

[RaiderH8r]

Wags, i don't feel that making a profit should be above a certain responsability to the workers and to the consumers. The market in some respects sets the price, but not for everything. In the case of Oil, whom sets the price per barrel? Not the market, the producers do, or the owners of the fields. Now, what happens, is that since pretty much anything mechanical runs on oil - it can be charged at whatever rate until a solution comes to radically change the landscape.

For instance - if we left the entire job market to be set by employers, that doesn't mean you will get paid well - i mean afterall - that's why unions got started.

I believe that there has to be some sort of line where enough is enough when it comes to profits. Oil isn't like Walmart. I don't have to stop n' shop at walmart - i however can't go put mustard in my car and have it run.


I find it funny that the best example of free enterprise is the blackmarket.
Oil companies DO NOT set the price for oil. Let's clear that misconception up right now. The NYMEX Commodity market sets the price for oil. Producers are price takers, not price makers. Meaning the NYMEX sets the price and producers follow. If producers set the price there would be no need for hedge funds that exist within the oil and natural gas commodity markets. A free market exchange establishes the price based on world supply, out put, reserves, production, refinement and a multitude of other variables to be considered in the equation when trading commodity futures. Oil isn't like Wal-Mart, you're right. Wal-Mart sets their prices, oil producers do not.

[alkemical]

Oil companies DO NOT set the price for oil. Let's clear that misconception up right now. The NYMEX Commodity market sets the price for oil. Producers are price takers, not price makers. Meaning the NYMEX sets the price and producers follow. If producers set the price there would be no need for hedge funds that exist within the oil and natural gas commodity markets. A free market exchange establishes the price based on world supply, out put, reserves, production, refinement and a multitude of other variables to be considered in the equation when trading commodity futures. Oil isn't like Wal-Mart, you're right. Wal-Mart sets their prices, oil producers do not.


Reading comprehension son, i didn't say OIL companies set the price for oil, i said those that OWN the oil fields..... Try reading again, more slowly.

[RaiderH8r]

Reading comprehension son, i didn't say OIL companies set the price for oil, i said those that OWN the oil fields..... Try reading again, more slowly.
You asked, "the case of Oil, whom sets the price per barrel? Not the market, the producers do, or the owners of the fields." I pointed out that it is, in fact, the market that sets the price, NYMEX to be exact. Owners of the fields, oil and natural gas producers, rig workers, rig owners, none of them set the price. The market does.

[alkemical]

Hmm, i believe OPEC sets the price per barrel - thus - the owners of the oil.

[RaiderH8r]

Hmm, i believe OPEC sets the price per barrel - thus - the owners of the oil.
Nope. Another misconception. OPEC production comes to bear in futures trading but OPEC does not send oil to the US importers and dictate the price. The US importers pay what the commodity market dictates.

[alkemical]

Nope. Another misconception. OPEC production comes to bear in futures trading but OPEC does not send oil to the US importers and dictate the price. The US importers pay what the commodity market dictates.


But by reducing output, it drives the price up - correct?

[RaiderH8r]

But by reducing output, it drives the price up - correct?
Usually, but not always. But that's supply control, not price control. Depending on the output of other nations, including our own, the effect of those supply disruptions on the market can be mitigated. Hence the policy movement towards increased domestic supply to stabilize against future market volatility. Also to be considered is the US reserve supply, not the SPRO, but US supplies kept in reserve that are prepared to move to market should NYMEX prices reach a point that demand destruction occurs and that demand destruction has an adverse effect on Co's profitability.

[alkemical]

Usually, but not always. But that's supply control, not price control. Depending on the output of other nations, including our own, the effect of those supply disruptions on the market can be mitigated. Hence the policy movement towards increased domestic supply to stabilize against future market volatility. Also to be considered is the US reserve supply, not the SPRO, but US supplies kept in reserve that are prepared to move to market should NYMEX prices reach a point that demand destruction occurs and that demand destruction has an adverse effect on Co's profitability.


So in effect the market doesn't really set the price. Since there are safeguards to try to stabilize the price.

PS - i still sometimes think peak oil theories are pushed because if it isn't true (peak oil) they couldn't make the profit without deception.

[W*GS]

Wags, i don't feel that making a profit should be above a certain responsability to the workers and to the consumers.

What does that mean?

Wages get paid from revenue before profits are taken? That's almost always the case. Wages should be a certain percentage of gross (or net?) revenue? Enforced by whom? The State?

Analogous questions apply to the price we as consumers pay.

I know your main complaint is with the price of oil, as it filters down into all the products that we use (gas, petrochemicals, etc.) and the price hit we're all paying, and that there's no current good alternative to oil. How do you suppose we got ourselves into this situation?

[RaiderH8r]

What does that mean?

Wages get paid from revenue before profits are taken? That's almost always the case. Wages should be a certain percentage of gross (or net?) revenue? Enforced by whom? The State?

Analogous questions apply to the price we as consumers pay.

I know your main complaint is with the price of oil, as it filters down into all the products that we use (gas, petrochemicals, etc.) and the price hit we're all paying, and that there's no current good alternative to oil. How do you suppose we got ourselves into this situation?
The owner of a business is always the last to be paid.

[RaiderH8r]

So in effect the market doesn't really set the price. Since there are safeguards to try to stabilize the price.

PS - i still sometimes think peak oil theories are pushed because if it isn't true (peak oil) they couldn't make the profit without deception.
Those safeguards are put in place by companies and those same safeguards are required to be reported by companies to the SEC so the market may consider the information when trading the commodity. The market does set the price. Always.

[alkemical]

The owner of a business is always the last to be paid.


SHOULD be, but that isn't how it is all of the time.

[RaiderH8r]

SHOULD be, but that isn't how it is all of the time.
Most of the time it's true.

[alkemical]

What does that mean?

Wages get paid from revenue before profits are taken? That's almost always the case. Wages should be a certain percentage of gross (or net?) revenue? Enforced by whom? The State?

Analogous questions apply to the price we as consumers pay.

I know your main complaint is with the price of oil, as it filters down into all the products that we use (gas, petrochemicals, etc.) and the price hit we're all paying, and that there's no current good alternative to oil. How do you suppose we got ourselves into this situation?


I feel that the current economic setup is more benificial to large corporations to take advantage of the market, instead of the consumer having the advantage... For instance, you had a story where microsoft isn't being investigated for unfair business practice. But they had been in the past, because they 'bought' all their compeition. Not nec. because they made a 'better' product.....


The cost of oil isn't just in the products we use, but in how we recieve those products (shipping, etc) -

I'd like to see BP and the likes really take a step into offering other alternatives to oil, and give us consumers a choice. Instead of possibly sitting on patents (rumor) and just waiting for the pumps to dry and then pushing a new solution at higher costs.....

Or how banks are suing to force credit unions to charge the same fees as banks, etc - so that way they can remove competition....

[alkemical]

Most of the time it's true.


Unless they file for bankruptcy and the guys at the top get their pay and they layoff their workers....

[RaiderH8r]

Unless they file for bankruptcy and the guys at the top get their pay and they layoff their workers....
Take a look at the other 99.9% of business in the US and you'll find that what you've cited is the exception and not the rule.

[alkemical]

Take a look at the other 99.9% of business in the US and you'll find that what you've cited is the exception and not the rule.

Well when i see companies like walmart not paying or contributing to health care, paying workers less $$ (compared to costco for example) - or enron where their workers pensions got wiped out, or adelphia - on and on and on - i don't think there are 'exceptions' - i think you have to view every company in that light to keep such things from happening.

[RaiderH8r]

Well when i see companies like walmart not paying or contributing to health care, paying workers less $$ (compared to costco for example) - or enron where their workers pensions got wiped out, or adelphia - on and on and on - i don't think there are 'exceptions' - i think you have to view every company in that light to keep such things from happening.
Well, you're certainly not the first to take a position of presumption of guilt. I choose presumption of innocence instead, but to each his own.

[alkemical]

Well, you're certainly not the first to take a position of presumption of guilt. I choose presumption of innocence instead, but to each his own.


No you don't, look at how you view the american worker and the lower class in america. You view them as a drain and a cancer to the rich, only good enough to bail out the rich when their investments don't pay off as they expected.

[RaiderH8r]

No you don't, look at how you view the american worker and the lower class in america. You view them as a drain and a cancer to the rich, only good enough to bail out the rich when their investments don't pay off as they expected.
I have only one request of able bodied citizens, work. Work is easy to find. I've done it my whole life. You may not like the work you find but as long as it pays it's a step. Those able bodied citizens who choose not to work are a drain and a cancer and deserve neither my sympathy nor my help. Because, ultimately, all the sympathy, help, and charity in the world won't change the fact that they're comfortable, maybe not happy, with their situation in life and are unwilling to change it.

[alkemical]

I have only one request of able bodied citizens, work. Work is easy to find. I've done it my whole life. You may not like the work you find but as long as it pays it's a step. Those able bodied citizens who choose not to work are a drain and a cancer and deserve neither my sympathy nor my help. Because, ultimately, all the sympathy, help, and charity in the world won't change the fact that they're comfortable, maybe not happy, with their situation in life and are unwilling to change it.

See i don't know about all that - because i lived in a welfare house for a while - 2yrs. My mom worked, but need assistance with two kids. Dad was not able to help with bills due to medical issues. She got off welfare, but only after she had some schooling paid for by the state in order to get a state job (she now is working for school retirments, making decent coin) - I was homeless for a while, and did day labour, but i must say $40/day is very difficult to live on, and 'move on up'. Not all poor people are as you describe - those that work are often used much like slave labour - $40/day no healthcare - if you get sick - you are screwed.

I never was on any assistance other than food banks and a few other charities - but no state assistance - but for the most part - i find that the state likes welfare - because it creates a need for the state - I see no difference between the welfare abuser who is rich and who is poor.

Looking at society from the middle, and from the bottom gives you vastly different viewpoints than just an isolated upper-middleclass/WASP POV that is often permeated throughout middle america - Carlin said it best:

"The rich pay none of the taxes, do none of the work. The middleclass does all of the work and pays all of the taxes. The poor, they are just there to scare the **** out of the middleclass"....

Of course, not to mention, that the class system in this country is used to divide and distract from other really important issues going on as well.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fender and Apple have every right to double the price of their product. You don't think their marketing people haven't done their research on what the market will bear? You think their products are arbitrarily priced such that they think they might make a profit but providing a the goods to the people is what is more important?

You seem to think that the business realm owes you their goods and services, they owe you nothing. Just as you owe them nothing.

Their earnings are high despite the royalty stream and tax structure imposed upon them. I suspect that any corporate profits would be too much in the eyes of a Marxist cheerleader such as yourself, Lenin would be proud.

A petroleum company does have every right to raise their prices to $50/gal so long as there's competition in the marketplace and collusion does not exist. There is competition and collusion has not been demonstrated by any city, county, state, or federal prosecution on the matter. Despite your "feelings" that you're getting screwed the facts do not bear out your assertions on this matter.

Consumers have a multitude of protections afforded to them, and many consumers have chosen to avail themselves of those options. However, the facts do not bear out their allegations either.

They're not, as you so eloquently put it, "anally raping" me. They're in business to make money, I'm in business to make money. Prices change, costs go up, costs go down. I'm pretty sure you weren't b!tching in 98 when oil companies were taking it up the tailpipe while you were pumping gas at $1/gal. It's cyclical, so take a Valium and relax.

:bs:

Sounds like somebody's been hoodwinked by the GOP Stepford message point bloviators.

Now, for a shot of reality:

An "all the market will bear" approach does not take into account serving the public good. Private financial gain trumps every other consideration. Our Founding Fathers required that corporations had written in their charters serving the public good as their first responsibility even before making profits or serving stockholder interests! Maximizing profits were not their primary mission or reason for existence. The "greed is good" code of business ethics is a fairly new and growing cancer on the American economy. Our current Corporate business leaders are not committed to serving the public good enough to even follow our laws or common standards of decency in many cases.

Oil companies have closed nearly 200 oil refineries that were making profits in order to restrict the supplies of fuel and home heating oil. They seem to have done so in order to drive up the prices they charge American consumers. The huge increases in prices for diesel, gasoline and other fuels are a direct result of supply manipulation. The current shortages seem to be deliberately created by the refineries. The shortages during the California electric energy crisis were created by Enron and other energy companies.

Most oil refineries receive their supplies of crude oil on long-term contracts at prices below or around $20 a barrel. The media has been pushing to the public that oil is trading on the futures market around $60 a barrel. The media has failed to publicize that most oil is not subject to trade in the futures market. The futures market is often known as the "spot" market and reflects a very tiny amount of the crude oil bought and sold worldwide outside of low priced long-term contracts.

Oil refineries are making operating profits in the 265% range on their products at current prices. These profits are far in excess of a "reasonable rate of return." It is questionable if current prices and operating profits are higher than the "market can bear" in the long run. Reasonable Americans would consider 265% profit margins as price-gouging.

The federal government is currently controlled by oil company interests in the form of Bush Republicans. Under the Bush Republicans, many of the largest oil companies have been permitted to merge in recent years. Chevron and Texaco are no longer competing with each other. Phillips 66, Conoco and Unocal are in the same situation. BP and Amoco are no longer competitors. The oil industry mergers have greatly reduced competition for their products which are considered in economic terms relatively "inelastic."

The "inelastic" economic term means that demand does not fall quickly when prices rise because consumers cannot reasonably do without the " inelastic" products regardless of price. Without fuel, goods and services cannot reach consumers, stores or businesses. Without fuel, workers cannot get to their jobs. Without home heating oil and natural gas, Americans will freeze to death. Industries that supply "inelastic" products should be heavily regulated by government to stop price gouging and to foster a competitive business structure in order to hold down excessive profits and prices.

The "reasonable rate of return" standard should be mandated by law if necessary. In extreme cases where Corporate behavior hurts the national interest and national security, government should even consider taking complete control of these industries. They should be taken out of irresponsible private hand and operated on a governmental, non-profit basis. The American people should come before private profits.

- Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, from "A Deep Look at Corruption Culture"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A petroleum company does have every right to raise their prices to $50/gal so long as there's competition in the marketplace and collusion does not exist. There is competition and collusion has not been demonstrated by any city, county, state, or federal prosecution on the matter. Despite your "feelings" that you're getting screwed the facts do not bear out your assertions on this matter.

You live in a world of make-believe where reality and facts never intrude...

FTC says it is investigating gas price gouging

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9424585

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether gasoline price profiteering has occurred and if oil companies have constrained refinery capacity to manipulate fuel prices, an agency official said Wednesday.

“A determination that unlawful conduct has occurred will result in aggressive law enforcement activity by the FTC,” John Seesel, an FTC associate general counsel, told a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

The FTC is responding to language in recently passed energy legislation that requires the agency to probe whether gasoline prices have been manipulated by attempts to reduce refining capacity, Seesel said.

But that's right - according to your reasoning, there is no such thing as price gouging. :laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I suspect that any corporate profits would be too much in the eyes of a Marxist cheerleader such as yourself, Lenin would be proud.

Your inability to understand such fundamentals as the difference between Marxism and liberalism casts serious doubts on all of your political takes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/oil-distrust.gif

[W*GS]

Your inability to understand such fundamentals as the difference between Marxism and liberalism casts serious doubts on all of your political takes.

This from the guy who calls everyone who differs in the slightest from his (to be kind, narrow and bizarre) political takes a "fascist".

Thanks for the guffaw, LABF.

[RaiderH8r]

You live in a world of make-believe where reality and facts never intrude...



But that's right - according to your reasoning, there is no such thing as price gouging. :laugh:
From the article you posted, which was dated September 22, 2005:

Four major oil refineries remain shut and a large chunk of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is still offline due to damage from Hurricane Katrina which slammed into Louisiana and Mississippi three weeks ago.

And now with the approach of Hurricane Rita, which has strengthened into a Category 4 storm, oil and gas companies have evacuated thousands of their workers from oil rigs and production platforms in the Gulf. Some refineries are starting to shut down, and Houston’s mayor called for an evacuation of low-lying, flood-prone areas of his city.

But I'm sure none of this contributed to a supply disruption. Furthermore, the investigation has been on going for nearly two months. Do you have any recent articles to serve as a follow up?

[RaiderH8r]

Your inability to understand such fundamentals as the difference between Marxism and liberalism casts serious doubts on all of your political takes.
I understand the differences between Marxism and Socialism (see also liberalism). But the fact that you are so oblivious to the nature of your positions while amusing is somewhat disconcerting.

[alkemical]

Marx once said: "The end result of capitalism is socialism" - (In Das Kapital)

[RaiderH8r]

Marx once said: "The end result of capitalism is socialism" - (In Das Kapital)
And looking at the current state of the nation I would say he's correct. Communism and socialism are systems geared toward disincentivizing success and rewarding mediocrity. Fundamental behaviorism tells us this is a poor way to move forward but an ideal way to maintain status quo.

[alkemical]

And looking at the current state of the nation I would say he's correct. Communism and socialism are systems geared toward disincentivizing success and rewarding mediocrity. Fundamental behaviorism tells us this is a poor way to move forward but an ideal way to maintain status quo.


Also when company A buys companies D,E,F and company B buys G,H,I and you are left with two options - it's the building block of the economic model that sufficed in Com/Soc. nations - Brand A and Brand B - Much like the two party system setup here....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But I'm sure none of this contributed to a supply disruption. Furthermore, the investigation has been on going for nearly two months. Do you have any recent articles to serve as a follow up?

Sure the hurricanes contributed to supply disruption.

However, the deliberate limitation of refining capacity (and concomitant price manipulations) cited earlier were taking place before (and independent of) the hurricanes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I understand the differences between Marxism and Socialism (see also liberalism).

Your habit of confusing the first two with liberalism suggests otherwise.

But the fact that you are so oblivious to the nature of your positions while amusing is somewhat disconcerting.

There's that familiar neocon tactic again:

When in doubt, project, i.e., falsely attribute your own failings to your opponent.

The good news (as indicated by the gubernatorial race in VA) is that this Rovian tactic doesn't seem to be fooling people anymore.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/gas-money.gif

[W*GS]

Don't you guys understand how "progressives" understand and implement their economic theories?

Problem A: Company X charges more than Company Y. That's gouging - BAD!
Solution to A: The State steps in to control the situation.

Problem B: Company X charges the same as Company Y. That's collusion - BAD!
Solution to B: The State steps in to control the situation.

Problem C: Company X charges less than Company Y. That's predatory undercutting - BAD!
Solution to C: The State steps in to control the situation.

See? Only three possible problems, and one easy guaranteed-to-work solution!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:laugh:

Ha ha ha!

Looks like W*GS wasn't paying attention to the VA gubernatorial race.

The same tactics W*GS has been borrowing from the Rove Playbook are no longer fooling the electorate.

The harder W*GS tries to pimp his RNC talking points, the more he alienates and makes a fool of himself.

How funny!

:laugh:

[RaiderH8r]

Don't you guys understand how "progressives" understand and implement their economic theories?

Problem A: Company X charges more than Company Y. That's gouging - BAD!
Solution to A: The State steps in to control the situation.

Problem B: Company X charges the same as Company Y. That's collusion - BAD!
Solution to B: The State steps in to control the situation.

Problem C: Company X charges less than Company Y. That's predatory undercutting - BAD!
Solution to C: The State steps in to control the situation.

See? Only three possible problems, and one easy guaranteed-to-work solution!
That pretty much hits it on the head.

[W*GS]

LABF, what you posted in #233 has nothing to do with what I wrote - indeed, you're acting more and more like a 'bot.

Bizarre.

[RaiderH8r]

Your habit of confusing the first two with liberalism suggests otherwise.



There's that familiar neocon tactic again:

When in doubt, project, i.e., falsely attribute your own failings to your opponent.

The good news (as indicated by the gubernatorial race in VA) is that this Rovian tactic doesn't seem to be fooling people anymore.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Did I hit a little too close to home on the Marxism/Socialism observation? A review of your positions and statements certainly support the Marxist doctrine of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." The fervent manner in which "liberals" attempt to redefine their positions and those of Marx is in step with what you've attempted to do here. You decry my statement as a "Rovian" tactic implying (as I've deduced from your continued use of the word Rovian) the statement is slanderous. However, I merely point out what is obvious. In this particular case, but certainly not the only one of its kind, you've stated that a company's profits are too high and must be taken away and redistributed through entitlement spending. Profits that have been legally earned through legal business practice, until proven otherwise in a court of law, and given to those who have not earned them.

Taking from one that which is not rightfully yours is commonly referred to as theft, you seem to believe in some Robin Hood philosophical doctrine, the same doctrine used by Pablo Escobar to mislead his countrymen into supporting a murderous villain because they had been pacified into submission by his "charity". Charity on one hand and a loaded gun to their heads in the other. This is a fine fashion to control people. If they depend on you for sustenance then you control the means by which they survive and the threat of losing those means gives those in control of the means a disproportionate degree of power of the lives of others.

So I suggest you cease plagiarizing Marx and attempting to pass it off as the new wave of "liberal/progressive" doctrine and give credit where credit is due.

[RaiderH8r]

LABF, what you posted in #233 has nothing to do with what I wrote - indeed, you're acting more and more like a 'bot.

Bizarre.
He's too busy running away from his Marxist roots until the time is more befitting for him to don his true colors.

[W*GS]

http://www.bartcop.com/gas-money.gif

The person who drew this misspelled "Companies" on the limo license plate.

Not impressive.

[RaiderH8r]

Not impressive.
I presume this does not suprise you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, what you posted in #233 has nothing to do with what I wrote...

Um, I have you on ignore, Einstein.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Pointing out your your habit of confusing liberalism with Marxism protests nothing except your intellectual dishonesty and/or ignorance.

You decry my statement as a "Rovian" tactic implying (as I've deduced from your continued use of the word Rovian) the statement is slanderous.

Riiiiiiight.

What was I thinking? Rove would never try to innacurately paint his political opponents as "Marxists."

:laugh:


However, I merely point out what is obvious. In this particular case, but certainly not the only one of its kind, you've stated that a company's profits are too high and must be taken away and redistributed through entitlement spending.

Meanwhile, here in reality, the companies we are discussing are being investigated by the FTC in connection with allegations of price gouging.

But according to your reasoning, there is no such thing as price gouging, correct?

How do you reconcile this schism between your belief system and reality, facts in the real world, etc?

Further, expecting oil companies to act in accordance with the intentions of our nation's founders, i.e., to take into account the public good, (not simply their own profits) isn't the same thing as "entitlement spending." Expecting oil companies to pay taxes on their incomes just like everyone else in America isn't the same thing as "entitlement spending." Expecting the government to protect consumers and ordinary Americans from predatory corporations who price gouge isn't the same thing as "entitlement spending." (Particularly when the product in question is a resource upon which our entire collective economy depends.)

Profits that have been legally earned through legal business practice, until proven otherwise in a court of law, and given to those who have not earned them.

"Legally earned" is debatable as things currently stand.

In any event, your argument is circular insofar as these companies, under Team Chimp, have been allowed to write their own legislation. Therefore, "legal" = "whatever oil companies want."

Taking from one that which is not rightfully yours is commonly referred to as theft, you seem to believe in some Robin Hood philosophical doctrine...

You seem to believe in a reverse Robin Hood doctrine insofar as you support an administration whose economic "policy" amounts to nothing more than taking money from ordinary Americans and giving it to the rich and to corporations.

So I suggest you cease plagiarizing Marx and attempting to pass it off as the new wave of "liberal/progressive" doctrine and give credit where credit is due.

I suggest you take a lower division political science class so that you might understand the difference between liberalsim and Marxism before you attempt to participate in a political discussion.

While you're at it, don't forget to give the Ann Rand Institute and whoever e-mails you those RNC talking points credit where due for your misinformed, Hooverian takes on the role of government in regulating big business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/oil-question.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He's too busy running away from his Marxist roots until the time is more befitting for him to don his true colors.

You and your little buddy W*GS are nothing more than cheerleaders for a Republican reverse Robin Hood scheme that makes it possible for corporations to pay relatively little in taxes while enjoying the benefits of an American infrastructure paid for by overtaxed (in more ways than one) American taxpayers.

Your attempt to label anyone who objects to this situation as a "Marxist" would be funny were it not so woefully misinformed and innacurate.

[W*GS]

Um, I have you on ignore, Einstein.

Um, by this comment, no, you don't. You have a real problem with the concept "truth" - even when it doesn't really matter, you lie.

[W*GS]

What was I thinking? Rove would never try to innacurately paint his political opponents as "Marxists."

Since you're a Rove clone when it comes to sullying a debate with personal attacks, what the heck are you whining about?

Everyone who disagrees with your politics has been insulted by you with any number of derogatory terms; why do you think you can get away with it and no-one else can?

Pot, kettle, black.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS lives in a world where only his ultraconservative theories - not facts - matter.

An "all the market will bear" approach does not take into account serving the public good. Private financial gain trumps every other consideration. Our Founding Fathers required that corporations had written in their charters serving the public good as their first responsibility even before making profits or serving stockholder interests! Maximizing profits were not their primary mission or reason for existence. The "greed is good" code of business ethics is a fairly new and growing cancer on the American economy. Our current Corporate business leaders are not committed to serving the public good enough to even follow our laws or common standards of decency in many cases.

[RaiderH8r]

W*GS lives in a world where only his ultraconservative theories - not facts - matter.
Fact:

Through the first 3 quarters of FY05 Oil and natural gas have an average rate of return of 7.6%, Banking-18.2%, National average-7.9%.

Meaning, for every $1 invested by oil and natural gas they get 7.6 cents back in profit. They have record profits but they also have record investment and rate of return is a better indicator than just a superficial examination of their balance sheet.

And your Marxist philosophy is apparent in every post. You've given no indication that you support any other philosophy than one of villifying tax payers in favor of giving their money to those who have not earned it.

[alkemical]

Fact:

And your Marxist philosophy is apparent in every post. You've given no indication that you support any other philosophy than one of villifying tax payers in favor of giving their money to those who have not earned it.


That's why i disagree with corporate welfare. I'm a libertarian but also feel that that has to be some level of assistance, but if you are say GM, and you are going to file for bankruptcy - i do not think that you should get tax dollars to bail out your failed business model. Sell Daewoo, sell Saab, etc - Not to mention i thought that moving production to canada and mexico would ENABLE them to make more $$$ than paying "lazy americans" their high union wages.

In the auto industry - i think that you shouldn't be classified a 'domestic' automaker unless you have a % of the product built in the USA. Heh, so i think toyota and honda would be domestic - go figure!

Now, when it comes to some forms of abused welfare - like people who use it for nothing more than to NOT work - but then there are those that benifited (my family was on welfare for 2 years until my mom could make more than $16k/yr with two kids, father was medically unable to help) - So some social plans to help out with people. Not everyone that is poor is a free-loader. When i was homeless i used charities and some social programs, but didn't file for assistance. I used foodbanks, churches, krisna's for food. I used the city's plan for bus tickets so i could go to work. Making $40/day - you can't really afford rent and food. But i feel that there should be time limits and other situations attatched to social welfare. I think that you should get a 'loan' for school if you are below the poverty line. I think that if/when you complete school you should be allowed to look for a 'private' sector job, but also be allowed to be enrolled into a state/gov't job as a sort of 'work for school' program. Upon which your loan is repaid, but with very, very little interest.

When it comes to corporate welfare, there should be limits to how and when it can be used, and if your company was profitable before, what happened to cause it to fail? Did the guys at the top take a pay cut? If not, then NO tax payer monies should be used. IF tax monies are used to bail out X corporation, then the 'state' should own a lien on the business and attach to profits until the money is repaid. If the money isn't repaid, then a repo-process should take effect like it would for any persons to cover the liquid assests that are not paid.

These are just a couple of things i think could change and shape future problems into solutions.

Again i'm not really a socialist, but if you can't work - that's different than won't work. Just like i'm not in favor of just closing down mental hospitals and pushing people that need help onto the street just to save money when lawmakers and judges can take tax cuts.

[W*GS]

W*GS lives in a world where only his ultraconservative theories - not facts - matter.

"An "all the market will bear" approach does not take into account serving the public good. Private financial gain trumps every other consideration. Our Founding Fathers required that corporations had written in their charters serving the public good as their first responsibility even before making profits or serving stockholder interests!"

Repeating the same left-wing spiel over and over again does not make it "fact".

I'd like to see proof of this requirement for "serving the public good" (written by the Founding Fathers, no less!), other than your mere repeating of someone else's say-so.

Show it to us.

[RaiderH8r]

Repeating the same left-wing spiel over and over again does not make it "fact".

I'd like to see proof of this requirement for "serving the public good" (written by the Founding Fathers, no less!), other than your mere repeating of someone else's say-so.

Show it to us.
He may be referring to the founding fathers of his ideaology, Marx and Lenin.