Greedy oil companies
I read again on May 6 about the huge profits the oil companies are making. It’s really hard to believe, so I got out my dictionary and looked up the word greed. It said “Selfish desire beyond reason.”
Fortunately, I am still able to pay these increasing gas prices, but there are many who will be greatly affected by them.
We live in a great country, but I have come to the conclusion that 90 percent of the problems the United States faces are rooted in greed. The oil companies fit this category; they are disgusting and should be ashamed of themselves.
Kevin Watson, Golden
The incredibly stupid Rocky Mountain News' "editorial board" thinks that:
"If [Harry Reid's contention that there is market manipulation is] true, why haven't the companies manipulated supplies in this fashion all along? What accounted for low gas prices in the 1990s?"
The answer is the Department of [former] Justice (under the control of the Executive Branch). Back then, there may have been prosecutorial oversight.
Your editorial board just endorsed one of the stupidest -- despite a pedigreed lineage of stupid things -- ever written here. The department of Justice is currently a train wreck, especially concerning whether Gonazales could over-run Deputy Secty. Comey's testimony before the Senate -- way to editorialize about *that*, you conservative idiots -- that Gonzales attempted to persuade Formr. Atty. Gen. Ashcroft to sign off on domestic wiretapping without warrants while hospitalized. Seriously, trying to get drugged up Ashcroft to overturn Comey's refusal to authorize syping on Americans?!?!? Your refusal to comment on that is not yellow, it's pale green journalism. The Rocky Mountain News' failure to put that on the front line is why it's a fish-wrapper.
Secondly, the charges against the D.O.J. concern precisely tprobelm with the inability or unwillingness to prosecute Republicans and/or Republican donors. So we're supposed to avail ourselves to the revelation that market forces -- beyond any single politicians' control -- is therefore evidence that the current D.o J. is doing its job, even in light of Cheney's [hidden] Energy Task Force?
This editorial board gives "conservatives" a bad name.
Posted by Con Mor on May 17, 2007 04:17 AMhere is a fact all of the extreme far left liberal dems hate.. the oil companies make about $0.08 cents profit per gallon and your wonderful liberal government take $0.40 cents per gallon in taxes. now who is really making the huge profit?
oh wait for your girl, con mor[moron] as she wants to take those profits and pay for all of her social programs so people like you can get a check and never have to earn it.
Do you release that both refineries (two different companies)in Wyoming went off line (at the same time) this month for up to 6 weeks for maintenance and overhaul. Why was this scheduled for the high demand time of the year? There is minimal storage capacity so they did not build up supply. It just means that demand will out strip the available supply there by raising prices.
Posted by Joe on May 17, 2007 06:51 AMSince the oil companies' whine is that they need new refineries to meet the demand for product, I suggest we build them - in Wyoming (low population density, no risk of hurricanes & minimal risk of tornadoes) - since the veep is so hand in glove with the oil industry. Or - since the Feds want to take over land for various reasons - how about annexing part of Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX to build a couple?
Posted by Mary on May 17, 2007 07:23 AMCon Mor,
"...you conservative idiots..."
What's with the acerbic tone in every one of your posts? If you are as smart as you think you are, there were would be no need for these put-downs. Your magnificent intellect would be all that's needed to show all these lesser mortals the true path.
Everyone loves to complain about gas prices.
The fact is that Americans love their cars and trucks. Oil companies have every right to earn the largest profit they can make. American consumers have every right to buy whatever vehicle they want.
Did you ever notice how many trucks and SUV's there are in Colorado? It seems like three of every four vehicles on I-25 are SUV's.
Do you think consumers have a right to buy whatever vehicle they want and that oil companies do not have a right to profit as much as they can from the buying habits of consumers?
If gas prices are so high, why isn't the Chevy Aveo the best-selling car in America? It costs just $10k and gets 37 MPG on the highway. Instead, the top four best-selling vehicles of 2006 are the Ford F150, the Chevy Silverado, the Toyota Camry, and the Dodge Ram.
The Toyota Camry gets 30 MPG yet costs twice as much as the Aveo. So, right off the bat, a consumer in need of transportation can save over $10k by buying an Aveo instead of Camry.
Why don't they? Because they prefer the conveniences of a bigger car despite the added cost of gasoline.
Don't blame Big Oil for the price of gasoline, blame Big Consumer.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 08:22 AM5:53,you nail it.mary,the last group who tried to get a refinery was from Yuma,Arizona.They spent 10 years going through the dems.regulatory red tape before giving up..It wasn't worth the money.And Mary a better place to put a refinery would be at al gore's estate in Tenn.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 08:32 AM5:53,you nail it.mary,the last group who tried to get a refinery was from Yuma,Arizona.They spent 10 years going through the dems.regulatory red tape before giving up..It wasn't worth the money.And Mary a better place to put a refinery would be at al gore's estate in Tenn.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 08:32 AMYou are attacking the wrong industry.We need to be attacking the so called entertainment industry.These greedy bastards making millions making bad movies with sub-par skills,then they pay tribute to the people who are srewing us the democrat party.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 08:48 AMYou are attacking the wrong industry.We need to be attacking the so called entertainment industry.These greedy bastards making millions making bad movies with sub-par skills,then they pay tribute to the people who are srewing us the democrat party.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 08:48 AMKeith:
That's Bullshi..and you know it. Rex Tillerson's pay package in 2006 was $22.9 million. That's $440,000 a week. We can select what company to purchase gas from, let's just stop buying Exxon until the company recognizes that their profit margins need to come down and it will quit gouging the public. This is not a refinery issue this is greed pure and simple.
Why didn't the Repug's while they were the majority in govt pass a bill to build a new refinery? I say Bush has been clearing enough brush at his ranch put it right on top of his place...or how about a refinery with his name on it instead of a library, since reading has never his strong point.
bg,thats a good ideal,We don't a clinton library,the most corrupt president ever.I just read the article this post came from.This anti-american liberal propanganda paper misled you people again,quoting the liar reid.You got to do research.Don't you know the dems. plan of stealing the election in 08' is taking advantage of the ignorant.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:17 AMWho is making all those windfall profits?
The chart probably won't come out in the responses.... but look up the article yourself.
It appears that Coke is making much larger profits per dollar than the 'evil' and 'greedy' oil companies.
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2007/05/08/whos-making-windfall-profits.aspx
So who is making all that money per dollar?
Gross
Margin Net
Margin Return on
Assets Return on
Capital Company
Company A
31.7% 12.9% 14.1% 21.9%
Apple
Company B 49.2% 18.6% 14.9% 23.4% 3M
Company C 65.6% 21% 14% 19.3% Coca-Cola
Company D 32.8% 9.5% 14.4% 23.9% Chevron
Company E 28.9% 6.5% 16.5% 64.3% Accenture
All data courtesy of Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's. Data reflects trailing-12-month performance, with the exception of the final column. Free cash flow amounts are unlevered.
Rory A majority of peoples retirement funds are invested in oil.That was left out.It's nice to see people provide facts that repeat liberal lies like dumb-mor.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:42 AMRory A majority of peoples retirement funds are invested in oil.That was left out.It's nice to see people provide facts that repeat liberal lies like dumb-mor.
Posted by Keith on May 17, 2007 09:42 AMThe problem right isn't the price of crude the "big oil" co's are charging. The current crude rates (set in world markets, not the US) are normally comparable to $2.40 - $2.60 per gallon for gasoline.
Right now it's the refineries that are strapped and can't maintain adequate supply levels. Most of the big oil co's don't own the refineries so blaming them is misdirected anger.
The good news is most refineries have greater capacities coming back online and the prices should level and actually drop a bit in the near future.
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 09:43 AMKeith: You are the most narrow minded fool I have ever seen (heard). You talk out of your --s 99.9 percent of the time. Everytime someone comes up with something backed with facts you come back with the most dumbest comments. Are you still in grade school?
Posted by larrymc on May 17, 2007 10:08 AMHey Rory & John II, nobody needs Coke to get through the day or drive to work or whatever. They do need gasoline though. Companies making obscene profits on a discretionary (1 out of hundreds) product is not the same as making obscene profits off of a necessity. Charging what the market will bear is ok when people have a choice. When they really don't have a viable choice, it is nothing more than extortion and the oil company executives who run the federal government just dont give a shi+.
Posted by Jay on May 17, 2007 10:16 AMPeople oil & health care insurance price gouging is nothing but capitalism at it finest. The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. And before all you righties start making your stupid responces take the time and do the research. Check CEO's salaries. Then compare to the thousands (milions) that are having trouble getting health ins. and paying for gas. Now go back to a debate when "W" was first running for prez and he blamed Clinton for not doing anything about gas prices. In fact what has this guy done. 1. Gas prices 2. Social security 3. National dept. (Once there was a surplus). And Keith has the gall to call Clinton the worst president in history. The only thing this guy has on his plate is war and the biggest dept. in history and tax cuts for the rich. Don't forget all the scandals.
Posted by larrymc on May 17, 2007 10:26 AMWHO IS THE SELFISH GOUGER?
Due to the high oil prices, as determined by global supply and demand conditions, oil companies now make about 13 cents per gallon at the pump. As a result of excessively high taxes, the government takes 3 times that and even more in some localities. Who is selfish?
And where's ANWR in this equation? How about the outer continental shelf? How many nuke generating plants and crude refineries did we build over the past 30 years to keep up with demand? Not in my back yard, right Kevin?
Kevin, you looked up the wrong word. Webster's defines STUPID as "slow of mind, obtuse, given to unintelligent decisions or acts..." May I also suggest that you consult with a basic text in economics (specifically the chapters on supply, demand and pricing), you even consulted the wrong book.
Posted by Hank on May 17, 2007 10:43 AMJay,
"Charging what the market will bear is ok when people have a choice."
Read my post at 8:22am today. Consumers have a choice and they usually choose to buy the bigger car despite the added cost of gasoline.
There's also a downside to the oil companies making these big profits. The higher the cost of gas, the more R & D auto manufacturers are spending on developing hybrids.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 10:49 AM"Don't you know the dems. plan of stealing the election in 08' is taking advantage of the ignorant."
Keith leave me your phone#, pal, I want to have a democratic pollster give you a call.
Posted by Drew on May 17, 2007 10:54 AMI would suggest that Kevin look up a few other words: envy, entitlement, socialism, ...
"you come back with the most dumbest comments. Are you still in grade school?"- larrymc
Most dumbest? That's funny.
"Charging what the market will bear is ok when people have a choice"- Jay
So, when you sell your home, you don't try to get as much as the market will bear? After all, shelter is a necessity.
Economics 001.1
The price of the raw material (oil) goes up. The finished product price (gasoline) goes up.
The price of oil goes down. The price of gasoline goes up.
The bottom drops out of the oil market. It takes a trunkful of cash to fill your gas tank.
It is called "Unrestrained Free Enterprise".
(Someone can explain the meaning of the last example to our Pluperfectly Pompous Pundit, who couldn't understand it last time round.)
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 11:28 AM"And where's ANWR in this equation? How about the outer continental shelf? How many nuke generated power plants and crude refineries did we build over the past 30 years to keep up with demand? Coal gasification? Not in my back yard, right Kevin?"
In a Democratic Republic, we sometimes get exactly for what we vote. And that might soon include $5.00 per gallon at the pump and on its way to $10. So stop whinning and complaining. The government for which you voted has placed oil and gas out of bounds, prevented the buillding of refineries and nuke power plants and is gouging you with its high taxes at the pump. And they are doing it again, right under your nose. But you got what you voted for, right? That's what you wanted, right?
Would you also vote for one sheet per whipe, Kevin? Or is that a little too risky roll of the dice for you?
Posted by Hank on May 17, 2007 11:46 AMOld Grouch,
The little economics lesson that you keep posting is fundamentally flawed and may explain why your take on economics is distorted.
Consumers are not demanding oil. They're demanding gasoline. Consumers do not demand steel. They demand cars. Consumers do not demand wheat. They demand bread.
You're confusing the raw materials with the finished product.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 11:50 AMReplace America's motto: In God We Trust to God is Greed. Name one American that does not think he is not being paid what he is worth. I can't let it go without my calling quoting The God Delusion:
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. A petty, unust, unforgiving control freak. A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. A misogynistic, homphobic, racist, malevolent bully," says Richard Dawkins, to which I add: "And posturing as his son, JC, he is worse because as JC, he sends billions of humans into a lake of fire for eternity in a final madness of sadistic behavior. And guess what: Neither god can exist because no god can be that cruel." Me, RG, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 17, 2007 11:58 AMWe bought a GREAT BIG Ford 350 1 ton and I couldn't be happier! In our neighborhood, all of the stores, doctors, eaterys are less than 2 miles from us.
I do part time work at home.
You know what?? If I am ever involved in an accident, we will still be alive to tell about it!! I know there are no guarantees of survival in accidents but, our chances(barring a semi or other big vehicle) are a heck of a lot better in a larger vehicle. The extra $20.00 we put in our tank is worth it!!!
At least when we do go on a trip or drive across town to see a home bound friend, I have peace of mind and feel reasonably safe and that's priceless on the road now days.
My hubby even drives the big boy to work a couple days a week we do not "top it off" and it does just fine for us!! Once again, with all of the "crazies" out there I don't worry as much when he is driving the big truck!!
He uses a company truck most of the time.
Oh yeah , we are not even close to having loads of cash to pay the gas prices. We just put in what we can and each week add another four or five gallons and pretty soon we have close to a full tank. If I were working full time I would car pool!!
TINY CARS?? like the old 80's saying goes: WHERE'S THE BEEF??"
Good for you, Tudi.
I almost bought a Hummer a few weeks ago. But, the fuel cost and the car payments changed my mind. I bought an old Jeep Cherokee instead.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 12:17 PMDid anyone really doubt that this administrations reign would be a long period of obscene profit taking for big oil? The white house is full of oil guys.........Hello Mcfly!
With oil prices at all time highs our loyal to his own pocketbook president decided to double the size of the strategic reserve adding ten years of strong demand to the market. Buy a clue people.
Posted by Joe on May 17, 2007 12:45 PMJohn II, the choice I was referring to was the fuel, not the type of vehicle. Even though I have ridden a bike to work about 150 times in the last 3 years, it is extremely inconvenient. And trading in an SUV for a tiny tin can gas saver only goes so far when it still costs 50 bucks to fill it up. It's not like we can pump the tank full of water, air, or Coke a Cola, ya know? People can buy gasoline or diesel, lots of choices there when compared to Coke, Diet Coke, Dr Pepper etc.....
And the reason there are so many 4WD SUV's on the roads here is because every once in a while, it snows. 2 wheel drives just don't get it in the snow. Also, those who are most effected by the obscene increases in gas prices are also the ones who cannot afford to spend an extra 5-10 thousand dollars for a hybrid. Mike, a home seller trying to get the most the market will bear is fine, as there are thousands of choices out there no matter what the market. However, there is still only gas or diesel, not much choice. Comparing the sale of a home with the price of gas is like comparing the cost of an igloo in Alaska with the cost of a liferaft when you are floundering in the middle of the ocean. If the oil industry was truly a free market system, that would be one thing, but we all know that isn't the truth, don't we. Those oil guys are laughing at us commoners until they wet their pants.
Why do you need a big car to prove how much of a manly man meat-eating super tough manly stud you are?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "I don't want to buy a small care because where's the beef?"
Unbelievable. And JohnII, arent you the one constantly advocating (in the past 2 days) for people to buy a smaller car?
FWIW Tudy - There exists today, an electric car built by a professor in CA that has enough torque to snap the rear axle of a ford explorer with 6 people in the car. Is that enough beef for you? Why is this car not in mass production? hmmmmmmmm.....oil...something about dick cheney....enron.......just can't connect the dots!
Posted by Tbone on May 17, 2007 01:07 PMSo, oil companies are having another good year.
Hope when I have a good year, some lefty who knows better what to do with other people's money won't be telling me I'm "greedy."
And wasn't it just a few years ago we were paying too little at the pump, and should pay more like they do in Europe, so we'd get our comeuppance?
Posted by prima facie on May 17, 2007 01:11 PMJay,
"Those oil guys are laughing at us commoners until they wet their pants."
They're not the only ones laughing at you commoners. You're being laughed at because your reasoning is laughable.
"John II, the choice I was referring to was the fuel, not the type of vehicle. Even though I have ridden a bike to work about 150 times in the last 3 years, it is extremely inconvenient."
You have a choice as to how much fuel you will rely on in your life. Everything has a cost. Riding a bike is inconvenient. Paying for gas is inconvenient. At some point, you weigh those inconveniences and choose the option that works best for you. That, my friend, is life.
If you buy an SUV because it snows heavily a few days out of the year, you are choosing to pay more for gas for the convenience of driving through heavy snow once or twice a year.
Welcome to the real world, Jay. Nothing is free. The world will not change the rules for you just because riding a bike is inconvenient. So, stop the womanly whining and accept the rules of life like a man.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 01:14 PMTbone,
"And JohnII, arent you the one constantly advocating (in the past 2 days) for people to buy a smaller car?"
No. I was advocating anyone who feels gas prices are too high to buy a smaller car. I feel gas prices are reasonable. I like my Jeep Cherokee. If prices get too high, I'll scale back on recreational driving. Or, perhaps, I'll buy a smaller car. But, for now, talking about gas prices is like talking about the weather; it's just small talk for "commoners".
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 01:23 PMTbone - Going electric trades one enviomental issue for another. Batteries to power vehicles are (1) expensive, (2) require industry to build (big users of fossil fuel energy), (3) use exotic materials dug out of the ground in foreign countries, (4) must be recharged regularly (again a big use of fossil fuel energy. My bottom line is - Yes less personal polution; Yes more industrial polution. Net gain ZERO.
Posted by Joe on May 17, 2007 02:04 PMI saw a study the other day regarding the price of gasoline and how we are reacting to it. Say the price of gasoline goes up $0.75 a gallon. The difference for a 15 gallon tank is $11.25. Most people probably fill up once a week. So divide that by 5 (the work week) and that is $2.25/day. About the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
I personally think it is more sticker shock than anything else. $3 or more for a gallon of gas, when we used to pay (at least for me in the late 80's) 78 cents for leaded gasoline. Now we have to deal with winter blend, summer blend, mid grade, premium, regular unleaded, diesel, E-85... No wonder the cost of gasoline is more compared to the cost of crude. But I also remember when my $1.25 can of soda was only a quarter too. At least gasoline has not gone up a factor of 5.
I have 3 cars and a motorcycle. I take the bike when it is nice out, the Jeep when I need to haul anything or if it's snowing, and one of the other two cars for longer trips (Hyundai and a V W). I deal with it. But an extra $11.25 a week is not going to put me in the poor house. I am blessed that I have a good job that pays me well. Mr Grimes, I am probably that guy that is being paid for what I do and do not feel I am underpaid at all.
But really, is $11.25 really going to impact that many of us?
Posted by Dan2 on May 17, 2007 02:15 PMAnd besides, how do I launch my boat with a hybrid?
Gotta have the truck!
Posted by KW on May 17, 2007 02:17 PM"They do need gasoline though"
"Even though I have ridden a bike to work about 150 times in the last 3 years, it is extremely inconvenient."
At least you are honest enough to eventually admit that this isn't about necessity, it's about convenience and desire. I love how every time the topic of gas prices comes up, some schmoe makes a comment about how driving their car is a need, completely ignoring the fact that driving hasn't even been an option for the bulk of human history. If you don't like getting "gouged" for gas, why don't you choose to live within walking distance of your employment, rather than in the suburbs? There are plenty of people who don't have any use for an automobile because they choose to live in a manner where a car would be more of an inconvenience in the form of extra costs than not owning one is. Is there no one who just accepts personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices anymore without whining about it? If all the whines on this forum for someone else to do something about this or that issue were useful solutions, we'd have entered a golden age months ago.
Posted by No use on May 17, 2007 02:18 PMExcellent point, Dan2.
I don't think people care as much about gas prices as they would lead you to believe.
The local news channels love to tattle to it's viewers about the cost of gas. It mostly functions as fluff pieces for slow news days.
Those on this forum who complain about the price of gasoline typically are anti-capitalist/socialist in nature and usually have something negative to say about anything related to capitalism
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 02:28 PMSo here we are, thinking about what the Rocky Mountain News told us to think about, which is the marginal rise in gasoline prices. Off I go, just like everyone here, firing my itty bitty synapses thinking about the artificially low price of gas, which hasn't inflated like Coke has.
Instead of thinking about how there is no prosecutorial oversight at Justice. Or how Wolfowitz ruined the World Bank. Or how the General Accounting Office is messing with budget numbers. Or if the new immigration proposal is a good idea. Or if the unbelievably stupid war in Iraq is "lost." Or if we should restrict 14 year-old rape victims to testify before she can terminate her pregnancy.
I could go on.
But perhaps John II, you see why I have utter disdain for "conservatives;" even the ones who have the ability to think about things that may challenge their little philosophies actively choose not to. And they're ruining this great country as a result.
Posted by Con Mor on May 17, 2007 02:43 PMBravo Con Mor! A fine speech.
We don't randomly pick topics on this forum. We respond to letters to the editor, discuss it, debate it, and occasionally the discussion moves to something else.
Do you think you're the only one on this forum with "utter disdain" for your political opponent?
I gather from your remarks that your "utter disdain" for conservatives gets in the way of your being able to have a civil discourse. In other words, your emotions guide you more than reason does. Isn't that the primary stereotype of a liberal; over-emotional and unreasonable.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 02:59 PMCon Mor,
Explain to me the lack of prosecutorial oversight at Justice? I am not sure I know what you are referencing, and may be ignorant to this topic?
I would love to discuss why you feel Wolfowitz ruined the world bank by negotiating his girl-friends salary instead of staying out of it, and then not resigning? Other than showing that he is an idiot, how does this have "real impact" for the world bank? Credibility? Maybe, but people will forget about him in a month.
The GAO has played with numbers since it's inception. Using the social security surplus to negate deficit, moving numbers from operational accounting to functional monies for the purpose of war. It is a terrible practice, but nothing new, and I sure wish we could eliminate the GAO and just use "real numbers."
When you preface something with an adjective (and adverb at that) "the unbelievably stupid war in Iraq, what is the point in discussing it with you? We know your opinion before you state it.
The other stuff, I don't know enough about. I don't know what the "new immigration policy" is, (I don't think many do, unless you are referring to Colorado's law, or House bill 1330 to change ID requirements to receive CO ID), as there is no new policy on a Federal level. Maybe you are referring to immigration debate, or potential legislation that is being discussed in Congress? I don't know.
I have no knowledge of 14 year olds being forced to testify before allowing an abortion. I personally would not be for anything that creates undo stress to a young child. I would think rape is terrible, being forced to testify is awful, and having to abort a child, a terrible terrible decision forced upon such a young person. I don't know that ANY person with an ounce of common decency and sense would argue any other way.
But the topic at hand is gas prices on this thread. That was what started this discussion. There are other threads that deal with the war, that deal with immigration, and would provide you the opportunity to discuss those topics as well. If you would like to discuss any topic, the RMN allows you to write unlimited letters on any topic you choose. Write a letter, see if it gets published so that we may discuss what is on your mind, and what is important to you. But you shouldn't really scold anyone for sticking to the topic at hand.
Posted by Dan2 on May 17, 2007 03:08 PMJohn II and No Use miss the point. We all make our choices. However, I feel that the oil companies are ripping people off because the public has no real options to avoid using gas. You both sound like UN socialists to me. The type who feel they are are so much better and smarter than everyone else, that no other opinion is valid. Anyway, enjoy yourselves. I know that neither of you have the tools to be able to ride 15 miles each way to work.
Posted by Jay on May 17, 2007 03:33 PMJay,
"I feel that the oil companies are ripping people off because the public has no real options to avoid using gas."
How can you still say that after we showed you all the options you have? You even admitted you can ride a bike to work. That's an option!
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 03:38 PMBy the way, as for this comment:
"I know that neither of you have the tools to be able to ride 15 miles each way to work."
I don't need to ride my bike to work. I pay the oil companies so I don't have to pedal like Fred Flintstone. It's very convenient!
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 03:53 PM"I feel that the oil companies are ripping people off..." - Jay
Try thinking instead of feeling.
Posted by Mike on May 17, 2007 03:58 PMCon Mor,
"Or if the new immigration proposal is a good idea."
I'll tell you what, I think that immigration bill is a treasonous outrage. I am infuriated about it. This definitely takes things to the next level.
We ordered steak & potatoes and our public servants gave served us burritos & rice. It's time to put this restaurant out of business.
Posted by John II on May 17, 2007 04:31 PMJohn II,
And I suppose the finished product comes into existence without raw materials to begin with; and the costs have no relationship one to the other that way.
Yeah! That's just about as sensible as any of the other arguments I've seen here, and elsewhere, when you post.
And just about as sensible as any of your other lectures on the subject of economics as well.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 06:41 PMOG- There is more to it than the cost of the raw materials.
Just because the cost of raw materials goes down, does not necessarily mean that the cost of the finished product will go down.
There might be costs later in the process that go up (refining costs, for example) or, more profit might be made, as you alluded to before.
The business I am in supplies a product to home builders. There are several ways of offering this product, but it is usually done one of two ways. One way has costly raw materials, the other very cheap raw materials. The one with the very cheap raw materials is much more expensive to the home builder. Why? The labor involved is about 4 times as much. The equipment necessary is much more expensive. There are more potential complications and problems. Therefore, it is priced at a higher profit margin and it costs quite a bit more.
You stated:
"The price of the raw material (oil) goes up. The finished product price (gasoline) goes up.
The price of oil goes down. The price of gasoline goes up.
The bottom drops out of the oil market. It takes a trunkful of cash to fill your gas tank."
You are saying that the price of gas always goes up. Obviously, that isn't true.
For a minute, stop linking gas and cars. When the price of fuels goes up, everything costs more.
Transportation costs are figured into almost all goods and this nasty rising tide lifts all boats right out of the water.
There are not that many gas companys and that lets them manipulate the costs, where greater compatition might help the prices lower.
We should definately drill off shore in the Florida panhandle area and look to other solutions to the foreign oil problem.
And if we continue to give big oil large amounts of tax breaks, should we not get something in return.
This isn`t pure capitalism here, but they get all the benefits.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 04:41 AMMike,
I know that many would like to consider "economics" to be something of a "science", with some of the same kind of "fixed" examples/evidence/proof approach as, for instance, the law of gravity, or thermodynamics, or the speed of light.
And of course, there are a great many who present it that way, in college courses and elsewhere. And, when a nice big, fat anomaly comes along - such as 3 billion dollars of profits at a time when other parts of the economy are on a significant downturn - the economists are all aflutter with "explanations".
Heaven forfend that a gouge be called a gouge, or that sheer selfish greed be named for what it is!
Us simple folks jest gotta call 'em like we see 'em; an thet thar little e-con-omics 001.1 air bout tha best usns can do, out hyar in Injun fightin country, whar we're apayin thru tha nose fer it all.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 07:20 AM"gouge be called a gouge, or that sheer selfish greed be named for what it is!"
Greed according to you? Forgive me while I yawn.
"such as 3 billion dollars of profits"
Out of how much revenue? What is their profit margin?
"at a time when other parts of the economy are on a significant downturn"
Overall, the economy is doing very well. Like I said, I am in a business that works with home builders. The home building industry is not doing very well right now but, we still make a pretty decent profit. Is that wrong? Is that greed?
Posted by Mike on May 18, 2007 07:28 AMIt's the greed in congress not the oil companies.
Posted by bart on May 18, 2007 08:13 AMIt's the greed in congress not the oil companies.
Posted by bart on May 18, 2007 08:13 AM"I feel that the oil companies are ripping people off because the public has no real options to avoid using gas."
I already listed the option I use to avoid using gas, my feet. I'm pretty sure I've already said this, but some people consider the consequences of where they choose to live, and deal with them.
"You both sound like UN socialists to me."
I'm not sure where you came up with this, but your posts make it pretty apparent that careful consideration isn't something you put into your opinions before you post them. I might be insulted by being called a socialist, if it weren't so ridiculous.
"The type who feel they are are so much better and smarter than everyone else, that no other opinion is valid."
Ever hear of projection?
"Anyway, enjoy yourselves. I know that neither of you have the tools to be able to ride 15 miles each way to work"
As I've already stated, I'm not the kind of fool that buys a house 20 miles from their job and then bitches about the price of gas (unlike many of the posters on this thread). I have no need to bike 15 miles to work, because I live about 1/2 of a mile from my place of employment, and I walk. If you feel so victimized by the oil companies, sell your home and move somewhere less inconvenient.
Posted by No use on May 18, 2007 06:50 PMAnd then we have those who live on fixed incomes; and for whom sale of their homes in a market now glutted with foreclosures, and saturated with real estate signs offering the empty structures being multiplied in ever increasing profusion in the developments, is difficult, if not close to impossible. I suppose "public transportation" is the first answer for them, if it be thought they even be considered as needing to get out and about at all, that is.
However, since the Reason To Drive is busy playing with its new train sets - and planning on how to buy more to add to its collection (and more "layouts" for an even bigger game room to play in) , at hugely inflated cost over-runs of previous estimates - public transportation, as such, really isn't all that much of a concern there today, much less a viable alternative for those unable to either to walk to the work they no longer have, or perhaps bicycle to the grocery store for essentials.
Would you be kind enough to enlighten us, Mr. No use, as to some options they might have - other than "bitching", of course - in the current situation?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 08:28 AMOG- They can pay the higher prices, or not. Those are two of their options.
It's better to have more money, than less. It's better if things we need cost less, rather than more. I think we will agree on those points.
We know what options they have. What options would you like to SEE them have?
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 08:40 AMPeople we have a choice of two types of governments . 1. Socialism 2. Capitalism. Some of you have chosen Capitalism. Allowing big oil and insurance companys just to name a few to raise prices anytime they want is part of Capitalism. So we little people have to keep our mouths shut and pay up.
Posted by larrymc on May 19, 2007 09:22 AMlarrymc,
You should win a prize for your honesty in your last post. I think you're the first liberal (socialist) on this forum to actually break it down to a choice between capitalism and socialism, and then lambast capitalism.
How many other liberals on the forum care to follow larrymc's example and freely admit to being a socialist? Old Grouch?
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 09:34 AMJohn- They would probably use the euphemism 'progressive'.
Old Grouch would write a 1000 word post lambasting the use of 'labels' and never come within a mile of answering the question.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 09:45 AM"Allowing big oil and insurance companys (sic) just to name a few to raise prices anytime they want is part of Capitalism."
Who would you have control prices, Larry? That question is rhetorical; I already know.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 09:49 AMI never said I was a socialist. Because both have it's negatives while both have it's positves. See that's whats wrong with all you idiots that think that you have to be democrat or republican. And you have defend them no matter what they do. If a democrat was pres right know Mike and John would be yelling like hell about the war and the gas prices. Case in point when Carter was in office and inflation was was out of control it was all his fault. Out he went. I remember Bush coming down on Clinton a few years ago for not doing anything about high gas prices. The day when we the people get rid of the two party system and get people in there that works for the people instead of special interests we might just find a middle ground. But then mike and johnII won't have a liberal to blame for everything.
Posted by larrymc on May 19, 2007 10:45 AMMike,
That would be simply because the "label" is false in the first place.
Perhaps you should actually study history a little bit, before you merely opt for silly and simplistic answers.
I am neither a "liberal" nor a "socialist", as ignorant people use the terms, instead of attempt to arrive at a rational understanding of the matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 10:46 AMlarrymc,
"I never said I was a socialist. Because both have it's negatives while both have it's positves."
You could apply that statement to anything in this world. The real issue is that you feel the negatives of capitalism are worse than the negatives of socialism.
"Case in point when Carter was in office and inflation was was out of control it was all his fault."
Mr. Carter rationed gasoline despite the fact the economists told him it would cause shortages. The Democrats favor taxing gasoline. They directly affect the price of gas.
Mike,
Old Grouch said:
"I am neither a "liberal" nor a "socialist", as ignorant people use the terms, instead of attempt to arrive at a rational understanding of the matter."
Looks like you were right about the labels part. You see, Old Grouch is too brilliant to be strapped to any particular label or "term".
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 11:04 AMJohn,
He just did it in far fewer words than usual.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 11:15 AM"People we have a choice of two types of governments . 1. Socialism 2. Capitalism. Some of YOU have chosen Capitalism."- larrymc (my emphasis)
"I never said I was a socialist."- larrymc
So, what are you?
"If a democrat was pres right know Mike and John would be yelling like hell about the war and the gas prices." -larrymc
Nope. I understand that war is sometimes necessary and, throughout the 90s, I kept hoping Clinton would do something.
As far as gas prices; I don't complain when a product goes up in price. I understand supply and demand, and I don't care what a company's profits are; unless I have a vested interest in the company, and then I want the profits to be as high as possible.
Oops; there's my greedy mentality again.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 11:24 AMMike:
I'm american you idiot. For some reason you and John think that if everyone don't agree with you, your not. You two are what really is the threat of our freedoms. You and your dictator Bush and this bulls--t that if your not with us your against us. People like you two if Bush said we need to hand him complete power you two would roll over like dogs. That is why we are loosing our freedoms because you buy all of his s--t. Wake up.
Larry:
That was a very nice reasoned, rational response.
"People like you two if Bush said we need to hand him complete power you two would roll over like dogs."
I don't know where you got that one.
"I'm american you idiot."
I assumed that. I'm confused as to what your economic preference is. You said:
"People we have a choice of two types of governments . 1. Socialism 2. Capitalism. Some of YOU have chosen Capitalism."
You seem to imply that you would not choose capitalism. Then you said:
"I never said I was a socialist."
So, you don't embrace socialism or capitalism?
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 12:29 PM
Perhaps, Mike, your questioning is too complex for larrymc. Maybe a simple and direct question might work.
larrymc, do you prefer capitalism or socialism as our national system for managing 300,000,000 people?
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 12:54 PMI would perfer socialism but not how you righties color it. And if you think for a minute we don't havve to have it you're stubid. Not everyone in this country can aford to have your capitalist health insurance. So what do we do let these low lifes die? No! Not in America. We don't do that. Now that is what a dictator does. So what do we do? We give them care. Well guess who pays for these services. We do the tax payers. Now that is socialism. But since you two are against any type of socialism I guess you let them die or suffer. I know you both are going to say why don't these low lives go get a good job that has healthcare insurance. Well I have one of those. And at the rate your caoitalist insurance rates are going up we're wondering how long we can afford it. Now I'm not for total social services. And think alot of people abuse it. This should be controlled. But social programs are needed. So mike and john if you are dead set of socialism neither one of you had better file for social security when you retire because thats socialism.
Posted by larrymc on May 19, 2007 01:15 PM"So mike and john if you are dead set of socialism neither one of you had better file for social security when you retire because thats socialism."
I agree. I would like to be let out of it and would gladly give up the many thousands of dollars I've already paid into it to be let out of it now.
What a horrible socialist program. Sorry for the redundancy.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 01:19 PMmike:
I take it your rich and if something happened to you were you couldn't work and lost your healthcare coverage for you and your family you would never accept any help from a social program? If you come back and say no your a liar. No real man would make his family go hungry or without medical care. But then you could write a letter to a oil company or insurance company and they would be loyal to you like you are to them and send you plenty of money.
I don't consider myself rich (I don't know what your definition of that would be), but I do pretty well. My wife has a good job and we have been very responsible with our savings. We both have life, disability, and health insurance. I can also keep my health insurance if I leave my current employer. So, no, I would not need a social program if something happened to me.
Go ahead, call me a liar.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 02:17 PMSo now all we have to do is get every single american citizen to be like you and I guess we do away socialism. Now hows that possible. If you can come up with that answer you can become president. But if not I guess you & John are going to have to accept socialism and stop whinning about it. Be sides I know damn well if you did need it you would get it. Your damn pride just won't admit ti to save an argument.
Posted by larrymc on May 19, 2007 02:34 PMWill have to close for now. Going out to enjoy myself. Even though I always enjoy a good debate.
Posted by larrymc on May 19, 2007 02:49 PMLarry- There will always be a safety net in this country. Nobody has said anything about doing away with that. If you need medical care, and cannot pay for it, you won't be turned away at the door. That isn't socialism.
You made the reference to socialism when you said, "People we have a choice of two types of governments . 1. Socialism 2. Capitalism. Some of you have chosen Capitalism. Allowing big oil and insurance companys just to name a few to raise prices anytime they want is part of Capitalism."
You alluded to government setting the prices for oil and insurance; "just to name a few".
That is socialism and you seemed to embrace it.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 02:53 PMSpeaking of labels: Neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a "government". They are both philosophies of socio- economics. Also, they are not mutually exclusive, either in theory or practice. Governments may adopt and/or utilize either, or parts of both, in the course of governing, to deal with socio-economic matters.
Do try to read something simple, such as a dictionary perhaps, before blathering away. You might even be able to form a logical and coherent statement were you to do so.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 08:16 PMOG- I assume that last post was directed to larrymc, since it was he who called them 'governments'.
Obviously, governments may adopt either, or parts of both, to deal with socio-economic matters. The point of the discussion was to see which way larrymc leaned. I lean much more toward a purely capitalistic system. I believe he (and you) lean toward a more socialistic system.
Try to read the posts more thoroughly before "blathering away".
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 09:28 PMMike,
I am not at all concerned with the WHO. Which is why I did not address anyone in particular to begin with.
You of course may believe what you choose about others. I think "larrymc" answered you quite adequately, when he wrote, "I'm American , , , ,"
When dealing with the American governmental - and socio-economic - system, there is no need to pick and choose between philosophies, on an "either or" basis, and respond as if everything was polarized into mutually exclusive and warring factions, with one "side" always "right" and the other "side" always "wrong".
As to the rest of his answer, that's a matter for those who choose to deal with it.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 20, 2007 07:40 AM