Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Here's a question for all you geniuses out there...

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by verbal kint
Conceivably Thug could get Werko to do quite a bit more work before handing over the leftovers. It's likely it may go beyond the point that Werko really regrets not going hunting today, but he's in this far so he may as well finish up.


lol, and now werko doesn't have time to go hunting because he's got so much $I-IiT to do. he's now a slave to Thug.

if Werko decides to drop Thug's chores and go hunting himself he's gonna find that Thug is unhappy with this new arrangement. Now it's a matter of Thug monopolizing the hunting process. He has all the best tools. Werko can no longer choose to hunt.

He is now a slave.

Werko must fight!

He must fight with his barehands against Thug's axe and spear. Viva la Revolution!




posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Hmmmm....

Fewer miles driven in June than last year (some 17 billion less) and yet the profit still increases?

If your cost of raw materials/processing/shipping increase you increase your prices to cover those costs and make about the same profit.

But 30-40% increases in profits means gouging doesn't it?

s



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slothrop
reply to post by verbal kint
 


what is "wrong with this picture"? companies are supposed to make money. exxon is making a lot of money right now. that's the point of running a business. why do people fear and hate success so much?


Thank you so much for saying this. You and I may be the last two captialists left in America



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by surrender_dorothy
 


You know, you socialists have it all wrong...the characters' names should be reversed. Werko should be the one that's doing the hunting (the work), and Thug should be the jerk that just sits back and does nothing. That would be more appropriate.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by verbal kint
 


What you need to ask is how much did the government make from exxon durring this period.

the answer is 30 billion! Screw the gov, they dont need 30 billion. Maybe they should drop gas taxes altogether.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by streakr
 


Most people are ignorant of where oil goes, most ignorant people think oil goes towards cars and the making of gasoline...wrong!

Most oil goes to industries as lubricants, tar and towards the production of plastic.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by verbal kint
as for Voxel, while I did imply that rising gas prices have dramatically driven up Exxon's profits, I didn't say it. Not that different, but true. More importantly, I never even insinuated that gasoline sales were their only or even primary source of revenue. Please stop reacting to things I didn't say.


I didn't say those things only to you verbal. I am reacting to the ignorant consensus on this thread that seems to think Exxon is making obscene profits because of the high price of gas - Exxon simply isn't making most of their money from the gas market. I am trying to get some of the other people in this thread to think outside of the "Oil company make a lot of money? Price of gas is too high!" box they seem to place themselves in every time they visit the pump.

At least a few people in this thread have the right idea. Combine the plummeting value of petrodollar (which means that 11 billion is only worth about 6 billion in 1998 dollars), the massive real estate sell off during the tail end of a real estate boom, and the growing business of selling transportation and refining services to foreign gas retailers and you have the making of a lean 8%-10% profit margin.

Jon



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


It is a shame that people are willing to trade autonomy and opportunity -and admittedly some risks-for certain, yet consistent, poverty.

Sad. All this criticism of a political and economic system that has improved quality and length of life for SOOOOO MANY people is disgusting.

It is True; the US does not form policy based on morality. It forms policy based on wealth. How can you be any fairer? Truly. Fair.

If policy is based on norms and mores, you will always have someone crying foul, but if policy is based on economic pressure then everyone has an equal shot at pushing forward their agenda in a classless capitalist system. Classless as in there are no state-sanctioned social classes. For the most part...



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
A lot of people keep talking about how the job of a company in capitalism is to make profits. I agree with this, but capitalism to a degree becomes bad for the progress of everyone involved, when any shred of morality is thrown out the _

It is the best interest for those in power to keep things the way they are, to prevent new technology and progress from disturbing their profits. When the majority of the people, the working class, are forced to live less satisfying lives so the powerful can be more powerful, something has gone wrong.

We can have capitalism without a static plutocracy.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by verbal kint
 


There is much more to it than just the "how," but the answers are included in the video I have linked in the thread below...

reply to post by Swingarm
 


Good call talking about Alaska. That is also talked about in the video below, very directly...

reply to post by concretezombie
 




what is it being used to finance? where is it being invested? blah blah blah dah dah dee dah dah...


You wouldn't believe where your money is going if I told you, so let this video try to explain it...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you all are concerned about the record profits of big oil comapanies, take note. The video in the htread linked above will show you that the profits of these companies is small beans compared to what the World Bank and the IMF are raking in. Even the oil producing nations themselves are not getting the biggest chunk of the pie, so don't bother complaining about the Saudis or Chavez.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stinkhorn
 

TRUE. TRUE.
But the rapid CONSUMPTION of fuels is the burning issue. All puns intended.
It's like crops; food gets eaten, but hemp shirts are forever!



Axle grease has a much longer time spent "In System." Gasoline has a shelf-life AND is usually quickly coverted to lower energy states on the highway.

And yeah. This whole things just goes to show how many prodigal morons there are out on the roadways. SO much unnecessary engine use. :Gass Asses." Driving for recreation should be discouraged. Long before the current Oil situation I avoided using my vehicle at all costs, so my behavioral patterns are unaffected. I also live near farms, so I can walk to the food!





posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I love how everyone skipped over my post!!!!!

Do you socialists and pseudo-Economists understand the fundamental difference between "profits" and "profit margins"????

And:

8.9% profit margin is PAULTRY. It's a pathetic profit margin, and only someone completely ignorant to the day and night difference between a "profit" and "profit margin" would ever claim a corporation with an 8.9% profit margin is "gouging".

That's asinine.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Yes, but whose morality rule are you choosing? Where is the universally acceptable standard for this "morality?"

If it means cross the picket line to feed kids, then the individual is undermining the cause, freedoms and pursuit of happiness for the union workers. It's arguably immoral in a large sense, but isn't it also immoral to deny one's progeny food?

One group's morality is anothers sin. So in a state that espouses a separation of Church & State or at least a minimization of theological influence on policy, how does a legislative-supposedly representative- body select and establish policy?

Morality is ambiguous and idiosyncratic. Cash ain't.

"-Tequila sunrise, bloodshot eyes, realize we all born to die...
-So get the money * . . . "
- B Real



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
So, basic math here kids....

A: Exxon Mobil has a profit margin of 8.9%
B: Last quarter they reported $11,000,000,000+ in profits.

Q: What was their operating costs for that quarter? Or, "How much did Exxon Mobil have to spend to make that $11,000,000,000+?"



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Here is actual "gouging"...

The Pharmacudical industry average an 18% profit margin.

If Big Oil is "gouging" with an 8.9% profit margin, then Big Pharm is "gouging" us twice as bad!!!

And they are "gouging" the sick and elderly.

Stop copy/pasting garbage from idiots who don't understand elementary basics of either Economics or mathmatics.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Thanks for the links.
However, quite a few people know and have known about the presence of various sinificant oil fields around the globe, but when people talk about Peak Oil it isn't merely a matter of there being crude oil on planet earth in abundance.
What are the other factors? Well, global appetite for one. Sure we can fuel up SUVs for 5 billion, but do we want to?

The Peak Oil is also about profit. There are other resources consumed en masse in a fossil fueled economy like the US. If China, India and Russia all want to consume energy on the scale that Americans do (and have for quite a while) there are other logistical considerations other than crude oil availability.

Peak Oil. Not Peak of Oil Supply, but rather the Peak of Oil-based industry and economics.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Here are a couple things that no one has taken in consideration.

A. Look at all the cheap oil the Exxon and the others are siphoning off Iraq. You dont think their hands are in the Iraqi oil pie?

B. Profits are what is left over after all the money you spend. Lets face it paying off Washington politicians aren't as cheap as they used to be. On top of this the HUGE fees paid to the oil execs for really doing nothing but enjoying high oil prices.

If it was up to me and I have said it before I would nationalize oil. Use that money we would make selling oil to eliminate our income tax. Oil is a national security issue and should not be in private hands to make huge profits at the expense of our economy and our citizens. There are countries that are taking full advantage of high oil and building great infrastructure but for some reason the US who is the worlds 3rd or 4th largest producer is not reaping ANY benefits form high oil.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I read it I read it! No one ever overtly reacts to my posts either. At leat not unless I'm being an opinionated jerk.

You have to make outrageous claims. You're just being too mundane with all you "facts," and "technical details," "sources," "figures," and fancy speak. Where do you get off comin' in here with that stuff? I suppose next you'll be tellling us you have a graduate/post graduate degree in economics and provide us with ahighly detailed,organized breakdown/comparison of various markets and accounts over the last fiscal year, huh?

Wait. Could you? With easy-to-follow graphs and appropriate links?

You know who else is raking in the bucks? Jerks. The Railroads!! That's right. The demand for rail freight service has skyrockteted in the last 4-6 months and those EVIL ROTTEN CAPITALIST PIG railroad Barons are just raking in the cash, putting hard-working speedfreak truckers out of work!!!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I understand what you're saying, but I think points A and B are sort of implicit in the discussion. Understood mutually?

Also, nationalizing oil may ultimately be a wise move, but the logistics are overwhelming. If nationalization of petroleum was enacted with the current technological infrastructure in North America it would be worse than dropping an atom bomb on Wall Street, DC and LA at once. Total collaspe.
To nationalize petroleum in North America would be akin to suddenly deciding to become a communist state. It would be that radical and would require incomprehensible amounts of small-scale citizen case management minutiae. Our Reality and World is founded on the petroleum market.

Remove the appetite. Alternate fuels/energy are the only solutions.

Oh yeah.. How about we cancel the Federal taxation on fuel and explicitly/blatantly forbid the oil peddlers in North America from pocketing the difference. Say, for the next ten years? Until we get some real energy. See if we have zero-point power and keep the tech. and know how relatively inaccessible, we'll just package and sell energy to everyone else.
Stars n' Stripes. Funky President, Ooogh.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by djerwulfe]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by verbal kint
 


You ignorant fool. Only mentioning profits without mentioning total revenue and expenses is misleading. They made only 8% profit and paid tens of billions in taxes every year while employing 200,000 people. Your cable TV company made 21% profit. American oil companies produce only 4% of all the oil in the world, you moron. Their profit was only 8%.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join