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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by djerwulfe
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


I'm talking about simple morality.

I believe it is wrong for people to take advantage of others. I believe it is wrong for people to cause others pain so they can have more power.

Capitalism doesn't have to be evil. The strongest and smartest could still be relatively and satisfyingly successfully without limiting and eliminating the potentials of the less fortunate.




posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


I only offer my opinion on this, but does greed have a ceiling? My take is that as long as OPEC and company can find a way to artificially inflate a barrel of oil, they will do so. Supply and demand probably does account for a portion of the increase in oil, but I doubt it covers all of it.

What we are experiencing is a de-sensitizing to artificially high prices. Let's look at last year. Price of gas around here was less than $3 a gallon. This year, it's been as high as $4.39. So, we think we're getting a good deal now when gas drops to $3.69 as it did this last week. That's still .69 cents higher than a year ago when we are all griping about the price of gas then. But, since we've paid these prices for year, most of us think we're getting a break now.

Nah, all part of the plan.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 

I make ethanol. I pay around 20 cents a pound for sugar. It takes about 30 minutes per gallon to make and is very very simple. I also take the waste products from local breweries and wineries and incorporate that into the process, its free, in fact some places have offered me money to take it from them. They think I am a farmer and am using this stuff for animal feed, ha, ha, ha. I can show ANYONE how to do this, for FREE. I mix the ethanol with 15% gasoline(still working to eliminate this) and my car runs BETTER than with gas alone. The process is safe,if done correctly,is not for consumption(er,mostly..) and is extremely simple. There is only one little problem, its totally illegal. It is a Federal Crime to do this without an ATF permit. To me this is all the more reason to do it,screw the government.
The process of fermenting the waste material also reduces the amount of mass that is put into the environment as garbage. It goes back into the soil and is actually good for the plants. There is absolutley no reason not to do this. It is the most viable fuel source for the average person to make and is much, much less environmentally harmful. I hope to patent a device that will turn your kitchen scraps of veggies into ethanol fuel. Anyone interested in this alternative to gas and how to do it can u2u me and I will tell you for free, really. I will send you plans and instructions via e-mail. There is no reason that every household in the U.S. should not make their own fuel with minimal effort. It can be done.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I'd be willing to bet that we could eliminate poverty and unemployment in this country if the following were true...

Government and big business pays basic cost of living for all citizens willing and able to work, when they are not working, for as long as they are out of work.

Of course this also means paying workers a living wage when they are working as well, about double the current minimum I would say. This must also include, of course, care for those who are in fact not able to work. Unless of course we euthanise the unfortunates.

Basically though, I can practically guarantee there would suddenly be plenty of paying jobs in this country if they had to pay people wether or not they were actually working.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by verbal kint
 

Umm...we're not in a recession. A recession is two back-to-back quarters of negative growth. We have not had ONE quarter of negative growth. Our economy has never gone backwards. Since you don't even know what a recession is, I doubt you're the person to judge how companies make their profits.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spookjr
 


Innovation is good, it is commendable. Although, I wouldn't want to commit a federal crime in doing it (and certainly wouldn't admit to it on a free message board), it's a good thing.

But, if you ever do take this to the next LEGAL level and go into business doing it, you aren't going to want to do it for free for everyone. Hell, why should you? You will be in business. You will have operating expenses, you will have employees, you will have taxes and fees to pay on a federal, state, and probably local level.

You will want to make a profit. If not, you will go into debt, your company will go out of business, and you will be broke. Not great business sense.

I don't agree with limitless greed, but if you have a product, you make it and create it and sell it, and have people that want to buy it, you should never be demonized for making a profit.

Refer back to my previous post; there are a helluva lot more businesses and industries with way higher profit margins than the oil companies and I rarely hear much of anything concerning their high profits and/or their greed.

And, I am not defending the oil companies; I hate the price of gas, too. But, if we are going to gripe and complain about their profit margins, then we need to take a look at the profit margins of the people who provide our other NECESSITIES, too.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:28 PM
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?

Star for you. I'm tired of people who don't even know what a recession is and who don't even understand the purpose of business whining and complaining because they aren't as successful. Boo hoo. Get a job and save your money. Stop whining that you aren't handed success and fame. The people that work at Exxon busted their asses to get where they are now. Maybe you should follow their example on how to become successful instead of complaining about it.

People are jealous because they're brainwashed to do so. That's what liberals do. They brainwash you into hating business and they brainwash you into believing everything should be "fair." That everyone should be given equal amounts of money. Please. Corporations like Exxon are keeping our economy afloat now. Jobs are disappearing. Them making more profits CREATES new jobs. Big corporations - you know, the ones that keep everyone employed - are the ones who give out jobs. The poor aren't helping society. They don't give us jobs. They STEAL our money through taxes and illegal government programs not authorized by our Constitution. These illegal government programs that steal our money are Social Security, Welfare, FEMA, the FHA, etc. These should all be shut down ASAP. We
have so much freed up tax money our deficits would disappear overnight.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Jezus
 


I'd be willing to bet that we could eliminate poverty and unemployment in this country if the following were true...

Government and big business pays basic cost of living for all citizens willing and able to work, when they are not working, for as long as they are out of work.

Of course this also means paying workers a living wage when they are working as well, about double the current minimum I would say. This must also include, of course, care for those who are in fact not able to work. Unless of course we euthanise the unfortunates.

Basically though, I can practically guarantee there would suddenly be plenty of paying jobs in this country if they had to pay people wether or not they were actually working.





So, people should get paid for not working?

Businesses should take their profits, that they worked for, and pay it to people who won't work for a living (I am leaving out the people that are unable to work, because if you physically can't work....well, you physically can't work, but other things/entities should pick up the tab for those people)?

Government should pay more than they do now (which in my mind is too much, anyway) for people who won't work?

I can't put my finger on it, but this makes NO SENSE to me. If you want the government to prop you up, you live in the wrong country.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Krieger

You CAN'T STOP USING IT! That is BS to say "If you don't like it stop using it!" That's like saying if the price for food gets too high stop eating.


reply to post by TheWalkingFox

no, you CAN'T "just quit using it". We're not talking a bout beer nuts here. We're talking about a substance that pretty much every aspect of our daily lives revolves around.


Then why all the hatred toward someone who produces this necessary product? You do realize that it is completely legal if every oil company in the world just decided one day to shut down, right? After all they're only making 8% profit. They could put the money in a bank and fish all day for 4%.

Thanks to both of you for making my point.


TheRedneck


Except, like with water and electrical, it is a resource that is NEEDED. Why the Government regulates and controls both. If they didn't you could be charged a million dollars for a kilowat hour by the energy companies because you NEED energy and can't just go "I'll just live in a cave."

But strangely enough the GOP feels the Oil Companies should be allowed free reign to sodomize the people at the pumps. Hey, look at that "campaign donation" Ted Stevens got from the oil companies...



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



So, people should get paid for not working?


Yes.



Businesses should take their profits, that they worked for, and pay it to people who won't work for a living ...


I never said anything about "won't."



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Wow...

Realy...

If people think that the Supply today is the same it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, a decaade ago, you are either: Lying, or just plain Stuipid...


The GLOBAL DEMAND for OIL IS RISING...

THE Global supply is not raising with the DEMAND...

This is causeing the price to go up....



THIS ISNT HARD...



"Some people will see the truth
Other, only part of the truth
And some NEVER see the Truth..."



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Hey, guess what?

OIL COMPANIES GET MORE TAX PAYER MONEY IN ONE YEAR THEN EVERY PERSON ON WELFARE HAS IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM!

So don't bitch about people getting paid to "not work" aka welfare when the oil companies, making BILLIONS IN PROFIT, get more of your and my tax payer dollars in a year then every person on welfare has in the history of the program.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 
Believe me, I have no interest in going to prison, I DO NOT SELL IT. I did alot of research before I started this project and found out that the Feds mostly only bust moonshiners who are selling a drinkable spirit. I am looking into a federal permit to do this and am well on the way to a perfectly legal situation. As you said eventually I will need to make a profit on this but I am not at that stage yet. You have probably seen a few articles recently about a few people who have succesfully obtained a permit to do this. I am working on the cellulosic and hemi-cellulosic conversion problem and I think I have a solution. I hope to apply for a patent on my proccess and my device as soon as I have a working countertop model.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


Hey, guess what??




Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers paid in 2004 (most recent year available), which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% was only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion) in 2004, and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

mjperry.blogspot.com...


They may get more tax dollars, but THEY PAY MORE TAXES PER YEAR THAN THE BOTTOM 50% OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS IN THIS COUNTRY COMBINED.

The tax dollar argument can be made from both sides.

Bottom line is that they are a business. They provide a product. We buy the product with our money. They take our money for their product. And, after all their bills are paid, they make money. That's what businesses do. They sell, we buy.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
Wow...

Realy...


Agreed



If people think that the Supply today is the same it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, a decaade ago, you are either: Lying, or just plain Stuipid...


It's not and it's obviously been rising even if the rise has been slowly significantly by very high prices.



The GLOBAL DEMAND for OIL IS RISING...

THE Global supply is not raising with the DEMAND...


There has not been a shortage of oil for at least a decade; anyone who claims differently is a old fashioned liar or just doesn't have sense enough to google.


This is causeing the price to go up....


The price is not going up because of supply shortages. IF there were supply shortages private and national inventories would not be at their highest levels in at least a decade. The two facts are as good as mutually exclusive.



THIS ISNT HARD...


Which does not explain why your having such a hard time accepting it?


"Some people will see the truth
Other, only part of the truth
And some NEVER see the Truth..."


Agreed.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
(My 1st comment on this page. I've been lurking for awhile to get the feel of the place.)

I think the profits of the oil companies is basically the in-action of the neo-cons of the current administration. They are permitting the oil companies because they are business/profit oriented and don't give a damn about the average citizen.

This same kind of activity can be seen in the mortgage/loan industry. The banks have been lending money to each other in a set-up that if the average person was to do it it would be called 'kiting checks' and would be a crime. However these crooks are making major profits and the homeowners are losing their homes because of the unscrupulous loan contracts they had been (and seem to continue to be writing) and they don't give a damn about homeowners/victims.

During the Kennedy years the steel industry tried to pull some similar tricks and I remember a speech he gave that set them straight. The steel industry at the time was over charging for the product and over paying it's upper echelons and they didn't give a damn about the rest of us.

I personally think that oil should be nationalized (and other energy scources) since in reality they belong to us to start with.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union there are many new billionaires and the common people are having similar problems like us. The same goes for China. They have many new billionairs (incredible as it may seem in a socialist/communist country) and soon their common peoples will feel similar effects in their markets. In fact, I think that China, Russia and the U.S. are all moving in a fascist direction and it is going to take a lot of effort on our part to put these greedy criminals out of business and start looking after our own interests, not those of a few....

(Well, I hope this ends up where I hope it does...Since the question dealt with why we thought the oil industry was reaping such high profits (even though it was lower this time around--boo hoo)...

With regards...Jack



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jack alexander
 
If you mean that the oil companies profits were lower this time around I think you are dead wrong. No company ever in the history of the world made a larger profit last year PERIOD.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


Yes, very good point there. What is not commonly talked about by average Joe capitalist wannabees ( they hate it but they are so arrogant that they believe they will somehow beat the system and get fabulously rich themselves) is that the biggest free loaders on the planet are in fact the average corporation who devastates the environment, uses up the resources underground that belongs to YOU, works you to death ( more often than not ; not western Europe but so what?) and refuses to even give you a fair salary for the efforts. These guys does not make a profit because their very clever but basically because they pay you less than your labour is worth while stealing your raw resources and using your tax money to build the infrastructure they will use to make the profit they will then largely keep to themselves.

Basically it comes down to capitalism for the poor( Did the government bail out your father when his trucking business went bottoms up due to a slowing economy and rising fuel prices?) and the nanny state for the corporate free loaders who can't make it on their own despite cheating at every turn.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


And guess what? THEY MADE MORE!

Why is this so hard to understand?

You take ten dollars from a person who makes 100dollars, you are taking ten percent of his pay.

You take 200 dollars from someone who makes 10,000 dollars you are taking two percent.

Now look, the guy paid 200 dollars, a LOT more then the other, but he is paying less in taxes then the other person.

Now with oil companies you'd turn around and give the guy 1,000 dollars. So he is getting more tax dollars back then they paid.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


Some people make me want to pull my hair out. And, in turn, I am sure that I make them want to pull their hair out.

What do you want them to do? Not make money? Cut their prices so that we pay less and in turn, they have to pay their employees less? Pay more in taxes? Give more to the government when the government already makes 2-3 times more money on a gallon of gas than the company itself does? And, if the government gets more of their money, what the hell are they going to do with it? They haven't done anything so far.





top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join