Define “hunky dory”. Is that a technical term? If you are refering to the legality of the companies’ actions, can you tell us which laws have been broken?
Also, can you tell us what a “normal” profit margin is?
You sound guilty of wanting government control.
How can businesses run their business with government control?
Surely you don’t think any other company would ever run price gouging practices, just because they are allowed to. You know Enron was just one isolated incident.
Okay, I can’t keep a straight face, I tried. Of course the Senate should regulate industries that collectively work as a Trust.
Jim
But they do have a choice of who to buy it from. If the oil companies have colluded to keep prices high, then that is illegal. If, however, there is no collusion (and no monopoly, which there is not in this case), then yes, it is hunky dory for companies to charge whatever margin they want over the cost.
Do you honestly believe there is no collusion? Not even worth investigating it maybe?
I didn’t give an opinion one way or another as to whether I think there is any collusion. I just stated that where there is no collusion or monopoly, a company should be allowed to set its prices at whatever level it wants.
As it happens, I do not believe there is collusion. However, it is certainly an area worthy of monitoring to ensure that.
The margins of the oil companies are not particularly high - about 8%. If they are colluding, they are not doing a very good job of it. The pharmaceutical companies achieve more than twice that by colluding with the FDA. Oops - that’s another thread.
Everytime there is an investigation, the conclusion is that there isn’t any collusion.
But, the oil companies do have to be careful. The politics of the situation makes them very easy targets. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the Dems call for bringing back the windfall profits tax in some form. In fact, I believe that this would be a very smart political move for them.
Okay, thank you for the clarification. I do think Margins should fall when the cost doubles in such a short time, so while I don’t agree with you, I do see you have a valid point. The cost of Oil and gas has one of the largest impacts on the overall economy.
It is much closer to a utility than a typical manufacturing plant. So I do believe in regulating it.
IMHO: I actually do believe there is careful collusion on the oil and gas prices.
Jim
Well, we know for a fact that oil prices are manipulated. That is one of the prime purposes of OPEC. Gas is a commondity, though, and it’s very hard to collude on the price of a commodity. Gas station owners are always looking down the street to see what the other guy is charging.
:eek:
:rolleyes:
XOM’s after tax profit margin for the past three months was 10%. Compare that to the same-period a year ago when their profit margins were 7.6%.
What is a “normal” profit margin? 10% hardly seems excessive. You probably pay more in interest on your credit cards.
However, the company will pay over $110 billion in various taxes this year, almost 30% of gross revenues. That’s excessive! Why don’t we lower the tax burden on oil companies as to lower gas prices?
Page 3 for income statement
Page 26 for tax statistics
Well, year. When I worked at the counter at a BP station in Athens, GA I was instructed to keep a record of the prices of all the gas stations surrounding us, never to let them get out of whack. If the Conoco across the street lowered prices by .05, I was to lower prices by .05. Same thing if they raised them.
I do. The petroluem market is too complex, too unwieldy for any effective control by any one party or group. OPEC is a case in that, Standard Oil is another. They’ve tried and failed… repeatedly.
After a hundred years, the fact remains: Collusion on oil prices never works on any but the shortest terms (months).
Possible point of collusion: When was the last time someone built a refinery?
Something like 30 years ago. But the problem with conspiracies like that is, how do they prevent anyone else (not already in the business) from building one? It’s expensive, but no more so than an IC chip plant, and hundreds of those have been built in the last 30 years.
This is pretty outrageous. Niggardly is not an analogy that minimizes a an act of violence; it’s completely different word.
To use the word “rape” as “perfectly acceptable hyperbole” should be considered as unacceptable and as convincing a proof of bad debating skills as the classic Nazi analogy. A rape analogy will godwin a serious discussion as surely as a Nazi analogy.
I’m not a PC activist, by any stretch. MOst of the time I’m . . . whatever the opposite of a PC activist is. But certain subject matters are too inflammatory to be used lightly as analogies like the one in the OP. Not many, but there are a few subjects–the Holocaust, rape, child molestation–that are not “perfectly acceptable” rhetorical devices. The thing itself carries too much baggage for an analogy making use of it to be free of such baggage, and to expect your readers to read the word “rape” and not associate it with an actual literal rape, is asking too much, and is rhetorically lazy and monstrously insensitive.
My mother and two of my three sisters have been raped, and reading the thread title on the front page did a weird little sudden thing in my throat and behind my eyes, and I thought, “Oh my god, someone’s been raped.” And when I opened it to find that it was just some [pitworthy epithet] whining about gasoline prices, I was momentarily enraged at being put through that experience so he could add a little pit of hollow “edge” to his whine. Mr. Doors response, as aggressively, attackingly insulting as it was, put me clean over the top.
You’ll have to wait for Airman to reply he is back in Iraq.
Rape is apparently a hot button word for you. It is not for most people so you should probably try not to overreact to someone using it as in “This is a really bad thing”. The usage in this thread is not abnormal. Your reaction, while valid, is abnormal.
Nazi is also thrown around very easily. As is monster, evil and many other fairly inappropriate words. The OP could have been the Headline of many newspaper articles around the country. I am sorry it offends you but it is a fairly normal usage.
Jim
When 9.8 billion dollars (with a B) in profit, not sales, profit in a 3 month period is taxed the hell out of. Why should they rake in obscene profits while we suffer?
BTW…did anyone else notice?
Talk of windfall profits tax in congress and the price of gas comes down.
Coincidence?
Oh.
Exxon/Moblil
You find me a headline in a mainstream newspaper that uses “rape” as cavalierly as the OP, and I’ll kiss the ass of every person you’ve ever met in your life.
“Evil” and “monster” are non-specific words. THey also suggest the supernatural, the not-real. “Rape” is an entirely different word on both counts. And for you to tell me–or indeed a rape victim who might be reading this board (and trust me, there are many of them)–“you should probably try not to overreact” is one of the most outrageous things I have read here in a long, long time.
I can’t find it right now, but I feel like I’ve read that one in every three women has been raped. Even if that’s high–even if it’s one in ten–is my reaction “abnormal” if you imagine that one in every ten women Dopers who see the thread title might have a similar reaction?
I can’t believe I’m even reasoning with you, that I have to defend the concept that “rape” is not a word to be tossed about lightly.
Okay, I did some research on Google News. I searched for Raped in Headlines only. I scanned the first 3000 headlines and I was wrong. Apparently almost no newspaper would use such a headline. So I apologize.
I thought I was at least being in reasonable, apparently you do not agree. The phrase is overused commonly. Apparently the Mods had no problem with the Title.
I strongly suggest that you **start a new thread ** to try and **educate ** the Board on this issue if you feel this strongly on it. I was just attempting to defend someone who is not here to defend himself.
I still remind you this is a common wrong usage.
Jim
**Boggette **, this thread would have been more appropriately handled by opening a new thread and linking to the earlier one. With any hot-buttom topic, there are sure to have been exchanges between posters that have either since been resolved (or, worse, have not been resolved) that will be dragged back into public view as people read the thread fromn the beginning.
In the future, please do not re-open threads that have been doremant for several months.
lissener, you really need to look at posting dates before you let your dudgeon get too high. I realize that the post that offends you occurred during your hiatus, but regardless, attacking a post that is over two months old is going to be counter-productive. The emotions and beliefs of the poster could easily have changed in the intervening period and attacking it, now, is unlikely to provide the appropriate “corrective” action.
I guess you ignored my posts and my cites, you know, the one’s that noted that the profit margin is merely 10% and that Exxon paid $25 billion in taxes in order to have the “right” to earn the $9.8 billion in profits.
10 months of refinery and pipeline repairs and the price continues the same decline that has been evident since mid-September. Coincidence? Or just selective noticing?