Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15688
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 846189 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 23:47:40 UTC - in response to Message 846098.  

I'm not arguing which companies have higher profits. I'm sure we could spend an entire day finding companies that have higher profits or profit margins than the oil companies.

What I am arguing is that people are not used to fuel prices skyrocketing over the course of a few years with record making profits as well. In other words, Coca-cola isn't bringing itself a lot of attention because they didn't raise their prices astronomically - and millions of people don't depend on Coca-cola's products to power their vehicles to get back and forth to work, for groceries and other needs (and wants).

There's a difference between the big oil companies and Coca-cola, and none of it has anything to do with telling "them Dems" that they are not allowed to complain about profits of the oil companies because they bailed out a bunch of failing companies (which should have never happened).
ID: 846189 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15688
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 846190 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 23:49:01 UTC - in response to Message 846099.  

Actually, its called the Office of the President Elect, and yeah, its stupid, but I can think of far better things to complain about than that.
ID: 846190 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 846492 - Posted: 29 Dec 2008, 20:34:24 UTC - in response to Message 846189.  

What I am arguing is that people are not used to fuel prices skyrocketing over the course of a few years with record making profits as well.

Sheesh, if some of you people took 1/10th the time you take to write these posts to think things through a bit you'd learn something.

BP (whoever) makes about 10 cents on a gallon of gas. EVERYTHING else comprises distribution costs, marketing costs, crude oil cost, refinery cost and profits, state underground storage tank fees (depending on the state), state and local sales tax, state excise tax, federal excise tax, exploration, drilling, recovery, land use and rent fees, et cetera.

Gasoline prices have skyrocketed over the course of a few years because DEMAND has skyrocketed, and as a result, BP can sell record numbers of gallons of gas. What does that mean? OF COURSE they have record profits IN THE AGGREGATE because they are selling record numbers of gallons of gas. But here's the kicker: if you take away 100% of their profits, a gallon of gas that costs you $4.50, will now cost you $4.40. Happy? Feel better? Glad that you've slayed the eeeevil profit eating dragon?

They aren't making record profits per gallon of gas, as in $2.50 per gallon. They're making pennies, and even if they were making record profits, what would that be, 12 cents? Oooooh, in that case, you would only pay $4.38 for that $4.50 gallon of gas. Feel better now?

This is why, even though Congress panders to the idiots and holds "hearings" and grouses about "windfall profits," nothing ever comes of it. Why again? Because given the literally billions upon billions of dollars of investment in order to even get 10 cents or so per unit sold, is reasonable. The "record profits" are IN THE AGGREGATE and have little to no bearing on the price you pay at the pump.

In other words, Coca-cola isn't bringing itself a lot of attention because they didn't raise their prices astronomically - and millions of people don't depend on Coca-cola's products to power their vehicles to get back and forth to work, for groceries and other needs (and wants).

Meh, these people are making poor choices based solely on ignorance. I mean, more power to them, but watching them make ignoramuses of themselves here, or on a puff piece on CNN or anywhere else doesn't mean a hill of beans for gas prices.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 846492 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 846536 - Posted: 29 Dec 2008, 22:30:26 UTC - in response to Message 846492.  

I fail to see how sky rocketing price equate to selling increasing amounts. The evidence is that when the prices skyrocketed people slowed their vehicles and drove less. This to me means they were selling less fuel which, in turn means, that BP was raking the general public over the coals. They clearly masked profit taking with vastly inflated prices. I understand that prices skyrocketed. Its pretty clear that BP tacked on a few cents a gallon every time the price jumped. Otherwise where did the money come from.

In most industries decreased sales means lower profits. In Oil somehow BP made ever increasing profits. This would fall to Unfair trade practices and the windfall profits tax.

To disagree either means you are blind or a major stock holder in the oil industry


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 846536 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 846564 - Posted: 29 Dec 2008, 23:50:20 UTC - in response to Message 846536.  

I fail to see how sky rocketing price equate to selling increasing amounts.

In essence (and this is very simple economics), as demand increases, supply drops, and prices rise. I don't know why that's so hard. As China and India buy ever increasing amounts of oil, crude prices rise, thus, the price at the pump rises.

As their usage drops, as world usage drops, crude prices drop, supply rises, and the price at the pump drops.

The evidence is that when the prices skyrocketed people slowed their vehicles and drove less. This to me means they were selling less fuel which, in turn means, that BP was raking the general public over the coals.

You start out sort of getting it, then you lose it. As people drove less (as usage drops), supply increased, crude prices dropped, and prices at the pump quickly followed suit. It doesn't happen instantly, of course.

They clearly masked profit taking with vastly inflated prices. I understand that prices skyrocketed. Its pretty clear that BP tacked on a few cents a gallon every time the price jumped. Otherwise where did the money come from.

Heh heh. So they what, just kept "tack[ing] on a few cents a gallon every time the price jumped," and then what, ooops, prices fell by over half? And you seem to think that they can all just keep those pennies every single time? If that were true, and they've been doing it for what, 80 years? gasoline would cost hundreds of dollars now. Odd, it's often cheaper than Evian.

In most industries decreased sales means lower profits. In Oil somehow BP made ever increasing profits. This would fall to Unfair trade practices and the windfall profits tax.

No, what they made was the exact same amount of profit on millions more gallons of gasoline. And, like I said, you could take away 100% of their profits, and that would take a $4.50 gallon of oil to $4.40. Hell, even if they profited $0.50 per gallon (unheard of), and you took it all away, your gallon of gas STILL costs $4.00. Are you happy if they make zero profit and gasoline is STILL expensive? What then?

Take it a step further--what happens when they STOP MAKING GASOLINE because they can't make any profit on it? Think that will drive prices lower still? Or do you think supply will drop even farther and drive prices higher?

To disagree either means you are blind or a major stock holder in the oil industry

Actually, what it means, as demonstrated above, is that you are simply dead wrong.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 846564 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 846898 - Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 15:15:39 UTC

you break up the argument so nicely however there wasn't increased demand in the US and marginal increases in china and india. THe increased in price for oil was 100% on the backs of speculation.

I tire of your obtuse arguments. You assume others are ignorant and you are the only informed person in the world. I just doesnt matter how many times you repeat the same old story its still rubbish. You learn much from lawyer talk. Keep repeating it and it becomes a reality.

Not in real life friend. I wish I could live in the imaginative world you live in where Corporations are the cure for all our ills and not the cause. I'm done relying to your lame replies... BTW when you breakdown my replies I just turn it off in my head. I didnt read past the first line. Good luck on your world I like the one where reality works.



In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 846898 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 846937 - Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 16:53:43 UTC - in response to Message 846898.  

you break up the argument so nicely however there wasn't increased demand in the US and marginal increases in china and india. THe increased in price for oil was 100% on the backs of speculation.

That's certainly not true simply because you said so.

The market for oil is a world market, not a U.S. market, and as a result, gasoline prices at the pump closely follow the price of raw crude on the world market. While of course there will be some regional differences in pump price, the overall point remains the same: as demand rises, supply drops, and prices rise. As demand falls, supply rises, and prices fall.

You can see a good example here, with quite a bit of historical data: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html.

I tire of your obtuse arguments. You assume others are ignorant and you are the only informed person in the world.

You are entitled to your opinion, however I assume no such thing, nor do I think such idiocy. If I disagree with someone's position, I say so, and give my reasons why. Specifically. That doesn't mean I think anything about them, it means I disagree and presented my reasoning.

I just doesnt matter how many times you repeat the same old story its still rubbish. You learn much from lawyer talk. Keep repeating it and it becomes a reality.

What, a position is "rubbish" because you happen to state that it is, without any analysis, reasoning, or depth whatsoever? Everyone that reads this thread is just supposed to agree with your empty, self-serving, conclusions because you happened to take the time to mention them here? As "the only informed person in the world" (pfffft), I hereby proclaim that that's just silly.

Not in real life friend. I wish I could live in the imaginative world you live in where Corporations are the cure for all our ills and not the cause.

I've never taken such a position, and if you think I have, then quoting me specifically would do wonders for your credibility. We are talking about the price of gasoline, nothing more. I don't know what your actual position is, but if you happen to think you are going to get cheap gasoline without a long chain of corporations, well, you are entitled to that belief. Good luck with that position.

I'm done relying to your lame replies... BTW when you breakdown my replies I just turn it off in my head. I didnt read past the first line. Good luck on your world I like the one where reality works.

Reply or not, I don't care what you do, how much you read, or what you place in your empty musings. The readers of this thread will read this discussion and decide for themselves.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 846937 · Report as offensive
Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 19,287,294
RAC: 36
United States
Message 849172 - Posted: 4 Jan 2009, 8:17:35 UTC

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.
ID: 849172 · Report as offensive
Profile StormKing
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 849297 - Posted: 4 Jan 2009, 15:59:34 UTC - in response to Message 849172.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.


You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.


ID: 849297 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 849403 - Posted: 4 Jan 2009, 21:09:08 UTC

Gas prices are still slowly going back up.
me@rescam.org
ID: 849403 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 849811 - Posted: 5 Jan 2009, 20:17:54 UTC

gas prices are going back up due to the slight bounce back in the price of oil.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 849811 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 849895 - Posted: 5 Jan 2009, 23:53:57 UTC

do you really think it is gonna stay cheap?,please
ID: 849895 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 849940 - Posted: 6 Jan 2009, 1:45:37 UTC - in response to Message 849297.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.

You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.

California state democrats want to eliminate the gas tax (percentage) and replace it with a straight gas fee. The problem there is the fee is much bigger than the tax, even with high prices.
me@rescam.org
ID: 849940 · Report as offensive
Profile StormKing
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 850135 - Posted: 6 Jan 2009, 15:03:16 UTC - in response to Message 849940.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.

You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.

California state democrats want to eliminate the gas tax (percentage) and replace it with a straight gas fee. The problem there is the fee is much bigger than the tax, even with high prices.


If I understand this correctly, I think this would stabilize California's fuel tax revenue. The current tax fluctuates with the price of gasoline; the new tax would fluctuate with demand for gasoline, which is less volatile. I hate to say it, but taxing gasoline also prompts people to conserve (in the long run).

ID: 850135 · Report as offensive
Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 19,287,294
RAC: 36
United States
Message 850342 - Posted: 7 Jan 2009, 2:21:50 UTC - in response to Message 850135.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.

You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.

California state democrats want to eliminate the gas tax (percentage) and replace it with a straight gas fee. The problem there is the fee is much bigger than the tax, even with high prices.


If I understand this correctly, I think this would stabilize California's fuel tax revenue. The current tax fluctuates with the price of gasoline; the new tax would fluctuate with demand for gasoline, which is less volatile. I hate to say it, but taxing gasoline also prompts people to conserve (in the long run).

The conserving is why they want to raise the tax now. With less gas sold the tax revenue went down. The government always wants rising revenues.
When the enconomy slows, the government doesn't slow with it.
ID: 850342 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 850402 - Posted: 7 Jan 2009, 6:17:09 UTC - in response to Message 850342.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.

You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.

California state democrats want to eliminate the gas tax (percentage) and replace it with a straight gas fee. The problem there is the fee is much bigger than the tax, even with high prices.


If I understand this correctly, I think this would stabilize California's fuel tax revenue. The current tax fluctuates with the price of gasoline; the new tax would fluctuate with demand for gasoline, which is less volatile. I hate to say it, but taxing gasoline also prompts people to conserve (in the long run).

The conserving is why they want to raise the tax now. With less gas sold the tax revenue went down. The government always wants rising revenues.
When the enconomy slows, the government doesn't slow with it.

The state says it will run out of money next month. The Dems want to put in the "fee" to help balance the budget. All it will do is take more money out of my pocket. The gas tax/fee is supposed to go to road/highway improvements - yet year after year that fund is raided to pay the bills of other programs. This is good old fashioned highway robbery.
me@rescam.org
ID: 850402 · Report as offensive
Profile StormKing
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 850445 - Posted: 7 Jan 2009, 13:26:52 UTC - in response to Message 850402.  

Say no to the proposed increasing of the gas tax, because the government has lower gas tax revenues.

The government is never satisfied.

You are correct, the government always wants more money. But in this case I am not sure there is a more appropriate way to fund highway construction other than taxing those who benefit. Considering the state of our infrastructure, we can really use the money. Plus added construction would create jobs.

California state democrats want to eliminate the gas tax (percentage) and replace it with a straight gas fee. The problem there is the fee is much bigger than the tax, even with high prices.


If I understand this correctly, I think this would stabilize California's fuel tax revenue. The current tax fluctuates with the price of gasoline; the new tax would fluctuate with demand for gasoline, which is less volatile. I hate to say it, but taxing gasoline also prompts people to conserve (in the long run).

The conserving is why they want to raise the tax now. With less gas sold the tax revenue went down. The government always wants rising revenues.
When the enconomy slows, the government doesn't slow with it.

The state says it will run out of money next month. The Dems want to put in the "fee" to help balance the budget. All it will do is take more money out of my pocket. The gas tax/fee is supposed to go to road/highway improvements - yet year after year that fund is raided to pay the bills of other programs. This is good old fashioned highway robbery.


Just like the lottery funds that are supposed to go to education...

ID: 850445 · Report as offensive
jim little

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 112
Credit: 915,934
RAC: 0
United States
Message 850527 - Posted: 7 Jan 2009, 18:49:18 UTC

Before the start of this heating season we bought (for a princely sum) 150 gallons of @ 2 heating oil. Four bucks even and add 6% tax. About a month an half back on the much lower cost had us buy another 150 for about half the first purchase. Now timing the next fill ill depend on who is shooting a who in the mid-East.


As to tax on vehicle fuel, we have owned a Prius for almost three years. First was a three thousand credit on the purchase, and since then dramatically reduced fuel use over a prior vehicle that was worn out. (155 thousand miles and 15 years old)

Being retired and avid bike users we now also use local busses as the medicare card gives us free rides!

Every dollar saved is put to better use, like savings and investments.

We also have been debt free for many decades. All helps. And no risk of having loans called.


duke

PS for those of us who are over seventy we will not have to make minimum distributions on our retirement IRA accounts. For this year at least.

ID: 850527 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 850682 - Posted: 8 Jan 2009, 2:53:52 UTC

ID: 850682 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 851096 - Posted: 9 Jan 2009, 2:15:54 UTC - in response to Message 850682.  

ID: 851096 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Fun with Falling Oil Hypocrisy!!


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.