Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > This Is Why George W. Bush Is A Loser

This Is Why George W. Bush Is A Loser
Thread Tools
Cody Dawg
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 06:43 AM
 
The oil companies making BILLIONS of dollars right now on bloated gas prices are not taxed and Bush refuses to let them be taxed.

Oil companies are now exempt from paying taxes? While making BILLIONS of dollars?

What makes them so special? Oh, I forgot - they're Bush's friends.

Bush is a loser.

     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 07:36 AM
 
Wow! That was a terrible article. Not even an attempt to explain what the issue is.

The issue is not, as the article misleadingly states, whether or not to tax profits. Profits are already taxed. These are public corporations. For a corporation, profits are similar to an individual's income taxes. Corporations are taxed at the level of the corporation at 35%. That is in addition to the other taxes they pay -- such as state income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes on their facilities, duties, excises, and so on. It's a long and expensive list.

In addition, any dividends paid to the corporation's shareholders are subjected to a second round of taxes at the level of the shareholders. Shareholders pay taxes on dividends. This double taxation arrangement is because public corporations are organized as schedule C corporations, and are subject to double taxation at the two levels of the corporation and its owners. They are not like partnerships, LLC's, or Subchapter-S corporations that are pass-through entities. If they were, then you would have an argument that the corporation was not being taxed on its profits. But even then, the owner would be taxed on profits. Here, however, these particular public corporations are subject to double tax on profits -- once at the level of the corporation, and once again at the level of the shareholders. So the article was wrong and misleading. These corporations pay taxes on profits. And when those profits go up, they pay more in taxes.

Now, that is reality. Now let's turn to the politics. The politics is that there is a proposal to impose an additional tax on "windfall profits." This is nothing more than an attempt by politicians to gain votes by scapegoating and singling out an individual industry and socking it an extra tax to curry favor with voters. This is just a stupid idea. Not least because taxes on corporations are paid by the consumers of the products the corporation sells. Raise taxes, and the price at the pump will just go up even higher! Politicians trying to win votes are not rational economic actors. And punishing individual companies to win votes is a lousy way to run an economic policy.

If this industry (by which I mean the US corporations, not a governmental organization like OPEC) were colluding to raise the prices they charge, then things would be different. There are already very strong antitrust laws on the books that you can use against corporations that collude to raise prices. But that is not the case. All that has happened is that the price of a commodity has gone up. Because of that, the companies that sell that commodity make more money. Because they make more money, they will pay more in taxes, and either invest more, or distribute more to their shareholders. Conversely, in a bad year (and there have been many bad years), those same companies make less money, earn less that can be reinvested, and are able to distribute less to their shareholders. This is called a market economy. It is how our economy works. It also works pretty well, which is why electioneering politicians (of either party) should leave well alone.

Edit: Let's give you a less mindlessly stupid AP article to read: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060428/D8H8MRGOB.html
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 29, 2006 at 08:36 AM. )
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 08:58 AM
 
Simey, I think your post is way too long and complicated for Cody. Let's keep it short and use lots of smileys…ok?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:16 AM
 
OK, here's the short answer: Raise taxes on companies ---> company passes on increased costs ----> consumers pay more at the pump.
     
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
OK, here's the short answer: Raise taxes on companies ---> company passes on increased costs ----> consumers pay more at the pump.
Still 2 long.

Need more smilies.

"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:38 AM
 
This is a three-pronged™ distribution

Code:
/------Pass on to customers at higher cost raise costs on companies-------Pass on to stockholders at lower rate of return \------Pass on to employees as lower wages
A raise in taxes is simply a raise in costs, and punishes everyone except BigBadCompany™ it is meant to punish.
( Last edited by vmarks; Apr 29, 2006 at 09:52 AM. )
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:55 AM
 
Yes, corporations are the knights in shining armor, the noble non-entities which drive our economy. We should bow before their every whim and request because what is good for them will someday be good for all of, no really, THEY promise it will be.

Corporations are artificial constructs. We should have no compunctions about limiting and controlling their activities. If we want to rescind their tax breaks (and THAT was what Bush was saying he didn't want to do) and prevent them from passing that on to consumers, then we can. Cap the prices if that's what's all important (for the record, I don't think it is; we need higher gas prices to drive us toward a more responsible energy policy and toward more responsible consumption).

We really need to break the corporations' strangle-hold on American politics. They've certainly got you guys thinking lock-step with their insatiable greed for profits, profits, profits! They're not evil, they're just mindless. There's no reason the profit motive can't be tempered by legislation to make them contribute more to society than undirected economic activity.
     
Leopard Employee
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:58 AM
 
There is a political pressure group who suggest that all the tax we pay should be through our energy providers. ie tax the oil companies etc enough to pay for everything. The downside of this is that everything gets more expensive to the consumer but GST is abolished and you don't pay any income tax on your wage. The real benifit in this stratagie is that 30% of the tax we curently pay is spent simply on collection. So the net benifits are reduced admin costs and more money to spend on services or in bush's case wars and pissing the rest of the world off.

Peteso
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 10:09 AM
 
Taxes are for those who don't make enough money, period. The more you make money, the less you should have to pay taxes.

I don't see much empathy for the misery of the rich: those ferraris and mansions and domains are extremely expensive to maintain.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 10:21 AM
 
These articles might help understand all the "profits" that the oil companies are acruing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIFO_accounting
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_c...0602130825.asp

Basically, if an oil company recorded a purchase of a barrel of oil at $20 a few years ago, and wants to sell a barrel today, they'd have to record a "profit" of $54 ($72-$20) for tax purposes. This was practically mandated by the senate.

There seems to be a lot of rhetoric on both sides. I want to see all the "innovations" that the oil companies are coming up with to improve our energy situation. Most of the oil company ideas I've seen so far include bitching about ANWR, drilling bans on the Atlantic coast and promises of shale explortation. The president and congress have, however, put the proverbial foot in their collective mouths:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr18.html
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 10:33 AM
 
Great article.

I'll quote it for emphasis:

The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.

The House legislation, approved last week by the Ways and Means Committee, is at odds with the Bush administration's approach. The president's proposed budget calls for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy, with 72 percent going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency, compared with about 6 percent in the House plan.

Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, would not comment on the House measure but referred to comments made by President Bush last week. "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore," Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors in Washington. "There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."

Crude oil prices have been high because of increasing demand that has pushed production close to its limits. That has helped send the cost of gasoline at the gas pump to record highs in recent weeks. The price of other sources of energy have been unusually high as well.

For the oil and gas industry, the legislation allows some costs associated with exploration to be deducted over a shorter time period and provides tax benefits when oil and gas production is delayed and a lease is extended. It reduces the depreciation period for natural gas distribution and gathering lines as well as the depreciation period for electricity transmission and pollution-reducing facilities added to some coal-fired power plants.

The measure also includes some tax credits for solar energy equipment, fuel cells and energy efficiency improvements to existing homes.

Environmentalists are outraged, saying the bill provides giveaways to big energy companies, such as ExxonMobil Corp., whose 2004 profits set a record. "The energy bill is just another example of the House Republican leadership overreaching for corporate interests," said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth.

Navin Nayak of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said the measure should have included tax breaks for hybrid cars, wind energy production and other efficiency and renewable energy items included in failed 2003 energy legislation. "They've clearly gone on a junk-food diet," Nayak said of the House. "They've cut out everything healthy."

The tax package will be considered as part of a larger energy bill that is expected to be debated before the full House beginning tomorrow. The Senate, where a similar energy bill failed in 2003 after a filibuster, is still crafting its new version. The Bush administration has said passage of the legislation is a top priority and will help address increasing prices, a contention disputed by opponents.

House Republicans stood by the measure, which provides the $8 billion in tax savings over a 10-year period. It was approved by the committee in a 26 to 11 vote that was generally along party lines but with five Democrats supporting the legislation and one Republican voting against it.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said that he and some other committee members wanted a larger percentage of the tax breaks going for energy efficiency and renewable energy, but that Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) did not want to add those, as a way of gaining negotiating power with the Senate.

"It's not always pretty watching this stuff happen, and some of us were concerned," Foley said. "There's a lot of give and take that has to occur. [Thomas] plays a better hand of poker than I do, so I'll have to defer to him at this point."

Christin Baker, a spokeswoman for Thomas, pointed to comments Thomas made before the committee vote in which he said he expects the percentage of tax breaks for traditional energy companies to decrease before a final bill is drafted.

"Members of this committee perhaps cannot, in this bill, express their full support for a wide range of diversified energy production," Thomas said. He added that negotiations with the Senate will lead to legislation that "will look somewhat different and more diversified than the measure before the committee today."
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 10:47 AM
 
Congress just needs to repeal the law of supply and demand. That would fix the problem. And maybe repeal the law of gravitation too, while they are about it. That way we can finally get the flying cars I was promised as a kid.

Oh, and of course, Congress needs also to blame people more. We have a severe shortage of simple scapegoats for complex issues.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 10:55 AM
 
The taxes levied on corporations for every gallon of gas they sell are already much higher than the profits they make. If the oil companies make billions of dollars in profit, it is only because they sell tens of billions of gallons of gasoline. How much more blood do you expect to squeeze from the stone?

Or, at least, that's how the gas companies tell the story. The statistics I claim here are the ones they make public. Personally, I would be in favor of price-transparency regulation on that industry, whereby the companies must make public a complete breakdown of the cost of every gallon they sell. I would also start an antitrust investigation into whether or not the companies are engaging in illegal price-fixing practices. Whether or not there's enough evidence to convict, there is certainly enough to investigate, and the whole point of investigation is to try and gather more evidence.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 11:09 AM
 
I believe the President called on the oil companies to reinvest in increasing refining capacity, which has a lot to do with current gas prices.

But, the regulatory process for bringing a new refinery on line is lengthy.

So, we should do what we can to shorten the process. Right?

Well, a few years ago the same hue and cry went up over the FDA's certification process for new drugs that might save more lives if they were approved more quickly.

So the govt. streamlined the procedure and everything was fine. Right?

Not completely.

Look at all the drugs that have been the subject of news because of the previously undetected side effects that were discovered after the FDA certified them as safe.

I don't know if there's a connection but we should always look at the reasons why something exists before just chucking it for the sake of expediency.

A bit off topic, I know. But these things need to be said.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
The taxes levied on corporations for every gallon of gas they sell are already much higher than the profits they make. If the oil companies make billions of dollars in profit, it is only because they sell tens of billions of gallons of gasoline. How much more blood do you expect to squeeze from the stone?

Or, at least, that's how the gas companies tell the story. The statistics I claim here are the ones they make public. Personally, I would be in favor of price-transparency regulation on that industry, whereby the companies must make public a complete breakdown of the cost of every gallon they sell. I would also start an antitrust investigation into whether or not the companies are engaging in illegal price-fixing practices. Whether or not there's enough evidence to convict, there is certainly enough to investigate, and the whole point of investigation is to try and gather more evidence.
Bear in mind that there is enormous overhead. Even if you did a nice little pie chart showing the breakdown, a whopping portion of that pie would show up as various forms of overhead. Not just the cost of producing that particular gallon of gas, but also the investment needed to produce future gallons of gas, and also other forms of energy.

What would not show up on that pie chart is "profit." Profit is essentially not a business term. You might see distributions to shareholders, but mostly, the "profit" is simply money that the business reinvests and it is under those reinvestment categories that it is accounted for. What is worrying here is that ignorant and self-interested politicians will try to force those sums will be diverted from investment, exploration, and research to the Treasury. All that would do is make the situation worse in the future. Of course, more likely the gas companies would simply raise the price at the pump to offset the tax.

On transparency. You would be amazed at just how transparent the oil and gas industry is. These are public companies, which means they are independently audited annually, and publish quarterly reports. They are also heavily regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And finally, there are all kinds of private sector information sources such as Barrons. None of this is particularly easy for a layman to understand, but it is public information accessible to those who need to know and are positioned to understand the information.

I highly doubt there is an antitrust issue here. Horizontal price fixing is pretty rare in the modern business world, especially in regulated industries. But if there is, I am sure that DOJ will be alert. They have a whole division for such litigation. Also, the antitrust statutes permit private enforcement, with the potential for triple damages. If there were an easy case to make, someone would have a huge incentive to make it.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Bear in mind that there is enormous overhead. Even if you did a nice little pie chart showing the breakdown, a whopping portion of that pie would show up as various forms of overhead. Not just the cost of producing that particular gallon of gas, but also the investment needed to produce future gallons of gas, and also other forms of energy.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. Part of the idea behind price-transparency regulation would be to see exactly what the markup is.
What would not show up on that pie chart is "profit." Profit is essentially not a business term. You might see distributions to shareholders, but mostly, the "profit" is simply money that the business reinvests and it is under those reinvestment categories that it is accounted for.
You wouldn't see profit, but you would see markup.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
Corporations are artificial constructs. We should have no compunctions about limiting and controlling their activities. If we want to rescind their tax breaks (and THAT was what Bush was saying he didn't want to do) and prevent them from passing that on to consumers, then we can. Cap the prices if that's what's all important (for the record, I don't think it is; we need higher gas prices to drive us toward a more responsible energy policy and toward more responsible consumption).

We really need to break the corporations' strangle-hold on American politics. They've certainly got you guys thinking lock-step with their insatiable greed for profits, profits, profits! They're not evil, they're just mindless. There's no reason the profit motive can't be tempered by legislation to make them contribute more to society than undirected economic activity.


Someone who gets it.

Given that gas company profits are already so high (I thought they were hurting?) I think now is a good time cap gas prices.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
I believe the President called on the oil companies to reinvest in increasing refining capacity, which has a lot to do with current gas prices.
Look at the profits the oil companies made, then tell me if you think they're still having capacity problems.

By "capacity problems" I think they mean "our wallets won't hold all the money we're making while we're leading the American public on."
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. Part of the idea behind price-transparency regulation would be to see exactly what the markup is.

You wouldn't see profit, but you would see markup.
"Mark up" is as meaningless as profit. It's not like they just automatically get it in one end, add some % and then sell it out the other end. These companies are producers, not retailers. They have a much more complex cost structure. These companies don't just slap on a percentage, they build, explore, maintain, research, and so on.

I'm sure that if you went through their 10Qs you could figure out their cost basis for any given quarter. I'm quite certain that you could from their annual reporting to the SEC. That information is highly detailed for a reason. The issue is a lot more complex than simply an arbitrary percentage.

Those numbers are available primarily for investors. Shareholders are the only ones who can decide whether they are allocating the appropriate percentages. They are in a competitive market, and they bear the risk if they make the wrong decisions. Customers should only really worry about whether or not they want to buy the product. Ultimately, it's not the oil company's fault that their product is in high demand. That is the market having its effect. If you want to do away with that basic principle of market economics, which other ones would you like to dispense with? Heck! Why just not do away with it and nationalize the oil companies? If you think their primary obligation should be to their customers (and politicians pandering to their customers), then why not?

Another thought just occurred to me: do people realize that public corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to be as profitable as possible? It's not like a bunch of people are around a table saying "muhahahah, let's screw our customers." They (meaning the Board of Directors) have to price their services to make as much of a return as possible, balancing long term growth (funded through retained earnings) against short-term profitability and payment of dividends. If not, the the stock value tanks and they can be personally sued. And for most of you with pension funds invested in these companies (which I assume is probably everyone here), that is a good thing that they are doing so well. They are doing their bit to ensure a healthy economy, which is exactly what we will f up if we start down this Socialist road to state intervention in private business people are advocating.

If people are so upset about gas prices, then stop buying gas-guzzling SUV's. Reduce demand and you will reduce prices. But don't blame capitalism for doing what capitalism is supposed to do -- balance supply and demand through responsive prices.

Originally Posted by goMac
Given that gas company profits are already so high (I thought they were hurting?) I think now is a good time cap gas prices.
Because price controls worked so well in the 1970s.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 03:58 PM
 
Perhaps the FedGov needs to grab some land in places where the weather isn't so bad, as locations for several fuel refineries. They should use eminant domain to do this. I'd pick San Francisco to start. they have ports, fair weather and land. I'd also pick areas near rail and road services, and fairly close to areas where jobs are needed.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 04:47 PM
 
"I have no evidence that there's any rip-off taking place, but it's the role of the Federal Trade Commission to assure me that my inclination and instincts are right." -Bush

Not that I think they are price gouging, but Bush just has such a way with words. Just like it was the role of the CIA to assure him that his fantasies about Iraq were right..

(Although who knows? The other day an oil industry spokesman on the news was arguing that prices at the pump merely tracked the global oil market -- but her numbers were that prices at the pump have risen 40% while oil prices only increased 30%. Hmm..)

This is a heavily subsidized industry, and unlike Simey I have no problem with taking back what we've given out. The argument that taxes don't affect the company, only the consumers, is incorrect. Still, I'm not sure what the point of a windfall tax would be. If we want lower prices, then we need to invest in alternative energy sources, to scare OPEC. Bush is adamant against alternative energy sources, and so prices go up. It has nothing to do with environmentalism, but is just a way to strengthen our hand.

Of course Republicans being Republicans will only propose giving more of our tax dollars to the oil companies. (Why do I want more of my tax dollars going to the oil industry when they are making record profits? Simey? I'm sure I just don't understand basic economics.) It probably has something to do with freeing the Middle East, or perhaps the war on terror, and we won't see the results for at least ten years.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 05:07 PM
 
Let' s see, I fill up twice a week.

Average of 12 gallons per fillup (I don't drive it empty obviously)

Cost of gas has increased 40¢ in the last month. Averages at $2.95 here.

Cost of gas per month with old fuel prices - $244 (Approx)

Cost of gas per month now - $183 (Approx)

So that's an extra 40 bucks a month, or a little less than two hours of work for me.

On the other hand, from December to January the cost of heating (natural gas) the house and hot water jumped from $90 to $270 with a DECREASE of therms used. (If my memoery serves me correct it was 114 therms in December and 104 therms in january)

I'm more worried about home heating costs in the winter than anything else right now. Gas took a minor jump, but AFAIK it is the least of our worries in the coming years.
( Last edited by sek929; May 1, 2006 at 07:37 AM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
Cost of gas has increased 40¢ in the last month. Averages at $1.95 here.
Is that per litre? It's $3.29/gallon at the Shell station down the street. Chevron is the most expensive at $3.31. This is East of Sacramento, California.

When I read stories like this, I find it really hard that gasoline needs to be over $3.00/gallon.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
"Mark up" is as meaningless as profit. It's not like they just automatically get it in one end, add some % and then sell it out the other end. These companies are producers, not retailers. They have a much more complex cost structure. These companies don't just slap on a percentage, they build, explore, maintain, research, and so on.
Then that research can be budgeted as part of the cost, can it not?

I want to see price transparency precisely to keep price controls from being enacted. The free market system can only work if the consumer can make informed decisions about purchases, and it's my belief that the oil companies are withholding information which is important for the consumer to make the decision: is oil truly worth the price they are charging?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:12 PM
 
Well, we are a middle class family. We usually went out once a week, as a family, and spent about $60 to $100 at dinner (five people) with tip included.

We're skipping that habit for now because the gas to drive there is really ridiculous.

Instead we'll just stay at home more.

And I'm sure a lot of other people think the same thing (and yes that's what our friends are also saying) and we're not eating out and we're not shopping (not that we shopped much anyway) and we're curtailing a lot of recreational activities.

I'm sure we're not alone and fairly soon the economy is going to take a big hit because everyone is going to curtail activities and shopping.

Yes, it may only be a few bucks more added to the budget every month (someone mentioned $40 up there) but the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT is much more devastating - we're confronted with not only huge gas increases...but the oil company braggerts waving their $400,000,000 MILLION DOLLAR BONUSES.

Something IS wrong.

     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Then that research can be budgeted as part of the cost, can it not?

I want to see price transparency precisely to keep price controls from being enacted. The free market system can only work if the consumer can make informed decisions about purchases, and it's my belief that the oil companies are withholding information which is important for the consumer to make the decision: is oil truly worth the price they are charging?
Well, consumers have all the information they need to know whether or not gas is worth the price. There is no great mystery about gasoline. It is a rather basic product that most people are pretty familiar with. So you know the product, and you know what it costs. You also know what the competitors selling comparable products are charging. If you don't like the price charged by company A, you can buy from company B. Or get a less gas guzzling car and reduce your consumption. It's the consumer's choice with gas, houses, cars, or Apple Computers. Consumers don't judge the value of other goods by the cost of the raw materials, and there is no more need to do so with gasoline than other goods. That is just not the information people need to make their purchase choices.

Second, if you did want to start digging into the cost structure of the business that produces gas, then their financial reports are available from the SEC on its EDGAR web site. For example, here is Exxon Mobil's latest 10K. It has all the information you could need. You are demanding something that already exists.

But even armed with that information, gas companies will still charge market price.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Well, we are a middle class family.
Maybe were you live you are Cody.

Otherplaces you'd be considered a bit more than that.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:31 PM
 
Cody, what's wrong is that you don't own an oil company.

Except that if you participate in a mutual fund, you very probably do.
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:32 PM
 
Market price that is overinflated?

What's going to happen is that the economy is going to take a hit and "trickle down" economics will mean that a lot of people are hurt by this - including businesses. So, for the sake of a few oil company pigs the rest of the economy is suffering.

Bush does nothing, in the meantime. He just says, "We need to get off of foreign oil."

Why the hell are we in Iraq anyway? Wasn't it to protect our "friendly neighbors, the Saudis, and the American way of life?" Translation: To protect our oil interests.

Now we have the oil free flowing and the oil companies are artificially inflating prices. It's a damned free-for-all with those oil companies! Heck, I'll bet if we could get to the bottom of this it would make Enron and Worldcom seem like a freaking picnic at the park.

     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:34 PM
 
You know, vmarks, I probably DO have stock in an oil company: My husband is with Exxon Mobil.



That IS the truth, BTW. He's an executive with Exxon Mobil Corporation. Also an attorney.

So, yes, we're vested with Exxon Mobil.

But it still doesn't make any of this RIGHT, you see? He and I are polar opposites on this issue. He sees things like Simey and I don't. I see opportunism.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
You know, vmarks, I probably DO have stock in an oil company: My husband is with Exxon Mobil.



That IS the truth, BTW. He's an executive with Exxon Mobil Corporation. Also an attorney.

So, yes, we're vested with Exxon Mobil.

But it still doesn't make any of this RIGHT, you see? He and I are polar opposites on this issue. He sees things like Simey and I don't. I see opportunism.
That's because you are a woman, and don't understand these complicated man things.

Now scoot along and go make us a pie.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 11:03 PM
 
mmm pie...cody does your exxon husband agree with you on the taxes?S
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Look at the profits the oil companies made, then tell me if you think they're still having capacity problems.

By "capacity problems" I think they mean "our wallets won't hold all the money we're making while we're leading the American public on."
Look, if the capacity were sufficiently increased to permit greater supplies to us, the prices would go down at the pump. If the prices weren't so high at the pump we wouldn't be having this thread.

The oil companies would be making as much in profit as they ever had, or even more than they ever did and you wouldn't care.

So let's all be real.

The oil co's haven't kept up with their refinery capacity and so now that there's a shortage of Ethyl to your Lotus (due to an inability to refine anymore than they are refining right now) they can charge up the yin yang and increase their profits.

If you can manipulate supply by allowing a shortage you can see a greater profit.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
That's because you are a woman, and don't understand these complicated man things.

Now scoot along and go make us a pie.
Hmmm...hot blueberry cobbler with french vanilla ice cream and nuts on top. Yum!
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Leopard Employee
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 06:13 AM
 
The problem is not one of supply to american refineries. All oil refineries are not the same american refineries were designed and built for the available oil in the area, Sweet light crude. Americas home supplies are starting to dry up and for environmental resons there being prevented from exploiting further resources.

At the moment there are 2 countries who produce oil suitable for American refineries, Azerbaijan (Where I am working at the moment) and Iran. Supplies from Azerbaijan will be available in the next 6 months this is because the infrastructure is still being built. Iran is a different storey which we have all seen on the news. But irans defiance of the UN is the perfect cover for the US to secure supplies for there refineries. United States of Arabia here we come

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD REALLY FEAR BUSH

He is protective of his company... sorry country as any head of state should be. But persuing energy supplies for a country whos real problem is over consumption not under supply is allways going to be a loosing battle in a world of finite resources. Thats right finite, enjoy the wild ride while you can becase it will come to an end.

In the short term we can see in the US theat the large engined car is less popular and so this will continue until the motoring market becomes more like that of Europe.

As far as aprice cap is concered, if you want an economy like indonesia who have had a cp on there fuel prices for a few years and the recent increases in oil price have crippled there economy due to the government have to pay huge subsodies for fuel. They recently removed the cap from prices and the wages of the people in the country had been keep artificially low due to the fuel price cap when the price increased many people couldn't afford to work because there wage didn't cover the cost of travel

Sleep well kids, this is only getting worse


Peteso
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 06:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Peteso
The problem is not one of supply to american refineries. All oil refineries are not the same american refineries were designed and built for the available oil in the area, Sweet light crude. Americas home supplies are starting to dry up and for environmental resons there being prevented from exploiting further resources.

At the moment there are 2 countries who produce oil suitable for American refineries, Azerbaijan (Where I am working at the moment) and Iran. Supplies from Azerbaijan will be available in the next 6 months this is because the infrastructure is still being built. Iran is a different storey which we have all seen on the news. But irans defiance of the UN is the perfect cover for the US to secure supplies for there refineries. United States of Arabia here we come

THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD REALLY FEAR BUSH

He is protective of his company... sorry country as any head of state should be. But persuing energy supplies for a country whos real problem is over consumption not under supply is allways going to be a loosing battle in a world of finite resources. Thats right finite, enjoy the wild ride while you can becase it will come to an end.

In the short term we can see in the US theat the large engined car is less popular and so this will continue until the motoring market becomes more like that of Europe.

As far as aprice cap is concered, if you want an economy like indonesia who have had a cp on there fuel prices for a few years and the recent increases in oil price have crippled there economy due to the government have to pay huge subsodies for fuel. They recently removed the cap from prices and the wages of the people in the country had been keep artificially low due to the fuel price cap when the price increased many people couldn't afford to work because there wage didn't cover the cost of travel

Sleep well kids, this is only getting worse


Peteso
Glad you jumped in here! Interesting perspective.

Please explain what you meant by...

But irans defiance of the UN is the perfect cover for the US to secure supplies for there refineries. United States of Arabia here we come
And, do you think the Earth creates new supplies of oil? The 'abiotic' theory says oil isn't from dead dinosaurs, necessarily, but an ongoing Earthly process that has never stopped and never will stop. And so we'll always have lots of oil. Do you agree with this or not?
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 07:51 AM
 
Tell us about the abiotic theory, Cap, please?



(P.S., Capote is my nickname for abe because he reminds me of Truman Capote.)
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Tell us about the abiotic theory, Cap, please?



(P.S., Capote is my nickname for abe because he reminds me of Truman Capote.)
I don't know much about it other than what Doofy has said. It's like making coffee without having to put coffee grounds in the machine. It just shows up from the natural actions of the host.



And you once reminded me of Norma Jean. Here they remind me of a couple of little four year olds trying to dance. He thinks he knows what he's doing and she's nervously looking around for mommy to tell her it's ok.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
You know, vmarks, I probably DO have stock in an oil company: My husband is with Exxon Mobil.



That IS the truth, BTW. He's an executive with Exxon Mobil Corporation. Also an attorney.

So, yes, we're vested with Exxon Mobil.

But it still doesn't make any of this RIGHT, you see? He and I are polar opposites on this issue. He sees things like Simey and I don't. I see opportunism.
And you said you were middle-class? That's some middle! Congratulations on having worked hard and succeeded.


Don't you suppose that the resultant profits oil companies enjoy is also in part the result of hard work to succeed? "Record profits" and "rising prices" aren't evils. Rising costs mean rising prices. Barrels of oil were 30, now they're in the 70s. The cost of what's in the ground at the gas pump isn't what it cost when it was put in, but what it costs to replace it to keep the pumps going.


And I have -never- felt the need to damn people for making a profit- I simply decide whether I want to contribute to their profits or not. You see, the profit motive is honest. It doesn't lie, it doesn't dress itself up as 'beneficial' or 'for social good' - it is simply what it is. I like honesty.


For what it's worth, you could ask yourself why it is that three people who have never met, Simey, your husband and I, find ourselves on common ground- what is it about the nature of market forces and the most basic economic understanding that causes us to see things similarly?

At the same time as you ask yourself that, ask your husband, who seems to have made many good choices in his life, how it is that he comes to this conclusion? I will bet you it isn't simply out of company loyalty. I would bet you that flybook you had ordered that company loyalty is the last thing on his list as to why there is no gouging taking place.
     
Leopard Employee
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 11:36 AM
 
Quote:
But irans defiance of the UN is the perfect cover for the US to secure supplies for there refineries. United States of Arabia here we come

And, do you think the Earth creates new supplies of oil? The 'abiotic' theory says oil isn't from dead dinosaurs, necessarily, but an ongoing Earthly process that has never stopped and never will stop. And so we'll always have lots of oil. Do you agree with this or not?
Iran is currently engaged in nuclear reasearch to enrich uranium which it says is for use in power generation, the rest of the the world is a little more worried about there intentions for the enriched uranium ie WMD's. And at the moment the political movements are very similar to Iraq war 2 where the US were lined up against the UN with a few supporters (Amoung them the UK, I am Scottish) to get a mandate to invade Iraq which as we all know had nothing to do with WMD's at all but was to secure oil supplies. This time there is a real and proven nuclear threat so if it becomes necessary there will be no problem getting a Un mandate to invade Iran.

Does that answer the first question

OK on to the second questions

Basicly oil comes from dead marine organisims which when they died sink to the bottom of the ocean eveything from prehistoric fish to plankton is in the soup. the dead stuff is then covered by silt etc and over time it begins to rot but insted of the energy being releised or washed away the fish remains are trapped under the layers of silt which over time has formed into hard impenitrable rock or somtimes a salt cap which traps the oil and maintains it under pressure and at quite high temperature, this whole procces takes as much as 100million years (kinda screws the creationists don't it). This proccess is still happening today but the time scales involed are so long that there can be no way to keep up

The answer to your question about the abiotic theory I should say I have never heard this but it sounds like a bit of wishful thinking from the motor / oil lobbies simply because if you study oil reservoir dynamics and geology there is simply no other way that kind of energy can be formed. you should also know that contrary to popular conceptions an oil reservior is not like an underground cavefull of oil it is more like a honey comb with crude oil instead of honey. also i9n the stuff that comes out of the ground is water salts sulphur to varying degrees and waxes basicly everything you get when you rot down a body

The easiest way to look at it is to remember the oil which was under ground had carbon locked into it as all things do, by burning the oil in various forms we release that carbon onto the atmosphere if oil were being made at the same rate that we are burning it there would be no increase in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the carbon would have to be locked away just as quickly as we release it to sustain supplies.

Hope this wasn't too long winded and answers your question

I even put in a smiley I am trying Cody

Petso
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
We're skipping that habit for now because the gas to drive there is really ridiculous.

Instead we'll just stay at home more.
We have a TDI VW Golf @ ~45mpg, which we still fill up once every 2-3 weeks.

We're largely unaffectd.

I can't wait for the TDI biodiesel hybrids!
     
cmeisenzahl
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2006, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
The oil companies making BILLIONS of dollars right now on bloated gas prices are not taxed and Bush refuses to let them be taxed.

Oil companies are now exempt from paying taxes? While making BILLIONS of dollars?

What makes them so special? Oh, I forgot - they're Bush's friends.

Bush is a loser.

I read that Exxon-Mobil paid 36 billion in corporate taxes last year.
     
Leopard Employee
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2006, 01:26 AM
 
The best thing is that when fuel gets really expensive you can run you deisel's on vegetable oil with a touch of white spirit mixed in like we do in the uk. You don't even need to wait for bio deisil.

Yes vegetable oil is cheaper than deisel in the UK due to the massive amounts of tax

Another problem with Bush is that he still hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions reduction. That is a real scandal for the supposed leader of the free world, how can we expect third world countries to start towing the environmental line (Many still produce and use CFC's and leaded petrol / gas) if the US are not prepared to lead the way. The UK has already signed along with the rest of europe.

Maybe thats how to tax oil companies, tax them on the emissions that there fuels produce. this then encourages them to produce greener fuels and solutions more efficent cars.

It's worth a bit of investigation at least!!!

Peteso
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2006, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Is that per litre? It's $3.29/gallon at the Shell station down the street. Chevron is the most expensive at $3.31. This is East of Sacramento, California.

When I read stories like this, I find it really hard that gasoline needs to be over $3.00/gallon.
Whoa! Sorry about that, glaring mistake there.

I meant it to be $2.95 a gallon, prices adjusted accordingly.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2006, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Peteso
The best thing is that when fuel gets really expensive you can run you deisel's on vegetable oil with a touch of white spirit mixed in like we do in the uk. You don't even need to wait for bio deisil.

Yes vegetable oil is cheaper than deisel in the UK due to the massive amounts of tax

Another problem with Bush is that he still hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions reduction. That is a real scandal for the supposed leader of the free world, how can we expect third world countries to start towing the environmental line (Many still produce and use CFC's and leaded petrol / gas) if the US are not prepared to lead the way. The UK has already signed along with the rest of europe.

Maybe thats how to tax oil companies, tax them on the emissions that there fuels produce. this then encourages them to produce greener fuels and solutions more efficent cars.

It's worth a bit of investigation at least!!!

Peteso
I'm sorry, I need you to explain something to me:

Why will third world countries start being concerned about environmentalism if the US signs onto Kyoto?

They aren't concerned now and the UK has. What is it about the US signing that would suddenly and magically make everyone start caring?
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Leopard Employee
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2006, 09:29 AM
 
I'm sorry, I need you to explain something to me:

Why will third world countries start being concerned about environmentalism if the US signs onto Kyoto?

They aren't concerned now and the UK has. What is it about the US signing that would suddenly and magically make everyone start caring?
Kyoto ios not a magic wand but it makes it easier to continue poluting if the 3rd world can point at the big boys and say but he did it too. Like everything which happens on a global scale it takes time but you still have to make the first step and the sooner that happens the sooner we can see a positive result. So if America can take a little bit of hi ground on environmental issues and not just terrorism that has to be worth somthing.

I currently live in Azerbaijan a country with huge amounts of Mercury and cancer causing Dioxines in the drinking water massive tracts of land covered with oil from poorly managed land wells. If there is no hope for these places then that is a real shame but I know for a fact that you would not like this on your door step, by not signing up and burying the collective head in the sand America efectivly condones the environmental issues elsewhere

There is a platitude about power and responsibility which I refuse to quote verbatum.

Peteso
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2006, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
Hmmm...hot blueberry cobbler with french vanilla ice cream and nuts on top. Yum!
Finally, we can agree on something.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2006, 03:12 PM
 
What a great mother.

MADONNA warmed up for her world tour with a raunchy, guitar-strumming performance at American festival Coachella.

Madge strode the California stage in velvet bondage-style trousers and trademark leotard.
And she teased fans by yelling “Do you wanna see my a**e?” – before whipping off her strides, stripping to just her leotard and frolicking with a feather boa.

She set the tone for her tour – which starts in Los Angeles on May 21 – by jumping on her political soapbox to berate the US President.

As she grabbed a guitar to sing I Love New York from her album Confessions On A Dance Floor, she raged: “You can suck GEORGE BUSH’s d**k!”

Not ideal language for the ears of her kids LOURDES and ROCCO. They were in the audience with Mr Madonna, movie director GUY RITCHIE, who wore all white in an outfit that matched Rocco’s.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2006, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
You know, vmarks, I probably DO have stock in an oil company: My husband is with Exxon Mobil.



That IS the truth, BTW. He's an executive with Exxon Mobil Corporation. Also an attorney.

So, yes, we're vested with Exxon Mobil.

But it still doesn't make any of this RIGHT, you see? He and I are polar opposites on this issue. He sees things like Simey and I don't. I see opportunism.
Oh just smile and cash in on the Exxon stock. And send a nice shiny 20" iMac to the following address...
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2006, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Finally, we can agree on something.
My very own Kumbayaa moment!

HELLO MY BROTHER!!!!
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,