Price fixing among tire manufacturers

Note to Mr Putney: some of us have other things to do than to spend all
day arguing BS in Usenet.

Maybe that's because profits are reported in raw dollars, not in
percentages?

 

LOL, you rightwingnuts kill me!

 

Gees, Jeff, I doubt ExxonMobil supplies refined products directly to gas
stations.

 

What's with this on topic post, Ted? <vbg>

 

Well, they own a bunch of gas stations in the US and probably other
countries. Where do you think those ExxonMobil gas stations get their
fuel? Sunoco?

Did you ever drive down the road and see gasoline tankers with names
like Exxon, Mobil, BP, Getty, Gulf, LukOil, Valero, Citco and Chevron on
them. Well those tankers are taking fuel from the refiners to the gas
stations. So in the case of Exxon and Mobil, they taking gasoline (the
refined product) and supplying it directly to the gas stations. In some
cases the gas stations actually do the trucking, in others it is
independent truckers or trucking companies, and in others, it is the oil
companies. But in any case, it is the refineries supplying the refined
product (the gasoline) directly to the gas stations.

I think in some cases the oil companies supply the gasoline through
distributors, but I don't know how often. And in the case of gas
stations that are part of local regional chains, the chains may have
their own fuel depots.

Jeff

 

No, it isn't. I don't buy gasoline from Luk Oil or Getty Oil (which is
owned by Luk Oil).

What subsidies?

Evidence for these subsidies, please.

What is wrong with an increase in profit year over year? Of all that
profit that the big oil companies made, how much was made from products
sold in the US?

And how about ExxonMobil's latest quarterly earnings growth (year over
year) of -10.30%. Gee, they didn't make as much money.

You're wrong about the profits being obscene. Most of the profits are
from overseas. And, the profits the companies make are right in line
with the profits utilities makes.

Jeff

 

Especially first thing in the morning, but you get the point. Numbers can
be said in different ways to change the perception of actuality. Other
tricks like showing bar graphs at the top portion instead of the entire bar
to make it look like the difference between 98 and 100 is a big jump, not
the tiny difference if you show the entire scale of 100.

 

And if the answer to that is 'no' (and it indeed is 'no', maybe your
thought processes are flawed (generally if a person's conclusions based
on assumptions they make are nowhere near accurate, it is a safe bet
that their main premise(s) is(are) faulty).

Let's see - this is how much "connected" with the API and AEI are: API =
American Petroleum Institute - that's the logo or whatever you see for
certification of motor oil? Did I get that right? AEI = American
Energy Institute - that's my SWAG - I'd have to Google it to see if I
got it right, but won't waste the time.

Yes - and they make the mistake that you either are or pretend to be
blind to: Never stating the profits in percent but only in raw dollars.
They talk in places about *changes* (year to year or whatever) in
percents - but *NEVER* state the actual annual profits in percent -
*ALWAYS* in raw dollars. Gee - why is that? Because to state the same
typical ho-hum barely double digits profits that typical viable
companies make wouldn't be sensational, sell their publication, etc.?

In raw dollars - not in percent. Duh.

I'm not even going to look at it, but I will make a really wild (actualy
pretty safe) guess that in that article too, that is stated as record
profits in raw dollars - not in percent, and I'll even go way out on a
limb and state that I bet he never gives the annual percent profit for a
single year - past or present. SOmeone who looked at the articleel -
How'd I do?

No - some things are obvious. For example - I'd be safe in saying that
your computer keyboard has keys for the letter 'U' and 'Z' and the
number '3'.

The issue is - and you know it, but you pretend not to realize it - I've
stated it multiple times, but you ignore it - is that the "record
profits" phrase is used as a negative term by certain people if they
don't like a certain entity. Inflation doubles the raw dollar value of
things like every 15 to 20 years (don't know what the figures are today
- used to be like every 8 or 10 years). So any viable business that
doesn't make "record profits" in RAW DOLLARS almost every year will soon
be out of business. Will you at least acknowledge that? (probably not)
So most business entities and people (personal income) are constantly
making "record profits" every subsequent year. This is about the tenth
time I've laid it out for you. If you don't have it now, you probably
never will (or at least will pretend like you don't even see it).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Except for the FACT Exxom Mobile sells a lot more product outside of
the US than in, and in a more favourable economic climate (like people
are used to paying high prices for everything).

 

So that's how you "win" the argument? Pretty lame.

Yes - but when used to try to denigrate an entity simply because you
don't like them when the same criteria could likely be used to show that
the company you work for must be evil since certainly they are making
record profits (in raw dollars) compared to 1, 5 or 10 years ago.

Here it is a one sentence: To denigrate an industry by saying that they
are making "record profits" (on raw dollars) is dishonest - unless you
want to *also* denigrate yourself and practically everyone you know,
their employers and the local small businessman for the same reason,
because if they aren't making "record profits" (in raw dollars), they
are soon declaring bankruptcy. (granted it is a run-on sentence, but
one sentence nonetheless)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

One of my favorite questions is:
If '200% increase' means 'twice what it was', what does '100% increase'
mean?

Yet public figures often state things as 200% or 300% or whatever
increase. I bet if you asked them what 200% increase meant, they
wouldn't know, and would probably would get it wrong if you asked them
if it meant twice or thrice (IOW, they're just regurgitating something
someone told them to say, or they are maybe intentionally trying to
deceive). Nor does the public understand that they don't know the
meaning of the "percent increase" "statistic" they heard either. Yet
policy decisions are made based on ignorance (or intentional deception)
like that.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

It's called ROI - Return on Investment.
When you can do better by putting your money in the bank than by
running a business, percentage really DOES matter.

Not to say Exxon/Mobil is NOT making record profits, not saying they
are.
BUT if a company cannot make more money by operating than by putting
their money in the bank, SOMETHING IS WRONG and there is no reason for
them to be in business.

 

Your big oil is not ripping the American public of "scheme".
Did you follow the Enron market manipulation insanity? That was a so called
"price controlled" utilities market. Big oil's practices are more like that
than not.
They have no more right to "gouge the American public for this necessity
than they would for drinking water, period.

Are you suggesting we have seen 37-66% inflation in the last year?

You tell me that's you thing...
To start with, STOP DEFENDING IT!

We don't have to pay to see their movies, we can choose not to buy Nike
shoes, or McDonalds hamburgers, we CANNOT opt out of oil and gas use, it is
not the same thing at all.

Water, electricity, oil and gas are not consumer commodities modern society
can just decide not to buy. Even if you don't have a car or lawn mower, and
never personally purchase a gallon of gas/diesel, you still cannot walk down
to your corner grocery store and buy your food without it.

Stop subsidizing them to start with, isn't that like communism anyway?

 

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Even easier, stop buying US Treasuries, putting the US into deep yogurt
indeed. As of Oct, 2007, the Chinese held $388 billion in US Treasuries,
about 17% of the outstanding bonds, notes & bills. The Japanese held
$592 billion, about 25%.

 

What are you talking about here? The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading
Commission) is charged with providing oversight on markets where Enron
and other "energy trading" companies traded their contracts. However, in
1993 Ken Lay suggested to the Chair of the CFTC, Wendy Gramm, that he
thought they didn't need any oversight. Ms Gramm agreed and pushed thru
an exemption for Enron and its trading partners, so those trades had no
oversight at all. Shortly after this Ms Gramm resigned from the CFTC and
took a seat on Enron's board. Ms Gramm is (or was) married to former
Senator Phil Gramm, R.TX, who was a heavy hitter in those days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/31.stm

 

You're admitting I won the argument? Thanks.

 

Sorry, I'd forgotten how humorless you rightwingnuts truly are. Would
you have felt better if I'd included a smiley?

Setting standards is one aspect of the API (you guessed right, the
American Petroleum Institute). It's a major industry group which
represents the interests of petroleum & related companies. Here's a link
to their Media Contacts page:

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/contacts/

Setting API standards is hardly their primary function.

Dude, take it up with the AICPA. I don't make the rules here and neither
do the news media.

<repeated horseshit snipped>

 

Yes - it's all about you. Grow up.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

CPA's don't recognize the significance of percentage profits vs. raw
dollars? You are delusional. You're still intentionally missing the
point. In your case, it appears to be more a case of dishonesty than
lack of intelligence, but probably some of both. I do find they often
go hand in hand.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

This yutz is impersonating all of the regulars on the NGs - I assure you, I
don't spam NGs.

Natalie, the real Wickeddoll