AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 you're still buying gas, right? still driving your two cars every day? still flying around the country to see suck-ass over the hill bands consisting of 50 year old men in tights? that means they are still giving you a product you want at a price you are willing to purchase it, doesn't it? Well, captain Wordy McWordpenis... you said it was a price people "want" to pay... not a price they are "willing" to pay. And, in economics, a want is something desired.... distinct from a need/. So you are semantically incorrect in your argument. Burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) America benefits by Exxon profiting through the profits paid to the shareholders. In case you missed it when I said it before, that would be anyone that is invested in mutual funds that hold Exxon stock as part of their portfolio. That includes any bank or retirement investment account. Which in turn translates to a large portion of the individuals in this country even if they don't realize that they indirectly hold stock in Exxon. So what you're saying is that If I invested all my money in Exxon stock, it would more than make up for the inflation and increased cost to my family for gas, heating and electricity? Edited June 26, 2008 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well, captain Wordy McWordpenis... you said it was a price people "want" to pay... not a price they are "willing" to pay. And, in economics, a want is something desired.... distinct from a need/. So you are semantically incorrect in your argument. Burn. Uh, in what you quoted it said willing to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 america benefits from exxon the same way they benefit from any business that provides something americans need and want to purchase at a price they want to purchase it at. it is startling how many people fail to get that. they are a business that employs thousands of americans, and spends billions in capital. their profit margin is no greater than major businesses in any other industry. maybe you think the country would be better off if there were no oil. no economy, no jobs, no cars and airplanes. but hey, at least there wouldn't be any rich oil executives, and that's what really counts. Uh, in what you quoted it said willing to pay. I believe this is the quote that Atomic was referring to. Though I'm guessing Az didn't mean to say "want". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 So what you're saying is that If I invested all my money in Exxon stock, it would more than make up for the inflation and increased cost to my family for gas, heating and electricity? 5 years ago XOM was trading at $36 per share now it is at $88 dollars a share, and paying a 1.8% dividend. So investing in Exxon would have been wise. Obviously some of that 10% profit they make will be put back into the business for exploration and R&D on alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 5 years ago XOM was trading at $36 per share now it is at $88 dollars a share, and paying a 1.8% dividend. So investing in Exxon would have been wise. Obviously some of that 10% profit they make will be put back into the business for exploration and R&D on alternatives. You're overestimating the investment budget of the average American household. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 You're overestimating the investment budget of the average American household. Let me ask you this, do you think we should put a windfall tax on Academy or Footlocker? The mark up on shoes is much higher than the mark up on gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Let me ask you this, do you think we should put a windfall tax on Academy or Footlocker? The mark up on shoes is much higher than the mark up on gas. I believe we were discussing how much to fine a very profitable company for destroying a large section of our nation's coastline, not just taxing anyone who sells oil. Mind you, I don't pretend to know how much more, if any, they need to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Let me ask you this, do you think we should put a windfall tax on Academy or Footlocker? The mark up on shoes is much higher than the mark up on gas. What a ridculous analogy. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 So what you're saying is that If I invested all my money in Exxon stock, it would more than make up for the inflation and increased cost to my family for gas, heating and electricity? Nope, not in the least. Club asked a question and I answered it directly. Now if you had invested you money wisely (and that includes a diversification of your portfolio) you may have been able to reap returns greater than those increased costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 What a ridculous analogy. Seriously. At risk of dragging this back in the windfall profits tax thing, what is so ridiculous about the analogy? Are not their profit margins greater than that of Exxon? Why is it only companies that have been successful enough to have billions of dollars of cash infow and outflow each year raise the ire of individuals so that they want to push punititive taxes on them, regardless of whether their gain is proportional to other companies? They made 40 BILLION dollars last year! Tax them until it hurts! Yes, but that is only a 4.5% profit margin. Far less than many other companies. You don't want to tax these other companies that made 8% or 10% profit margins, do you? I don't care if those other companies made 30%, it's not 40 BILLION dollars! Tax those bastards! They're getting uber rich of of everyone, I have to pay more for gas, tax them! TAX THEM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 At risk of dragging this back in the windfall profits tax thing, what is so ridiculous about the analogy? I'm pretty sure our nation's economy does not hinge on the sale of some crappy shoes from spammers Shox. A major difference between a want and a need. New shoes are a want. Gasoline is a need. It's a rdiculous analogy. If you don't see that, then I don't know what else to tell ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 At risk of dragging this back in the windfall profits tax thing, what is so ridiculous about the analogy? Because shoes are not a commodity? Because shoes are not integral to the infrastructure and economy of the country? Because if the cost of rubber soles went up by 700%, people would make shoes from leather, and they would still be able to get to work? You're being a little silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Because shoes are not a commodity? Because shoes are not integral to the infrastructure and economy of the country? Because if the cost of rubber soles went up by 700%, people would make shoes from leather, and they would still be able to get to work? You're being a little silly. live a week without shoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 live a week without shoes QUOTE (AtomicCEO @ 6/26/08 9:38am) Because shoes are not a commodity? Because shoes are not integral to the infrastructure and economy of the country? Because if the cost of rubber soles went up by 700%, people would make shoes from leather, and they would still be able to get to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I always thought it was the purpose of criminal law to deter behavior. the purpose of tort law was restitution. in any case, do you think the economic benefit of hiring a drunk ship captain is greater than the $287 million exxon payed in compensatory damages, the equal amount in punitive damages, plus all the other costs they have incurred as a result of the valdez incident? The threat of criminal conviction deters behavior that violates criminal statutes. The threat of punitive damages deters behavior that violate civil statutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I did not know that. I was a 15 at the time of the spill. Who is responsible for employing the safety system? LOL...employ meaning installing...and that would be Exxon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 LOL...employ meaning installing...and that would be Exxon. I read it as deploying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 My family has been out of town all week, my girls were participating in the Dallas Cowobys Cheerleader camp. Also, this has been a light week for me, even though I've been the first one in the office 3 our of 4 days this week and the last to leave on all 4. Last week was much heavier, and if you will go back an look, you will notice I did not post much. Also, just by the nature of my job, about 70% of it is reactive, so if there is nothing to react to, then I have a lot of free time, but I still have to be here in case something comes up. All my real long hours that really pull my average up are the beginning of a project, and at the end of a project, and right now all of my projects are in the middle of construction, with the exception of one, and it was sent out to the trade contractors to bid Tuesday, with bids due July 17th, which means I probably still have about another week that will be relatively slow before my work load starts picking up again, for the bidding of that project. Then in August I will start doing inspections on a 100,400 square foot children's education building which will keep me real busy for about 6 weeks. In other words right now is the lull before the storm. Just giving you a bad time Perch. I'm bitter because the weather here is getting awesome and I look to be completely overwhelmed with work through July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Just in case you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years, I rarely contribute anything to an argument. My schtick is to find minute details that are factually incorrect and then point them out to otherwise outstanding Huddlers. That cracked me up by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I read it as deploying. No problem.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 America benefits by Exxon profiting through the profits paid to the shareholders. In case you missed it when I said it before, that would be anyone that is invested in mutual funds that hold Exxon stock as part of their portfolio. That includes any bank or retirement investment account. Which in turn translates to a large portion of the individuals in this country even if they don't realize that they indirectly hold stock in Exxon. So what you're saying is that If I invested all my money in Exxon stock, it would more than make up for the inflation and increased cost to my family for gas, heating and electricity? Nope, not in the least. Club asked a question and I answered it directly. Now if you had invested you money wisely (and that includes a diversification of your portfolio) you may have been able to reap returns greater than those increased costs. So a few lucky people may have invested enough in Exxon to offset the increased costs of gas heating and electricity? That's how Exxon's $40,000,000,000.00 in profits in 2007 benefited America? That doesn't change my opinion at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 So a few lucky people may have invested enough in Exxon to offset the increased costs of gas heating and electricity? That's how Exxon's $40,000,000,000.00 in profits in 2007 benefited America? That doesn't change my opinion at all. Yeah, but that's only because you're not greedy enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 America benefits by Exxon profiting through the profits paid to the shareholders. In case you missed it when I said it before, that would be anyone that is invested in mutual funds that hold Exxon stock as part of their portfolio. That includes any bank or retirement investment account. Which in turn translates to a large portion of the individuals in this country even if they don't realize that they indirectly hold stock in Exxon. Yay for American stockholders! Oil profits are going up again! Stocks plunged on Thursday, with the Dow sliding about 360 points to a 21-month low as oil hit a record. Oil surged above $140 a barrel in New York trading, compounding fears that soaring inflation will hamper a global economy already on the ropes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Yay for American stockholders! Oil profits are going up again! My 401k evidently doesn't have enough Exxon stock in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.