"HKrause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
HKrause wrote:
basskisser wrote:
John H wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 05:18:41 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:
John H wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 11:10:21 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
news:1111583265.469821.210430@l41g2000cwc .googlegroups.com...
Calif Bill wrote:
Well, my Chevron stock has doubled in value and I also get
a
nice
dividend.
Helps with the fuel bills.
Well, I'll ask again. Do you honestly think that if you pay
MORE
for
gas, that that somehow equates to more money from oil stock?
You
DO
know that stock value and the price at the pump have very
little
in
common, don't you?
Back to basskisser, EH? Lots of your side has been saying the
price
is run
up to get more profit. Well, more profit, means more dividends
and
price of
stock goes up. Simple.
Lots of my "side"? What is my side, Bill? Hmm, so, now, you are
saying
that because you pay more at the pump, you'll MAKE money????
Here's
a
little simple point for you, Bill. Because the price at the pump
goes
up, doesn't mean a damned thing to the end profit. It's the
price
of
CRUDE that's went up. Therefore, Chevron paid more for the
crude,
passed that to the pump. Profits did nothing. Let's simplify it.
Say
a
grocer sells tomatoes for 10 cents a piece, and they cost him 5
cents.
His supplier starts charging 7 cents, he passes that to you, by
charging you 12 cents. His profit hasn't changed.
Wrong idea. The grocer has a profit margin of 100%. So, when the
price goes to 7
cents, he raises the price to *14* cents. He's now making an
additional two
cents profit.
--
John H
Have you ever heard of supply and demand? IF he raises the price
of
the
tomatoes too high, no one will buy them, then the "stock" would
go....DOWN.....
You were the one who provided the example. I just corrected your
reasoning.
You "corrected" nothing, John. You simply gave a different
scenario,
and it is flawed. The consumer won't stand for an infinite rise in
prices.
Hmmmm. Would this be drip up or drip down economics?
Damn it, Harry, you'll NEVER understand republican voodoo economics,
will you? It's trickle down, so the inverse MUST be drip UP!!!
Ahh.
Well, since the oil companies NEVER EVER act in the interest of Americans,
my suggestion is to nationalize them, and put them under the control of a
small board of citizens managers who know the oil business and who are
responsive and responsible to the US taxpayers. Oh...NO closed meetings.
Then you had better nationalize all industries due to the fact that
corporations act in the best interests of their owners or shareholders.
|