"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 23 Mar 2005 11:10:21 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.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

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

And CVX also owns a few billion barrels of crude reserves. Whose
value just
went up also. It still hurts at the pump, but the hurt has a nice
palliative at dividend time. Basskissers argument ignores that the
supplier
is also the manufacturer.

My god! Are you really saying that if crude goes up, the oil companies
profits must, also? You DO realize that it takes the same high priced
crude to run their delivery trucks, right? You do realize that the
price they have paid for crude has risen, starting this, right? You do
realize that the trains they run use this high priced crude, right? You
do realize that the buildings they own and heat with are affected,
right? You do realize that any ancilary companies are passing these
higher expenses back to the producer, right? To top it off, you do
realize that oil stocks are down because of the high price of crude,
right?


They are business expenses. They sell at least 99.9% more energy than
they
consume. That is reflected in the wholesale price of the gas / diesel /
heating oil they sell.



http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y

5 year chart on Chevron. Notice the price is up a lot from 2003, and they
pay 2.6% dividend presently.

Calif Bill wrote:
Yes I read them, and oil stocks are down a little. But they are up a
lot.
Part of the problem with rising crude prices, is the cutting of
buying.
People will travel less, will cut down on buying as the price gets to
high.
Rapid rise in oil in 1973 caused a world wide recession. Go to
www.yahoo.com and research XOM and CVX over 5 or 10 years. They draw
nice
charts of the price. Look at the dividends aslo.

The rise over 5 and 10 years has nothing to do with the rise in the
price of crude. Historically, when crude prices jump, oil stocks go
down.

P.Fritz wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 23 Mar 2005 11:10:21 -0800, "basskisser"

wrote:


Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

oups.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

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

And CVX also owns a few billion barrels of crude reserves.
Whose
value just
went up also. It still hurts at the pump, but the hurt has a
nice
palliative at dividend time. Basskissers argument ignores that
the
supplier
is also the manufacturer.

My god! Are you really saying that if crude goes up, the oil
companies
profits must, also? You DO realize that it takes the same high
priced
crude to run their delivery trucks, right? You do realize that the
price they have paid for crude has risen, starting this, right?
You do
realize that the trains they run use this high priced crude,
right? You
do realize that the buildings they own and heat with are affected,
right? You do realize that any ancilary companies are passing
these
higher expenses back to the producer, right? To top it off, you do
realize that oil stocks are down because of the high price of
crude,
right?


They are business expenses. They sell at least 99.9% more energy
than
they
consume. That is reflected in the wholesale price of the gas /
diesel /
heating oil they sell.

The "King" is on a ramapage to retain his title. LMAO

What an intelligent and thoughtful interjection to the post. It
certainly shows what you know about stocks, and crude prices vs. stock
prices.

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
oups.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.

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
oglegroups.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!!!

On 25 Mar 2005 05:02:12 -0800, "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
oups.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.

Waffling. That's what that's called.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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.

John H wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 05:02:12 -0800, "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

oups.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.

Waffling. That's what that's called.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 05:02:12 -0800, "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

oups.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.

Waffling. That's what that's called.
--
John H

Waffling??? ANYBODY who would stand for an infinite rise in the price
of ANYTHING would be just plain dumb. Would you?

On 25 Mar 2005 09:41:34 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 25 Mar 2005 05:02:12 -0800, "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

roups.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.

Waffling. That's what that's called.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

That's the kind of response I like. It keeps you out of trouble, basskisser.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."