"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

The concept is as stupid as private investors
selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for
the last quarter.

It's called free market capitalism. The opposite of which is ???

What business are (or were) you in, Wayne?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"ACP" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

So, a bunch of
suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the
economy.

Time for the law to change.

Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen
it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because
everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal
bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess.

If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why
not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick
call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe
also.


I'm not talking about price controls. I'm talking about eliminating the
trading of one particular commodity for "sport", by people who are in no
way connected to the business. You know as well as I do that the
majority of the price jumps have been "on concerns about" things in
places like Iraq which, in your wildest dreams, could not have
materially affected oil production in any way, shape or form. The
concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds
because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter.


Ah, but if problems in Iraq expand to other oil producing countries in
the region, there could be a "real" problem in the oil supply pipeline.

That's "if". In the past, they have not. Here's a question: What are your
3 favorite main courses for dinner?

The past does not always indicate the future.

"If" Bush 43 hadn't been elected. "If" Gore HAD been elected. "If Kerry
HAD been elected.

Chicken, Fish, and Pizza....

Chuck Gould wrote:



All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like
an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the
good ship CostaLotta.


I think the 'oil executives' should be the *******s considered terrorists.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

Wayne.B wrote:


If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why
not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick
call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe
also.

The "free market" explanation for $4/gallon gas at the fuel dock and
the skyrocketing costs of chemicals that will soon put the price of new
fiberglass boats up to the stratosphere doesn't really work.

In a free market, competition to produce expands as demand to consume
expands and tends to moderate prices. Companies are forced to become
more efficient to flourish, even in prosperous times.

Demand to consume petroleum products is growing, but there are so many
barriers to the marketplace that new suppliers are not emerging. In
fact, the old suppliers are merging and competition is actually
decreasing.

There is no "free market" dynamic in the oil industry to defend.

We often hear that the "oil companies are only grossing 15-cents a
gallon!". Nonsense. That's their gross at the gas pump- pumps sitting
in gas stations now primarily owned by the big oil companies rather
than independent operators. The companies book "internal" profits as
crude flows from one subsidiary that pumps the oil, to another
subsidiary that transports the crude, to another subsidiary that
refines the crude, to another that distributes it, etc. Total oil
company profits are currently about 90-cents per gallon, up from closer
to 50-cents (yes, that's an 80 percent increase) a year or so ago.

Tracking this increase to supply and demand would tend to indicate that
somehow the oil companies sold 80 or 90 pecent more fuel. Didn't, of
course.

That 80% increase in the profit portion of the price of a gallon of gas
at the fuel dock is also pretty consistent with the increase in
coporate profits.....for example, Conoco/Phillips recently reported
profits that were up almot 90% from a year earlier.

It is possible to bit on supply and demand, I guess. As in "We've got a
corner on the supply, you guys have an insatiable demand, so in light
of the fact that we have no effective competition tying to place a
downward pressure on pricing we will simply continue to raise the
prices as high and as fast as we want to........"

A cut 'n paste analysis of pricing and profit follows:

"In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75%
higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest
quarterly profit ever reported by a US company.

For the 3rd quarter of 2005, ChevronTexaco reported a 53% increase to
nearly $4 billion; and ConocoPhillips?s profits were up 89% to $3.8
billion.

Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a
package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options
and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a
corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and
a car and driver.

While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond
claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're
all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the
world."

"In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to
point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million."

After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs
at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: ?Your sacrifice
appears to be nothing.?

According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005.

These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly
and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their
homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back."


*************
Evelyn Pringle -

(Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing
corruption in government and corporate America)



All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like
an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the
good ship CostaLotta.

Exxon 3Q 2005 gross profit 9.8%
Citigroup 2004 gross profit 15.7%
Altria Group 2004 gross profit 22%
Merck 2004 gross profit 25.3%

So there are other devils in the wood pile.

Figures from:

http://tinyurl.com/dj683

Don White wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:



All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like
an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the
good ship CostaLotta.


I think the 'oil executives' should be the *******s considered terrorists.

Not at all. They have found a way to exploit the system, and are doing
so.
I'm surprised that they didn't realize, long ago, that there is no
practical upward limit to the amount they can raise prices. Even Bush
says, "We're addicted to oil". We are, and the Big Oil boys have a
corner on the crack supply. Doesn't matter how high the price goes, we
will pay. And if the only thing a person gives a ding about is the
amount of money going into the profit column on the p&l statement,
(with no regard to social costs
generated by prices spiraling out of sight) there's nothing wrong with
doubling, tripling, or quintupling quarter to quarter profits from the
sale of a resource that for many people isn't discretionary, but rather
essential.

What is disingenuous, however, is the constant running and ducking
behind "free market" and "supply and demand" excuses or the greatest
belly laugh of all, "our margin per gallon is only a few cents." Hoist
the skull and crossbones on the corporate spreader, clear for action,
and stand proud. I'd have more respect for BIG OIL if they would just
say, plainly, "We're going to gouge you, simply because we can, and if
you don't like it you can park your car or sell your boat. With his
$30-million annual salary, our CEO is contracting for a new 180-footer,
so don't come around here with some crap that these high oil prices
make boating unaffordable! As far as we're concerned, these high prices
make boating more affordable than ever. Neener, neener, neener."

On 21 Jul 2006 08:45:27 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Wayne.B wrote:


If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why
not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick
call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe
also.

The "free market" explanation for $4/gallon gas at the fuel dock and
the skyrocketing costs of chemicals that will soon put the price of new
fiberglass boats up to the stratosphere doesn't really work.

In a free market, competition to produce expands as demand to consume
expands and tends to moderate prices. Companies are forced to become
more efficient to flourish, even in prosperous times.

Demand to consume petroleum products is growing, but there are so many
barriers to the marketplace that new suppliers are not emerging. In
fact, the old suppliers are merging and competition is actually
decreasing.

There is no "free market" dynamic in the oil industry to defend.

We often hear that the "oil companies are only grossing 15-cents a
gallon!". Nonsense. That's their gross at the gas pump- pumps sitting
in gas stations now primarily owned by the big oil companies rather
than independent operators. The companies book "internal" profits as
crude flows from one subsidiary that pumps the oil, to another
subsidiary that transports the crude, to another subsidiary that
refines the crude, to another that distributes it, etc. Total oil
company profits are currently about 90-cents per gallon, up from closer
to 50-cents (yes, that's an 80 percent increase) a year or so ago.

Tracking this increase to supply and demand would tend to indicate that
somehow the oil companies sold 80 or 90 pecent more fuel. Didn't, of
course.

That 80% increase in the profit portion of the price of a gallon of gas
at the fuel dock is also pretty consistent with the increase in
coporate profits.....for example, Conoco/Phillips recently reported
profits that were up almot 90% from a year earlier.

It is possible to bit on supply and demand, I guess. As in "We've got a
corner on the supply, you guys have an insatiable demand, so in light
of the fact that we have no effective competition tying to place a
downward pressure on pricing we will simply continue to raise the
prices as high and as fast as we want to........"

A cut 'n paste analysis of pricing and profit follows:

"In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75%
higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest
quarterly profit ever reported by a US company.

For the 3rd quarter of 2005, ChevronTexaco reported a 53% increase to
nearly $4 billion; and ConocoPhillips?s profits were up 89% to $3.8
billion.

Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a
package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options
and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a
corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and
a car and driver.

While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond
claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're
all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the
world."

"In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to
point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million."

After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs
at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: ?Your sacrifice
appears to be nothing.?

According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005.

These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly
and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their
homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back."


*************
Evelyn Pringle -

(Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing
corruption in government and corporate America)



All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like
an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the
good ship CostaLotta.

So Raymond's check was about half of one percent of the profits. That
doesn't sound obscene.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On 21 Jul 2006 08:45:27 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

Snipped

These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly
and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their
homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back."


*************
Evelyn Pringle -

(Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing
corruption in government and corporate America)



All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like
an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the
good ship CostaLotta.

PS. It does sound like you're trying to make a political statement here.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

ACP wrote:

Exxon 3Q 2005 gross profit 9.8%
Citigroup 2004 gross profit 15.7%
Altria Group 2004 gross profit 22%
Merck 2004 gross profit 25.3%

So there are other devils in the wood pile.


Aren't you comparing one quarter's profits for Exxon with a previoius
year's profits for the other companies?

Percentages can be deceiving. For instance, if Joe's Bait Shop and
Outboard Motor Repair made $10,000 in 2004 and managed to increase that
astonishing number to $20,000 in 2005, profits are up "100%". Somehow,
I think Exxon made more than Joe's Bait Shop.

What is more revealing is the total dollar amount of the profit and how
it has changed from previous years. What is more pertinent to a
discussion of how oil company profits influence the price of a gallon
of fuel at the fuel dock is an examination of how much corporate
profit, per gallon, is included in the price. That is currently about
90 cents, all in all done. It was closer to 50 cents in the spring of
2005.

Some of the firms you cite are drug companies. I think that's where the
current crop of oil execs learned their trade. "Oh, you don't want to
spend $400 per pill for your medicine? Well, you do have a choice. You
can die. (and we don't care, either way)."

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..


There's very little relationship between the profits oil companies report
and the money they generate/make/bury. There are 1001 ways to legally
manipulate all sorts of numbers in the energy business.

Or any business, really.

Eisboch

On 21 Jul 2006 09:35:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

I'm surprised that they didn't realize, long ago, that there is no
practical upward limit to the amount they can raise prices.

Interestingly enough they do not "raise" prices. They buy and sell on
the open market like everyone else. It's called supply and demand,
open auction market, etc. When the market is willing to pay more for
oil, their inventory is woth more (both in and above ground). If
their inventory is worth more, they make more money, no conspiracy
theories necessary. Should they be required to give it away at below
market value because our boating is costing us a bit more?

For the most part the big oil companies are highly efficient, with
huge investments in exploration, extraction, refining and
distribution. Who would be willing to make investments like that if
not allowed to make a profit?

Who would be willing to invest in the magazine business if not allowed
to make a profit?

Get in there and buy some oil yourself. The Wall Street Journal
quotes wholesale commodities prices every day.