Are the oil companies gouging us?

[tharkûn]

I see you're going to throw red herrings around and think no one will notice them.

Oh look smoke and mirrors. You claimed prices were rising. It is a fact that prices were not rising - on everything from bread to nails. You were wrong, deal with it. (Oh and any bets that SN won't even attempt to post numbers showing a raise in prices for the time period?)

Whose talking about a command economy,

Regulations can happen while following supply and demand or while not following supply and demand. I used a command economy as an illustration, seeing as you are too stupid to understand that and would prefer to duck the point, instead I will refer to British coal policy. Under Labour policy coal production was not subject to the laws of supply and demand (indeed it was explicit orders by the nationalizing government to mine "as much as you can"); regulations still existed. At the other end Tory policy changed and let coal be produced according to the laws of supply and demand; interestingly enough regulations still existed. Regulation can occur with or without following supply and demand.

If the crap you're spewing came from a Laureate, one of two things is true:

Damn, the standards dropped.

You're lying/too stupid to understand what they really meant/In a psychotrophic haze.

Ahh you are now are better versed in economics than the entire Swedish Academy. Most impressive.

Ah, so clearly we would magically metamophize into these if we instituted eugenics.

Strawman. If we instituted classical eugenics we would be inbred, deleterious recessives would come to the fore, and many people would suffer needless pain and agony. If we instituted eugenics in line with modern science we would need to incur massive costs, particularly with respect to the labor of geneticists. That would delay the discover of treatments for diseases, which again increase suffering for dubious payout.

Shall I accept your concession on everything you've failed to show a source for? That'd be the entire debate.

Concession accepted. I've already cited Okun, my Exxon numbers come straight from their SEC filings, etc.

Let's see. Tharkun posts numbers with no source.

Oh sorry:

Exxon's SEC filing

I thought when I told you it was the legally binding source you'd have the brains to figure out that it came from SEC filings, sorry I overestimated your intelligence. I will make a note to move you to the braindead rock category now.

I provide the following sources citing the very 75% leap in profit I was referring to

And here we have the bait and switch. Previously SN stated, "We're talking about 75% profits"; the missing word there would be "leap". As I originally contended, before SN decided to show us how stupid he really is, Exxon posted a 10% profit margin (or 10% net profit margin if you care about the others). I will now graciously accept his concession without belittling his manhood too much because he hasn't the guts to admit I was right in my initial statement.

A 75% "leap" in profits is meaningless, and quite trivial. Numerous companies have effectively infinite leaps in profit for year to year (think about it if you break even one year, what is the percent "leap" for any profit the next). If his standard of "gouging" is the percent increase from year to year of profitability then every company which undergoes a turn around can only do so by gouging.

The truth is percent increases in year to year profit are meaningless numbers in economics. An utterly failing company can post massive percentage gains by merely being slightly profitable. Likewise one time costs or incomes can hopelessly distort percent "leaps". The only use such numbers have in their own right is to sensationalize news headlines and lure the ignorant into buying or dumping a stock. What matters is how much net profit margin you have, not how that differentiates with respect to time.

Seriously think about the logic of it. Would Exxons profits, all 10 billion dollars worth, be any more acceptable if they made a 9 billion last year instead of 6 billion?

I wonder what Tharky will do now? Semantics-whoring, that's my guess.

Oh look you call me a liar for stating that Exxon has a 10% profit. I post the numbers straight from the SEC. Wow it's 10%! It's like I got those numbers direct from the company as if I was a shareholder. Now rather than buck up that he was in error, SN decides to play a little game where in adds the word "leap" and use the relative increase in profit (and not even the increase in profit margin mind you) to dishonestly distract from the fact the profit margin is 10%, as stated.



But it would be "semantics-whoring" to point out that out

Funny, these companies cite the aforementioned 50-75 percent increases in pure profits so clearly it wasn't a price increase based on cost.

Exxon operates oil platforms. The cost to produce that oil is more or less flat. The price (do not confuse this with the cost) increased while the cost essentially flatlined. The fun thing of course is that 9 month profit tallies only increased 50% from last year while revenue increased by 26%.

Even if we use BS figures: meaning that anyone going from making losing a billion in 2003 to breaking even in 2004 and making a billion in 2005 experienced 0% increase in profit from 2003 to 2004, positive infinity from 2004 to 2005, and negative 100% from 2003 to 2005; then the real discrepancy is 24% in the BEST OIL MARKET IN OVER TWO DECADES. Wow talk about overblown.

One in which mistakes are admitted: I had a brain fart and mixed 'inelastic demand' with 'static demand'. My claims about oil demand are wrong, and I concede that point alone.

I await your concession that I was correct, Exxon has a 10% profit margin.

However I will graciously accept your concession that you BS'ed about static demand.

[SirNitram]

Since all you can do is grand-stand, Tharkun, why don't you enjoy a little bit of it yourself?

Your argument has been nothing but:

Black/White fallacies. If we are not talking about worshipping supply/demand as an idealogy, we must be wanting a completely inefficient economy.

Flat-out strawmen, wherein it's perfectly okay to mention how a command economy is bad despite them not being brought up.

Outright lies. Many examples.

Refusing to give a source, repeatedly.

Semantics whoring. Because as much as you want to fall back and say it was all about profit margins, that's not what people have been objecting to, nor is it what you wrote. Hell, you even dare try and back up into 'classical' eugenics when you're called on your Creationist bullshit of people metamorphasizing into short-lived, insensate beasts if we institute natural selection as a idealogy.

In short, you're all over the place, flailing and squawking. Of course, this kinda proves my point about the kind of people who think we should turn natural mechanisms into ideals: They're flat out fucking looney and often liars towards their goals.

[tharkûn]

Oh look SN is running short on smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that he lied:

A 10% profit isn't price-gouging

We aren't talking about 10%, you inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash.

We're talking about 75% profits to use Exxon Mobile as an example. ...

Given your rebuttal was aimed at some fantasyland where profits were one-seventh what they really were, I'll just ignore your whining.

What a moron. Let me quote the legally binding figures (as in if you can prove this wrong people can go to jail):
Revenue:
$100,717,000

Costs:
$84,665,000

Income taxes:
$6,132,000

Net income:
$9,920,000

9.9 billion is just slightly less than 10% of 100 billion. Profit is 10% revenue. Any other blatant lies you'd like put forth? (Oh and the year to date proft is again just slightly less than 10% of revenue, the two year average is significantly lower, and the three year average lower still)

Now if you can show me where Exxon is hiding $75,538,000 dollars or how they overstated revenue by a factor of 7.6 (and in that case where they managed to find oil at under half of market value) or any combination equivalent; I will mail you my stock dividends from Exxon for this quarter.

I provide the following sources citing the very 75% leap in profit I was referring to: wow that was fast, one might almost have missed that little dishonest flip between "profit" and "leap in profit", if one had an IQ below that of a rock



And here we have the bait and switch. Previously SN stated, "We're talking about 75% profits"; the missing word there would be "leap". As I originally contended, before SN decided to show us how stupid he really is, Exxon posted a 10% profit margin (or 10% net profit margin if you care about the others). I will now graciously accept his concession without belittling his manhood too much because he hasn't the guts to admit I was right in my initial statement.


Semantics whoring. Because as much as you want to fall back and say it was all about profit margins, that's not what people have been objecting to, nor is it what you wrote.

What I wrote is that they had 10% profits. That still stands profits were ten precent of revenue. If I buy a house for 300,000 and sell it for 400,000 I've made a 33% percent profit. If I buy 10 houses for 3 million and sell them for 4 million I've made 33% profits on them. Exxon made 10% profits in the last quarter on the best oil market in over two decades - that isn't gouging. Until SN decides to quantitatively define his charge; the point stands Exxon isn't gouging, it is making a 10% profit off its revenue - and that is only for the most recent quarter.

If the profit margin isn't what people have been objecting to, then grow a brain and some balls and bloody quantitatively DEFINE THE TERM GOUGING as you are using it.

But let me guess you will feel free to make a charge without defining it, ignore the real profits and pass off your lack of reading comprehension as a "percent leap in profit" being equivalent to "percent profit", and not deal with anything but your own demented strawmen.

[Colour changed as requested, for clarity. - SirNitram]

[tharkûn]

bah missed a tag, any chance a mod would be kind enough to make the last green paragraph yellow for the sake of clarity?

[SirNitram]

Tharkun, when you are posting something which isn't clear, here's a helpful little Clue. You tend to lack them, so here it is:

When you are not precise, IE, specifying profit margins as opposed to the obscene profit increases that sparked this thread, it is not the other guy 'lying' when you mean something more precise than what you type.

Trolling dickwad. He can't answer the question that drew him to me, and thus he'll focus on his inability to make clear statements.

[tharkûn]

Thanks for the edit.

When you are not precise, IE, specifying profit margins as opposed to the obscene profit increases that sparked this thread, it is not the other guy 'lying' when you mean something more precise than what you type.

You mean like this:
The fun thing is Exxon is "only" running on a 10% profit margin.

I specified in my first post that it was a 10% profit margin. It should have been obvious to anyone who read the entire thread that I was using the same figure yet again.

I suppose you'd have preferred I typed "net profit margin after minority interest, before tax-adjusted interest with normal schedule depreciation using simple inflation"?

The fact of the matter is 75% profit isn't 'less precise', it is wrong. 75% is the rate at which profit grew, which basic calculus tells you can apply to any amount of profit. If you are talking about profit you get to say 10 billion dollars, 10% of revenue, or nothing at all. This 75% you are throwing around is flat out wrong, so please don't be a dick and pretend you were just being "imprecise".

Trolling dickwad. He can't answer the question that drew him to me, and thus he'll focus on his inability to make clear statements.

You contend that a 10% profit margin is price gouging. What quantified formula you use to define gouging, you simply are too cowardly and/or stupid to say.

Rather than show that: Exxon's profits are gouging and then that curtailing these profits would be a good thing; you elected to decide to compare natural selection to supply and demand. I responded that natural selection is very far removed from human ethical concerns (you know the whole kill off rival males bit) while supply and demand is not (if your system is too divorced from it the cost of forcing compliance decreases social utility).

When you brought up the specific example of eugenics I pointed out that the genetics effects of that either cost hell in homozygous recessives or eat up huge amounts of resources which currently go towards making life better for the diseased.

Frankly you seem far more interested in calling me an "inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash." for daring to say a 10% profit was a 10% profit; than in making, substantiating or debating points. Hell I keep coming back to, no one in a thread about price gouging is willing to quantify a phenomena they beleive is both ongoing and harming society. That seems just a little bit off for people making positive claims.

[SirNitram]

Thanks for the edit.

When you are not precise, IE, specifying profit margins as opposed to the obscene profit increases that sparked this thread, it is not the other guy 'lying' when you mean something more precise than what you type.

You mean like this:
The fun thing is Exxon is "only" running on a 10% profit margin.

I specified in my first post that it was a 10% profit margin. It should have been obvious to anyone who read the entire thread that I was using the same figure yet again.

I suppose you'd have preferred I typed "net profit margin after minority interest, before tax-adjusted interest with normal schedule depreciation using simple inflation"?

No, you shit-encrusted, fallacy spewing Republidrone loser. Just 'Profit margin'. That would have been enough. Nice try, though. You almost looked clever. Almost.

The fact of the matter is 75% profit isn't 'less precise', it is wrong. 75% is the rate at which profit grew, which basic calculus tells you can apply to any amount of profit. If you are talking about profit you get to say 10 billion dollars, 10% of revenue, or nothing at all. This 75% you are throwing around is flat out wrong, so please don't be a dick and pretend you were just being "imprecise".

No, it's completely right to say profits increased by 75%. If you meant something other than the topic which started the thread, it ain't my fault, kid.

Trolling dickwad. He can't answer the question that drew him to me, and thus he'll focus on his inability to make clear statements.

You contend that a 10% profit margin is price gouging. What quantified formula you use to define gouging, you simply are too cowardly and/or stupid to say.

Hey look, another pathetic, flailing attempt to avoid what I posted. How cute.

Rather than show that: Exxon's profits are gouging and then that curtailing these profits would be a good thing; you elected to decide to compare natural selection to supply and demand. I responded that natural selection is very far removed from human ethical concerns (you know the whole kill off rival males bit) while supply and demand is not (if your system is too divorced from it the cost of forcing compliance decreases social utility).

When you brought up the specific example of eugenics I pointed out that the genetics effects of that either cost hell in homozygous recessives or eat up huge amounts of resources which currently go towards making life better for the diseased.

Ah, eugenics towards natural selection results in recessives? You're a flat-out looney, as I said. Natural selection does not result in this in the real world, as much as you may want to. You're falling into this strawman of 'classical eugenics' again, to try and attack something you can't make a real argument against.

Frankly you seem far more interested in calling me an "inbred, Republidrone, brainwashed peice of trolling gutter trash." for daring to say a 10% profit was a 10% profit; than in making, substantiating or debating points. Hell I keep coming back to, no one in a thread about price gouging is willing to quantify a phenomena they beleive is both ongoing and harming society. That seems just a little bit off for people making positive claims.

The loser troll is now just whining about me daring to insult him when he spews fallacies, lies, and distortions constantly? What a damn surprise. Except it's the norm.

[KHL]

Oh look SN is running short on smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that he lied:

A 10% profit isn't price-gouging

IT is price gouging when the base price has already been significantly inflated by increased oil costs.

Say it costs you $2.00 a gallon to make/transport/sell the fuel and you are charging $2.20 for gas to maintain your 10% profit margin and a 20 cent per gallon profit. Now, say that cost of oil in the gasoline goes up 20 cents and there are no other cost increases.

What the oil companies are doing, rather than simply raising the price to 2.40 a gallon to match the cost increase, they raise it to 2.42 to maintain that 10% profit marginthus making their profits 22 cents per gallon.

While simplified, this illustrates a point. That if prior to all the prices being raised oil companies profit margins were at 10%, and they are still at 10% then we are being gouged.

Free market economy usually does give you the best result, but when you have a neccessity with relatively inelastic demand such as gasoline, and an utter lack of competition amongst companys selling that fuel, you end up in the situation we are in.

In my oppinion, there should be government regulation of all fuel/utility companies. I'm not saying that they should lose money, but they should be limited to a certain amount of money over cost. Increasing your prices by 10% whenever you have a cost increase, rather than simply increasing the price by the amount of that cost increase is definately price gouging.

[tharkûn]

No, it's completely right to say profits increased by 75%

We're talking about 75% profits to use Exxon Mobile as an example

Whoops. There it is again. That extra word "increased" doesn't occur in the original and SN is attempting to bait and switch his way out of a glaringly obvious (not to mention stupid) mistake.

Hey look, another pathetic, flailing attempt to avoid what I posted. How cute.

Oh look line with gratuitious insult and no point. Come on SN grow the balls and brains required and post your quantified definition of "gouging".

Ah, eugenics towards natural selection results in recessives? You're a flat-out looney, as I said. Natural selection does not result in this in the real world, as much as you may want to. You're falling into this strawman of 'classical eugenics' again, to try and attack something you can't make a real argument against.

Historical eugenics does result in increased homozygous recessives. A more modern eugenics proposal would require a high cost to avoid that outcome and result in many resources currently going towards fighting disease and the like be set towards stopping the master race from getting a crappy set of recessives.

The loser troll is now just whining about me daring to insult him when he spews fallacies, lies, and distortions constantly? What a damn surprise. Except it's the norm.

Stop projecting, it does the impossible and makes you look even more stupid. Now let's pretend you have some balls and you get around to quantitatively defining "gouging".

KHL:

IT is price gouging when the base price has already been significantly inflated by increased oil costs.

Quantitatively define the term or don't use it.

Say it costs you $2.00 a gallon to make/transport/sell the fuel and you are charging $2.20 for gas to maintain your 10% profit margin and a 20 cent per gallon profit. Now, say that cost of oil in the gasoline goes up 20 cents and there are no other cost increases.

What the oil companies are doing, rather than simply raising the price to 2.40 a gallon to match the cost increase, they raise it to 2.42 to maintain that 10% profit marginthus making their profits 22 cents per gallon.

While simplified, this illustrates a point. That if prior to all the prices being raised oil companies profit margins were at 10%, and they are still at 10% then we are being gouged.

Why? Are you a subscriber to a just price theory?

Free market economy usually does give you the best result, but when you have a neccessity with relatively inelastic demand such as gasoline, and an utter lack of competition amongst companys selling that fuel, you end up in the situation we are in.

If there is no competition, then why are they buying it each other out? If they all make profit independently then Exxon would have no incentive to acquire Mobil.

In my oppinion, there should be government regulation of all fuel/utility companies.

Great your opinion and 35 cents will let you call some one who cares.

I'm not saying that they should lose money, but they should be limited to a certain amount of money over cost.

Ahh you'd prefer we had smaller supply so price spikes would be more frequent, severe, and cause far more real shortages.

Increasing your prices by 10% whenever you have a cost increase, rather than simply increasing the price by the amount of that cost increase is definately price gouging.

Quantitatively define gouging.

[Andras]

Spring of 2002 I bought my house for just under $100k US. If I sell this spring, which I intend to do, market price is roughly $200-225k.

Am I evil for selling at $225k, making $125k on my investment after 4 years? Why, that's a 125% profit margin. Or should I sell for $105k US, and feel morally superior? Too bad I won't be able to buy my next house.

[Dark Hellion]

Wow Andras, because the housing inflation is the same as corporate profits.
Now, maybe you can spend that $125K to buy yourself a fucking clue and learn to not make false analogies when the big people are having a conversation.