Global Warming My Ass

[Green DNA]

"record profits" nice spin. anyone who has any intellectual honesty would compare PROFIT MARGINS and not just the bottom line number. oil companies must spend (i.e. RISK) a vast amount to earn what they earn.

exxon's profit margin is 6.77% (for every dollar in gas exxon sells only 6.7 cents is profit) while apple's is over 20% so in actuality apple is much more guilty of "gouging" than exxon is and at least exxon produces a fungible product whose price is controlled by competition whereas apple has a virtual monopoly and charges out the wazoo for its products. but you don't hear liberals complaining about apple for some reason.

that's because it's not really about profits, is it? it's about making profits on products liberals love to hate. oil bad, ipod and iphones good so it's ok to fleece people with a 20% markup on those "cool" items. same reason why liberals hate it when CEOs make a lot of money but don't care at all when "cool" actors and actresses pull in $20 million for 6 months on a movie set.

PROFIT MARGIN DATA:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL

The one thing that you are leaving out is that people do not need to buy Apple products and they do not need to go to the movies (I haven't gone to see a grown up film in over 20 years), that is a choice. Buying oil is not a choice, it is a necessity for almost everyone and there really is not much competition at all, despite the apparently different brands. While every company has the right to make a profit, the profit margin shown above is following the allegedly huge expenditure on R&D into alternative fuels (okey dokey), something which should be viewed with skepticism since oil companies use these funds to stifle research into alternative fuels. The difference in a necessary product such as oil, is that rising prices can cripple an economy by resulting in higher prices for most goods asnd services and in a time of huge unemployment, that is a recipe for disaster. The oil companies have consumers by the balls and that is a dangerous thing.

Not looking to debate this because I really can't be bothered, but the analogy of a luxury item vs a necessity is not valid.

[johnny green balls]

The one thing that you are leaving out is that people do not need to buy Apple products and they do not need to go to the movies (I haven't gone to see a grown up film in over 20 years), that is a choice. Buying oil is not a choice, it is a necessity for almost everyone and there really is not much competition at all, despite the apparently different brands. While every company has the right to make a profit, the profit margin shown above is following the allegedly huge expenditure on R&D into alternative fuels (okey dokey), something which should be viewed with skepticism since oil companies use these funds to stifle research into alternative fuels. The difference in a necessary product such as oil, is that rising prices can cripple an economy by resulting in higher prices for most goods asnd services and in a time of huge unemployment, that is a recipe for disaster. The oil companies have consumers by the balls and that is a dangerous thing.

Not looking to debate this because I really can't be bothered, but the analogy of a luxury item vs a necessity is not valid.

so you would do what? limit exxon's profit margin to 1%? cap their profits at a billion dollars a year?

it's easy to complain - offer a solution.

so far all i've heard is "b-b-b-but they make too much!" without any effort to give objective reasons why it is too much or in some way undeserved - because that's really what you're saying isn't it? they don't deserve their profits? and quite frankly it sounds like a kid complaining that the other kid's cookie is bigger than his.

[Klecko73isGod]

"record profits" nice spin. anyone who has any intellectual honesty would compare PROFIT MARGINS and not just the bottom line number. oil companies must spend (i.e. RISK) a vast amount to earn what they earn.

exxon's profit margin is 6.77% (for every dollar in gas exxon sells only 6.7 cents is profit) while apple's is over 20% so in actuality apple is much more guilty of "gouging" than exxon is and at least exxon produces a fungible product whose price is controlled by competition whereas apple has a virtual monopoly and charges out the wazoo for its products. but you don't hear liberals complaining about apple for some reason.

that's because it's not really about profits, is it? it's about making profits on products liberals love to hate. oil bad, ipod and iphones good so it's ok to fleece people with a 20% markup on those "cool" items. same reason why liberals hate it when CEOs make a lot of money but don't care at all when "cool" actors and actresses pull in $20 million for 6 months on a movie set.

PROFIT MARGIN DATA:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL

On what planet does Apple have a "virtual monopoly" on anything?

Is Apple the only company making personal computers? Is Apple the only company making smartphones? Is Apple the only company make mp3 players?

[johnny green balls]

On what planet does Apple have a "virtual monopoly" on anything?

Is Apple the only company making personal computers? Is Apple the only company making smartphones? Is Apple the only company make mp3 players?

apple has a 73% mp3 player market share: http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_has_723_percent_of_mp3_player_market_in_february/

that absolutely is a virtual monopoly.

what's wrong? run out of people to PM saying you hate me and my old man and will fight with us just to fight only to be told they are on our side?

[Klecko73isGod]

apple has a 73% mp3 player market share: http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_has_723_percent_of_mp3_player_market_in_february/

that's why i said "virtual monopoly."

what's wrong? run out of people to PM saying you hate me and my old man and will fight with us just to fight only to be told they are on our side?

I never said I hate either one of you. I said you annoy me just as I am sure I annoy plenty of people on here.

Think I actually give a crap what you think of me?

[johnny green balls]

I never said I hate either one of you. I said you annoy me just as I am sure I annoy plenty of people on here.

Think I actually give a crap what you think of me?

yes. if you PM others about it then it's obvious that you care.

[Klecko73isGod]

yes. if you PM others about it then it's obvious that you care.

Not really.

[124]

Thread of the year candidate, for sure.

[HessStation]

Thread Warnming alive and well at JetNation.

[johnny green balls]

Not really.

yet here you are feeling the need to respond. i'd hate to see what you'd do if you DID care!

[Klecko73isGod]

Thread Warnming alive and well at JetNation.

[Klecko73isGod]

yet here you are feeling the need to respond. i'd hate to see what you'd do if you DID care!

I'm only responding because I am bored and there aren't any other threads that are as interesting right now.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself.

[johnny green balls]

I'm only responding because I am bored and there aren't any other threads that are as interesting right now.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself.

and another one. it's funny because you just can't help yourself

[Klecko73isGod]

and another one. it's funny because you just can't help yourself

Nah, your previous bait was stronger. Repeating the same thing is weak.

[johnny green balls]

Nah, your previous bait was stronger. Repeating the same thing is weak.

no need for bait apparently because they're jumping in the boat now

[Klecko73isGod]

no need for bait apparently because they're jumping in the boat now

Bet it feels good too.

[johnny green balls]

gonna need a bigger boat

[crashingjet]

apple has a 73% mp3 player market share: http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_has_723_percent_of_mp3_player_market_in_february/

that absolutely is a virtual monopoly.

what's wrong? run out of people to PM saying you hate me and my old man and will fight with us just to fight only to be told they are on our side?

Apple makes a superior product, and everybody knows it. That's why their market share is so high.

[Klecko73isGod]

Apple makes a superior product, and everybody knows it. That's why their market share is so high.

You mean it's not because the liberals don't complain about them?

[johnny green balls]

Apple makes a superior product, and everybody knows it. That's why their market share is so high.

oh i see, so that excuses a profit margin that would cause liberals to howl at the moon over if it was exxon's.

as a conservative, i don't care how much money apple or exxon makes - that's called consistency. but liberals pick and choose who is making too much not based on any objective standard such as the FACTS but rather how they FEEL about a given industry.

gasoline is a commodity - exxon's gas is the same as shell's and BP's etc. the price is controlled by the market through competition. if exxon's price is absurd, shell or BP will simply undercut them - if two stations are side by side and one has a lower price, that's where i am going.

you're right - apple's product is superior and thus not controlled by competition so they can get away with charging an obscene price for it - the very definition of a virtual monopoly.

apple should piss off liberals much more than exxon for that reason. apple is the one that charges too much "just because it can" as there is no equal to its superior product.

[Klecko73isGod]

oh i see, so that excuses a profit margin that would cause liberals to howl at the moon over if it was exxon's.

as a conservative, i don't care how much money apple or exxon makes - that's called consistency. but liberals pick and choose who is making too much not based on any objective standard such as the FACTS but rather how they FEEL about a given industry.

gasoline is a commodity - exxon's gas is the same as shell's and BP's etc. the price is controlled by the market through competition. if exxon's price is absurd, shell or BP will simply undercut them - if two stations are side by side and one has a lower price, that's where i am going.

you're right - apple's product is superior and thus not controlled by competition so they can get away with charging an obscene price for it - the very definition of a virtual monopoly.

apple should piss off liberals much more than exxon for that reason. apple is the one that charges too much "just because it can" as there is no equal to its superior product.

JGB, serious question: As a conservative, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to break our dependence on oil from places populated by people who want to kill us? Wouldn't it be better to develop renewable sources of energy that we could make ourselves the focus of the energy market rather than places like Saudi Arabia and Argentina?

I mean, to me it's just common sense. The best way to screw your enemies in this modern world is to destroy their economy. If we no longer had a need for oil from these places we could pull up stakes and tell them to **** off and they would be powerless to do anything about it because their economy depends on us needing their oil.

Plus if we develop the technology it would create a strong new foundation for our economy that would last for a long, long time.

Obviously this isn't happening overnight. But doesn't it make sense to be focused on making this a reality? It makes sense from both longterm economic and security sense.

[JerryK]

xTKx2f44tDo

[JerryK]

x4I5T8hl2NI

[JerryK]

acb15JsCGSk

[johnny green balls]

JGB, serious question: As a conservative, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to break our dependence on oil from places populated by people who want to kill us? Wouldn't it be better to develop renewable sources of energy that we could make ourselves the focus of the energy market rather than places like Saudi Arabia and Argentina?

I mean, to me it's just common sense. The best way to screw your enemies in this modern world is to destroy their economy. If we no longer had a need for oil from these places we could pull up stakes and tell them to **** off and they would be powerless to do anything about it because their economy depends on us needing their oil.

Plus if we develop the technology it would create a strong new foundation for our economy that would last for a long, long time.

Obviously this isn't happening overnight. But doesn't it make sense to be focused on making this a reality? It makes sense from both longterm economic and security sense.

good question and i'll give a serious response. yes it makes sense to break our dependency and here's how you do it.

Step 1: Drill everywhere possible.

Step 2: All tax revenues on oil/gasoline go to the development of alternative energies rather than squandered on BS pork bills

Step 3: All electricity should be produced by nuclear plants rather than fossil fuels.

Step 4: convince liberals to install wind turbines off hyannis port (this is a joke but seriously talk about hypocritical, they don't want wind mills obscuring THEIR precious beach but it's ok for everyone else to drink rainwater and burn their body hair for energy)

problem solved.

[JerryK]

3ZgroMdbtCw

[Garb]

Not what I expected.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[Klecko73isGod]

good question and i'll give a serious response. yes it makes sense to break our dependency and here's how you do it.

Step 1: Drill everywhere possible.

Step 2: All tax revenues on oil/gasoline go to the development of alternative energies rather than squandered on BS pork bills

Step 3: All electricity should be produced by nuclear plants rather than fossil fuels.

Step 4: convince liberals to install wind turbines off hyannis port (this is a joke but seriously talk about hypocritical, they don't want wind mills obscuring THEIR precious beach but it's ok for everyone else to drink rainwater and burn their body hair for energy)

problem solved.

We actually agree on this for the most part.

[slats]

What the free-tards don't understand is that we live in a world of limited resources. This is something you should learn in economics 101, right after TINSTAAFL. Pretty much everything around us that we consume is finite and limited, that goes for water, oil, and goods and services. There are only so many doctors, nurses, xray machines, and hospitals.If healthcare were free (although never actually free as per that first thing you learn in economics, TINSTAAFL) there would be a run on services and the heathcare system would collapse or drastic rationing would take place. MAKE NO MISTAKE, rationing would HAVE to happen, too many people who now had a free pass to check themselves into the hospital for the littlest thing and bamm, now you have lines out the door for the truly sick.

I'm sure you're proud and grateful for your doctors. It has to be an amazing thing to defeat cancer, and I commend you and your medical team for getting it done.

But to me, that's a separate issue from the extremely high cost of healthcare in this country, and the fact that 1/3 of every dollar that Americans spend on healthcare is given to insurance companies - which are really just useless money-grabbing middle men. Your insurance may have worked for you because of the premiums you pay (I probably can't imagine), but tons of Americans who think they're covered get denied medical treatment every day. And, frankly, I don't think you should have to pay what you do.

I would love to hear of a canadian or any other social system that gets a regular middle class guy into the best care in the world in 7 days like that. Canada and England and everywhere else can take their free healthcare and shove it up their @ss, I will pay to live, i feel i am worth it.

Yeah, I get the pride thing. And that's a common conservative attitude, "It's good enough for me!," "I pay for MY healthcare, these people should take care of themselves," etc.

It's not available to everyone, as you even pointed out. But more importantly, it's too expensive for everyone. But this country was built on bleeding guys like you and me for all they can. The public should be outraged at their health system, and the denial of care out there, but these insurance companies have a huge lobbying budget buying the (generally repub) legislators they need, and a mouthpiece in FOX news to keep the masses on their side.

Ironically, I find it sickening.

[johnny green balls]

We actually agree on this for the most part.

also i find it humorous that liberals seem so worried about "dependency on foreign oil" when our dependence on foreign creditors (i.e. China) is much more disasterous but i don't see them squawking about reigning in costs by axing worthless social programs.

[slats]

so you would do what? limit exxon's profit margin to 1%? cap their profits at a billion dollars a year?

it's easy to complain - offer a solution.

so far all i've heard is "b-b-b-but they make too much!" without any effort to give objective reasons why it is too much or in some way undeserved - because that's really what you're saying isn't it? they don't deserve their profits? and quite frankly it sounds like a kid complaining that the other kid's cookie is bigger than his.

You hear what you want to hear, or make up what you wanted to hear, then argue against that.

What I pointed out was that the oil companies collect gov't subsidies. They don't deserve those at all. As pointed out, they're a monopoly, and they've got us by the balls. Monopolies in necessities need to be strictly regulated.

[johnny green balls]

You hear what you want to hear, or make up what you wanted to hear, then argue against that.

What I pointed out was that the oil companies collect gov't subsidies. They don't deserve those at all. As pointed out, they're a monopoly, and they've got us by the balls. Monopolies in necessities need to be strictly regulated.

THEY are a monopoly? THEY? by definition THEY can't be a MONOpoly.

it seems you're actually arguing they are a cartel which would mean there is a conspiracy of price-fixing afoot. i'm all for prosecuting the offenders if that is true but where is the evidence?

PS: if you take away subsidies what do you think will happen? you said it yourself, these guys are greedy right? doesn't that mean they will just offset their lost subsidies with higher prices at the pump? i happen to agree they shouldn't get subsidies but it will result in higher prices so be careful what you wish for. i'm actually suprised a liberal doesn't like the subsidies - they are just another income redistribution scheme at work as higher prices will impact the poor more than the rich.

[Klecko73isGod]

also i find it humorous that liberals seem so worried about "dependency on foreign oil" when our dependence on foreign creditors (i.e. China) is much more disasterous but i don't see them squawking about reigning in costs by axing worthless social programs.

Which social programs do you consider to be "worthless?"

[newjakecity]

also i find it humorous that liberals seem so worried about "dependency on foreign oil" when our dependence on foreign creditors (i.e. China) is much more disasterous but i don't see them squawking about reigning in costs by axing worthless social programs.

Hate to point out the obvious, but technically we weren't dependent on China or any other creditor until Bush got in the white house. Keep the huge tax cuts (that benefits the upper class tax bracket for the most part), while a war is going on. Whether you agree with the war or not isn't the point. You don't cut taxes during a war.

That was just plain dumb and a major part of the reason we have such a huge financial deficit.

[vanDoug]

Not what I expected.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Garb,

I suspect most of this is from the oil sands in Northern Alberta. I've worked up there, it's a crazy place. The deposits cover an area about the size of Florida.

Quote

"There are 173 billion barrels of oil in the oil sands proven to be recoverable with today