NationStates Jolt Archive

I've said that for a long time. The shortages are much less severe when the market can find a price that isn't fixed. Now it turns out that someone else with a little more horsepower to their name agrees with me.

Our FTC Chairman told Congress that

The head of the Federal Trade Commission said a federal price-gouging law "likely will do more harm than good."

"While no consumers like price increases, in fact, price increases lower demand and help make the shortage shorter-lived than it otherwise would have been," FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras told the hearing.


Senator Wyden was unimpressed.
"That's an astounding theory of consumer protection," replied Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore.

Our government can't manage something as important as an economy. If a Senator can't understand the difference between Gross Margin and Profit, he doesn't have any business trying to legislate for businesses.

They only made 9 billion in profit last year. Not much considering the size of their revenue(100 billion).

Mmm, makes sense. Of course, it would also make sense to legalise hemp and use hemp oil. But there you go.

On top of that, didn't oil companies make ludricious profits this year? How much downward pressure on demand do you need?

That was Shell Oil, I believe. To continue to quote from Yahoo!

Mulva of ConocoPhillips said, "We are ready open our records" to dispute allegations of price gouging. ConocoPhillips earned $3.8 billion in the third quarter, an 89 percent increase over a year earlier. But Mulva said that represents only a 7.7 percent profit margin.

"We do not consider that a windfall," he said Mulva.


My company is doing poorly when we fall below 10 percent profit. We need about a 30 percent Gross Margin to break even. I don't think Congressmen want to understand the difference between the money that keeps the lights on and the money that gets reinvested.
They only made 9 billion in profit last year. Not much considering the size of their revenue(100 billion).

This whole oil thingy is proof that most people's politics are motivated by envy. The oil companies made a lot of money. So what? If you don't like it, don't use oil.

And as for this nonsense about a "windfall tax", that just sets a nasty precedent. If congress does that now, doesn't it mean that if those same companies make an extraordinary loss in the future they have a valid argument that congress should bail them out. I, for one, do not support that.

This whole oil thingy is proof that most people's politics are motivated by envy. The oil companies made a lot of money. So what? If you don't like it, don't use oil.

And as for this nonsense about a "windfall tax", that just sets a nasty precedent. If congress does that now, doesn't it mean that if those same companies make an extraordinary loss in the future they have a valid argument that congress should bail them out. I, for one, do not support that.
I'm wondering where the outrage against Starbucks is. I was going to look up their financials, but FreeEDGAR isn't free anymore. Where can I look up SEC filings?

Just a question: why should we believe their numbers when they say that they only made 7.7% profit for the quarter? They have to know that they're going to be shelled in public for the prices of gas and oil, right? So why not engage in some special bookkeeping or move some shit around so they look like they're not doing as well as they really are? It's not like that's never done, after all? Coughprofessionalbaseballcough.

Just speculation here, but if I'm looking to see how much profit an industry is making, the last people I'm asking are that industry's execs.

I'm wondering where the outrage against Starbucks is. I was going to look up their financials, but FreeEDGAR isn't free anymore. Where can I look up SEC filings?

Knock yourself out.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/doctrans/finSys_main.asp?formfilename=0000950124-05-004858&nad=

I don't drink starbucks coffee myself. Personally, I find it foul stuff.

Just a question: why should we believe their numbers when they say that they only made 7.7% profit for the quarter? They have to know that they're going to be shelled in public for the prices of gas and oil, right? So why not engage in some special bookkeeping or move some shit around so they look like they're not doing as well as they really are? It's not like that's never done, after all? Coughprofessionalbaseballcough.

Just speculation here, but if I'm looking to see how much profit an industry is making, the last people I'm asking are that industry's execs.
Baseball is protected by anti-trust regulations, Shell and Exxon aren't. We presume their filings with the SEC are accurate because the market wouldn't exist without some trust on our part and some honesty on theirs.

Just a question: why should we believe their numbers when they say that they only made 7.7% profit for the quarter? They have to know that they're going to be shelled in public for the prices of gas and oil, right? So why not engage in some special bookkeeping or move some shit around so they look like they're not doing as well as they really are? It's not like that's never done, after all? Coughprofessionalbaseballcough.

Just speculation here, but if I'm looking to see how much profit an industry is making, the last people I'm asking are that industry's execs.

All things being equal, companies do not normally under-report profit. There is no incentive.

Also, engaging in the type of activity you are suggesting is a serious crime, and not worth the risk for a solvent company. Moreover, given what happened to Andersen, I am sure their auditor would not go for it.

Baseball is protected by anti-trust regulations, Shell and Exxon aren't. We presume their filings with the SEC are accurate because the market wouldn't exist without some trust on our part and some honesty on theirs.
I know the first people I think of when I think of honesty are big company executives.

I know the first people I think of when I think of honesty are big company executives.
That's nice.

I've said that for a long time. The shortages are much less severe when the market can find a price that isn't fixed. Now it turns out that someone else with a little more horsepower to their name agrees with me.

Our FTC Chairman told Congress that


Senator Wyden was unimpressed.
"That's an astounding theory of consumer protection," replied Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore.

Our government can't manage something as important as an economy. If a Senator can't understand the difference between Gross Margin and Profit, he doesn't have any business trying to legislate for businesses.

Wait a minute, demand won't increase if the good is an essential one. People won't just give up oil if the price rises, they'll just give up luxury goods instead.

All things being equal, companies do not normally under-report profit. There is no incentive.

Also, engaging in the type of activity you are suggesting is a serious crime, and not worth the risk for a solvent company. Moreover, given what happened to Andersen, I am sure their auditor would not go for it.
Here's the incentive--and I'm not saying that they'd be doing anything illegal, by the way: they know that they're going to take a beating in the public sphere, and that means that some showboating politico is going to try to make a name on their asses. So they decide to count some expenses that they hadn't planned on counting just yet, they move some future expenses forward, perhaps pay off some debt a little early or something--in short, they raise their expenses aritificially for the short-term so they can play like they're not making as much as they really are and wait for the storm to blow over and the politician to move on to someone else. Then the big profits pop up later.

Again, I'm not saying this is happening--just that it's a possibility.

Wait a minute, demand won't increase if the good is an essential one. People won't just give up oil if the price rises, they'll just give up luxury goods instead.

Give up completely? No. Reduce the amount they use, thus easing demand? Yes.

Oil was stupid cheap during the nineties. As a result everyone started to drive seven litre trucks. If oil prices stay high, that pattern will change reducing consumption.

People will also start to take energy conservation and energy efficiency more seriously as well. And alternative sources of energy will become economically viable, where they might not have been before given the abundance of cheap oil.

Eventually the market will find a new equilibrium.

Look on the bright side. If you are pro-kyoto and pro-environment, the oil companies gouging is the best thing that could happen.

Here's the incentive--and I'm not saying that they'd be doing anything illegal, by the way: they know that they're going to take a beating in the public sphere, and that means that some showboating politico is going to try to make a name on their asses. So they decide to count some expenses that they hadn't planned on counting just yet, they move some future expenses forward, perhaps pay off some debt a little early or something--in short, they raise their expenses aritificially for the short-term so they can play like they're not making as much as they really are and wait for the storm to blow over and the politician to move on to someone else. Then the big profits pop up later.

Again, I'm not saying this is happening--just that it's a possibility.

I see what you are saying. Balance sheets are pretty comprehensive however, and detail exactly the type of transactions you are talking about, so it would be pretty hard to hide that sort of thing without resorting to fraud. If that wasn't the case it would be impossible to value public companies with any type of accuracy.

I am sure they wish they could hide it. Standard oil kept its finances secret for years.

Like I said though, in the long run, it should be an incentive for the rest of us to use less oil. So it's really an ill-wind.

I see what you are saying. Balance sheets are pretty comprehensive however, and detail exactly the type of transactions you are talking about, so it would be pretty hard to hide that sort of thing without resorting to fraud. If that wasn't the case it would be impossible to value public companies with any type of accuracy.

I am sure they wish they could hide it. Standard oil kept its finances secret for years.

Like I said though, in the long run, it should be an incentive for the rest of us to use less oil. So it's really an ill-wind.
Well, legitimately high prices I have no problem with. Even prices raised artificially high due to taxes I have no real problem with as long as the funds are specifically earmarked. Gouging people in need, however, I have a serious problem with. We don't need a federal law, however--state laws work just fine in my experience, as do the memories of the people who got fucked in a crunch.

Oil Company Execs Protect Consumers With Higher Prices

My husband only beats the shiat out of me because he loves me.

Republicans (specifically the Bush/Corporation lovin' kind) = The battered Stockholm wives of America.

Give up completely? No. Reduce the amount they use, thus easing demand? Yes.

Oil was stupid cheap during the nineties. As a result everyone started to drive seven litre trucks. If oil prices stay high, that pattern will change reducing consumption.

People will also start to take energy conservation and energy efficiency more seriously as well. And alternative sources of energy will become economically viable, where they might not have been before given the abundance of cheap oil.

Eventually the market will find a new equilibrium.

Look on the bright side. If you are pro-kyoto and pro-environment, the oil companies gouging is the best thing that could happen.


That is a ridiculously sensible argument. Well said.

Look on the bright side. If you are pro-kyoto and pro-environment, the oil companies gouging is the best thing that could happen.

The question is what will the car companies do with the price gouging.

Well, legitimately high prices I have no problem with. Even prices raised artificially high due to taxes I have no real problem with as long as the funds are specifically earmarked. Gouging people in need, however, I have a serious problem with. We don't need a federal law, however--state laws work just fine in my experience, as do the memories of the people who got fucked in a crunch.

Meh. It's all because government fucked around with development patterns in the first place when oil was so cheap after WWII. People drive too much. Had the country developed along a higher population density pattern - and actually cleaned house about public transportation - this wouldn't be such an issue right now. The government at that time chose to persue a "sprawl" model with highway construction &t. instead however.

I have relatives in England. They pay around $7.50-$8.00 a gallon (around a pound a litre) for petrol. It doesn't bother them because they don't have to use their cars that much. They can get by with the excellent and convienent public transport system.

It's not like that here. Most people absolutely depend on their cars for nearly everything. And even for people like me who live in NYC, I find the public transport system sub-par compared to Europe. (And forget it if you go into the suburbs, there is commuter rail and buses that's it). Though I can walk to most of the stuff I need.

So from my perspective, I don't mind the gouging. In the long run I think it will be beneficial. It might drive the country back to saner development patterns.

I also don't think the government should interfere either. They have mucked around enough, and they will only inevitably screw up with any money they extort. For example I have heard of one plan that calls for a windfall tax so the government can refund fuel costs to taxpayers :rolleyes: . (And don't say that wouldn't be popular, because you know it would).

The question is what will the car companies do with the price gouging.

Hopefully start making decent cars. Ask yourself, do soccer moms in the suburbs really need Main Battle Tanks to ferry the kids hundreds and hundreds of miles every week? I think not.

While I am at it, there is this whole culture in this country now of driving kids everywhere twenty times a week. It's not normal.

And people wonder why there is a fuel crunch.

I would absolutely love it if high fuel prices translated into actual public transportation--I didn't own a car when I lived in San Francisco and I loved it. I moved to Fort Lauderdale and had to buy one because there's no way to get around down here otherwise. I live in as pedestrian-friendly an area as you'll find around here (and man did that come in handy after Wilma when all those other mo-mo's were sitting in gas lines for 8 hours), but if I'd had to go to work that first week, I'd have been screwed too.

Give up completely? No. Reduce the amount they use, thus easing demand? Yes.

Oil was stupid cheap during the nineties. As a result everyone started to drive seven litre trucks. If oil prices stay high, that pattern will change reducing consumption.

People will also start to take energy conservation and energy efficiency more seriously as well. And alternative sources of energy will become economically viable, where they might not have been before given the abundance of cheap oil.

Eventually the market will find a new equilibrium.

Look on the bright side. If you are pro-kyoto and pro-environment, the oil companies gouging is the best thing that could happen.

As bad as this sounds, it's dead on. Only way to get the american public to demand alternative fuel sources is to hit them hard in the pocketbook. :headbang:

Hopefully start making decent cars. Ask yourself, do soccer moms in the suburbs really need Main Battle Tanks to ferry the kids hundreds and hundreds of miles every week? I think not.

Ever consider that they are better judges of what they need than you are? Or that what they think they need is more important than what you think they need? No? Then that's why libs will stay out of power - because they're afraid of individual choice. :)


While I am at it, there is this whole culture in this country now of driving kids everywhere twenty times a week. It's not normal.

You need to consult the dictionary more often. If a whole culture is doing it then it's normal *by definition*. Think about it. :p

And people wonder why there is a fuel crunch.

Nah. Nobody ever wonders about that. As long as environmentalists go into spasms over sensible measures like drilling in ANWR and building more nuclear reactors there will always be fuel crunchs. Such crunchs will end when people realize that blowing off the environmentalists is the sensible thing to do. ;)

There are some incredibly cool technology that is being developed. It's the field of ultra-capacitors. Where it used to take a capacitor the size of a 55 gallon drum to hold a farad charge, there are now caps being developed that can hold 25 farads in a container the size of a Coke can. Banks of these could be quickly charged and have all sorts of advantages over batteries. These ultra-capacitors could make all-electric cars practical.

They only made 9 billion in profit last year. Not much considering the size of their revenue(100 billion).Oh poor them. Maybe we should throw an aid benefit for them..

Oh poor them. Maybe we should throw an aid benefit for them..
That's nine percent. How much profit is fair? Except that we are interested in public companies so that we can invest wisely, why should we care about what profits a company earns. Earning -- that's what happens. The money doesn't just fall into their accounts; they provide a service that we pay for.

That's nine percent. How much profit is fair?Depends on what they do with the profits. If it's just to stuff the pockets of shareholders, then there's not much use to it. If it gets reinvested, I'm not sure if that is even still counted as profit.
And there's plenty of commercial businesses that barely scrape by, with maybe 1% profit or less.

Except that we are interested in public companies so that we can invest wisely, why should we care about what profits a company earns. Earning -- that's what happens. The money doesn't just fall into their accounts; they provide a service that we pay for.Yes, but salaries and everything doesn't get paid from profits. They are already deducted as costs.
So even with no profits, everybody working in the company gets paid for their work. That's why non-profit organizations can work.

To only reason profit might be important is to attract new capital. I really don't think 9% return will be offputting to people. It a hell of a lot more than you get on a savings account.

Ever consider that they are better judges of what they need than you are? Or that what they think they need is more important than what you think they need? No? Then that's why libs will stay out of power - because they're afraid of individual choice. :) This post makes me sad in the pants.

How much profit is fair?


As much as they can get. I swear, I think I've been reading Karl Marx talking about "all profits are theft" in some of the post in this thread. And all this "give back" nonsense, you CAN'T give back what WASN'T GIVEN to you! They EARNED their profits by hard work. And the reason gas prices spiked right before Katrina is because demand spiked right before Katrina with everybody topping off their tanks and filling up gas cans.:headbang:

As much as they can get. I swear, I think I've been reading Karl Marx talking about "all profits are theft" in some of the post in this thread. And all this "give back" nonsense, you CAN'T give back what WASN'T GIVEN to you! They EARNED their profits by hard work. And the reason gas prices spiked right before Katrina is because demand spiked right before Katrina with everybody topping off their tanks and filling up gas cans.:headbang:You have a point. They should strive to get as much as they can for their work. And likewise we should strive to pay as little as we can for their work. That's capitalism.

Although, I'm not entirely sure how much I like capitalism.

Although, I'm not entirely sure how much I like capitalism. Meh, it's better than most systems. Albeit in a somewhat moderated form. *Hides from Libertarians*

I've said that for a long time. The shortages are much less severe when the market can find a price that isn't fixed. Now it turns out that someone else with a little more horsepower to their name agrees with me.

Our FTC Chairman told Congress that


Senator Wyden was unimpressed.
"That's an astounding theory of consumer protection," replied Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore.

Our government can't manage something as important as an economy. If a Senator can't understand the difference between Gross Margin and Profit, he doesn't have any business trying to legislate for businesses.

NPR had a story this morning, about the windfall profits tax that Carter put in place.

It was a disaster that not only raised prices, but caused domestic oil production to plummet. And later, after the Iranian crisis was over, and oil prices returned to normal, the tax was irrelevant.

A government can't manage itself, much less anything else.

Hopefully start making decent cars.

The key factor is hope. If they can somehow keep their profit line as it is, I doubt they would change.

A government can't manage itself, much less anything else.


The answer is less government, my friend. Always has been.:)

The answer is less government, my friend. Always has been.:)So, always less, until there is no government. And that would be ideal?
I suppose I'd want to know what you'd still see as government. Because without a real government there will always rise up people to fill up the power vacuum. Warlords and such.
I doubt there'd be a sustainable anarchy or adhocracy.

Ever consider that they are better judges of what they need than you are? Or that what they think they need is more important than what you think they need? No? Then that's why libs will stay out of power - because they're afraid of individual choice. :)

Yes I did. Which is why, if you notice, I have not advocated any form of intervention in this whole thing.

On the other hand, as buying this type of car was indeed their choice - and I can only assume they were aware of the gas consumption figures - they should not complain about it now it has become so expensive to run. Nor should the rest of us feel obliged to do anything about it to help them. No matter how much the oil companies "gouge".

And that's the problem. People don't want to live with their own silly choices. I am all for freedom of action, but it works both ways. Individual choice is good as far as I am concerned, but people should have to bear the costs of their foolishness. Otherwise you will get artificial distortions &c, which lead to things like the current oil price mess.


You need to consult the dictionary more often. If a whole culture is doing it then it's normal *by definition*. Think about it. :p


4a: of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder:

Unsurprisingly the dictionary agrees with me.

While I am at it, I am sick of being constantly told that everyone is obese &c. and the stupid government setting up things to study it, and it being a "problem". GET OUT OF YOUR CAR AND WALK SOMEWHERE. You know why america's kids are fat? Because they never use their fucking legs. It's not the carbs, its not the junk food, it's the sedentary lifestyle.

It all goes back to the knowing what's best thing.

Actually, I for one, don't care. Be fat and drive everywhere if you want. But it is not my problem. And I am sick of the media and politicians acting as if the rest of us should act it like it is.


Nah. Nobody ever wonders about that. As long as environmentalists go into spasms over sensible measures like drilling in ANWR and building more nuclear reactors there will always be fuel crunchs. Such crunchs will end when people realize that blowing off the environmentalists is the sensible thing to do. ;)

I don't think there is a magic bullet either. Obviously, at some point if western society is going to continue, then there is going to have to be increasing emphasis on nuclear power. (Absent harnessing the casimir effect or some other type of unforseen soloution).

And tap ANWR if'n you like. It won't make a difference. Three billion chinese and Indians are using more oil everyday, so in the long run prices will continue to increase until a substitute is found.

The key factor is hope. If they can somehow keep their profit line as it is, I doubt they would change.

What profit line.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/news/fortune500/gm_loss/

They know it too. It's change or go bankrupt.

So, always less, until there is no government. And that would be ideal?
I suppose I'd want to know what you'd still see as government. Because without a real government there will always rise up people to fill up the power vacuum. Warlords and such.
I doubt there'd be a sustainable anarchy or adhocracy.

Less government, in that it gets back to the Constitution's stated purpose of Government.


"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Less government, in that it gets back to the Constitution's stated purpose of Government.But that's only the federal government right?
State government could still be as unwieldy as it wanted under that constitution.

The answer is less government, my friend. Always has been.:)
To quote another poster on this forum, "The only places with small governments are third-world countries." Be careful what you wish for.

What profit line.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/news/fortune500/gm_loss/

They know it too. It's change or go bankrupt.

GM is still churning out SUVs and other fuel hogs isn't it? Not much change there if thats the case. I figure a number of heads will roll before they actually shift to more fuel economical vehicles and hybrid engines.

Of course they're evil corperate b*stards who screw with the system but they make a lot of money so buy their stock! :rolleyes:

NPR had a story this morning, about the windfall profits tax that Carter put in place.

It was a disaster that not only raised prices, but caused domestic oil production to plummet. And later, after the Iranian crisis was over, and oil prices returned to normal, the tax was irrelevant.

A government can't manage itself, much less anything else.
What are you saying? NPR ran a story that was critical of windfall profits? Or JEC? I can't believe this is the same NPR that gets subsidized by my tax dollars and then begs me for more money "because somebody has to".

I'll bet they never mentioned the disaster that was the odd/even gas rationing.