NationStates Jolt Archive

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (WMT) announced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_wal_mart_4) a 17% profit increase for the second quarter. This is in line with the "soaring (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1445342)" 2Q profits announced by ConocoPhillips of 13% and the similarly astronomical profits announced (http://www.mercurynews.com/markets/ci_10066284) for 2Q by Chevron of 11%.

We need to figure out a way to tax that evil retailer so that we can give those profits back to the people that need them -- the voters -- I mean the customers! No business should be allowed to make more money than the government.

Wal-Mart's profit was almost wholly due to the Stimulus Checks.

Wal-Mart's profit was almost wholly due to the Stimulus Checks.

It's good to see that they worked for somebody :rolleyes:

It's good to see that they worked for somebody :rolleyes:

I spent part of mine on a new fence. So I guess that helped spread the cash around. Saved me from using more than I was comfortable with from my bank account.

It's good to see that they worked for somebody :rolleyes:

Am I missing something? I thought they were designed to stimulate economic activity?

Of course. Economic downturn = Profits to Satan

Am I missing something? I thought they were designed to stimulate economic activity?

They were, but they won't really work. When the average American's home is worth less than the amount they owe the bank a $600 check will mean absolutely nothing to them. It gave Wally-World a shot in the arm and left the underlying issues completely ignored.

We need to figure out a way to tax that evil retailer so that we can give those profits back to the people that need them -- the voters -- I mean the customers! No business should be allowed to make more money than the government.

Burn, strawman, burn!

They were, but they won't really work. When the average American's home is worth less than the amount they owe the bank a $600 check will mean absolutely nothing to them. It gave Wally-World a shot in the arm and left the underlying issues completely ignored.

I would call increased profits a boost to economic activity.

And I'm not exactly sure what the government can do about negative equity.

I would call increased profits a boost to economic activity.

And I'm not exactly sure what the government can do about negative equity.

Probably not a damn thing, damage done. They however don't seem to of learned much from it. Oh well, no skin off my ass.

I spent part of mine on a new fence. So I guess that helped spread the cash around. Saved me from using more than I was comfortable with from my bank account.
Ours came at an opportune time, as well. We used it buy the mini-split AC that now makes our sun-room more comfortable.

I just find it exceptionally interesting that an oil company that posts a profit gets treated to superlatives like "soaring", while Wal-Mart is congratulated -- as they should be -- for a large profit increase.

Whether you like it or not, if you live in the states, you shop at the "Empire". Nuff said. :)

Ours came at an opportune time, as well. We used it buy the mini-split AC that now makes our sun-room more comfortable.

I just find it exceptionally interesting that an oil company that posts a profit gets treated to superlatives like "soaring", while Wal-Mart is congratulated -- as they should be -- for a large profit increase.

While both are fucking us, Wal-Mart is fucking us in a more subtle way.

While both are fucking us, Wal-Mart is fucking us in a more subtle way.

Yea, at least you have something more than an empty gas tank to show for it after you've been fucked by Wal-mart.

They were, but they won't really work. When the average American's home is worth less than the amount they owe the bank a $600 check will mean absolutely nothing to them. It gave Wally-World a shot in the arm and left the underlying issues completely ignored.

Im glad your rich, but $600 is a months rent to alot of people. How can that not help?

While both are fucking us, Wal-Mart is fucking us in a more subtle way.
Nonsense. Both are providing things we want at prices we're willing to pay.

Ours came at an opportune time, as well. We used it buy the mini-split AC that now makes our sun-room more comfortable.

I just find it exceptionally interesting that an oil company that posts a profit gets treated to superlatives like "soaring", while Wal-Mart is congratulated -- as they should be -- for a large profit increase.

I guess the complaint is that because the oil companies are doing well, it really wouldn't hurt them to lower the price of gasoline (so the thinking goes). No one complains about high prices at Wal-Mart, though.

I guess the complaint is that because the oil companies are doing well, it really wouldn't hurt them to lower the price of gasoline (so the thinking goes). No one complains about high prices at Wal-Mart, though.

But if everyone is still willing to pay their prices, why should they lower them?

I just find it exceptionally interesting that an oil company that posts a profit gets treated to superlatives like "soaring", while Wal-Mart is congratulated -- as they should be -- for a large profit increase.

In my mind, Mobil is different from Apple. You dont need an Apple computer and their product is an optional item to be purchased with discretionary spending.

Mobil on the other hand has the entire fate of the economy wrapped around its product in every conceivable way both directly and indirectly. Hence more attention needs to be paid to profit margins to prevent demogogery. Look what damage companies like Enron did to the average electric consumer in California because they had an unfettered lock on energy.

Ours came at an opportune time, as well. We used it buy the mini-split AC that now makes our sun-room more comfortable.

I just find it exceptionally interesting that an oil company that posts a profit gets treated to superlatives like "soaring", while Wal-Mart is congratulated -- as they should be -- for a large profit increase.

I don't think the people who criticize oil companies' record profits are the kind of people lining up to congratulate Wal-Mart.

But if everyone is still willing to pay their prices, why should they lower them?

Because it's the nice thing to do. ;)
Not everyone is willing; there has been less demand for gasoline. But the feeling behind the complaint is that the oil companies are large enough of size and small enough in number they can raise the price without losing any competetive advantage. There's also a feeling (and here I disagree with the complainers) that gasoline is a necessity in American daily life, that to raise its price is like raising the price of food. I think the fact that people are using less gas, though, disproves this notion.

Nonsense. Both are providing things we want at prices we're willing to pay.

more like providing things people are willing to settle for. people only want walmart's crap if they don't know any better (or if it some dvd or whatever that doesn't go down in quality by being special for walmart).

But if everyone is still willing to pay their prices, why should they lower them?

because rationing on the basis of who is best off is stupid.

more like providing things people are willing to settle for. people only want walmart's crap if they don't know any better (or if it some dvd or whatever that doesn't go down in quality by being special for walmart).

You obviously don't shop at Walmart.

If I go to buy a large bag of snacks of a particular brand name, should I go to my local 7-11 (or quick mart) and pay through the nose, go to the local grocery store and pay more, or go to Walmart and pay the least?

For the exact same product?

more like providing things people are willing to settle for. people only want walmart's crap if they don't know any better (or if it some dvd or whatever that doesn't go down in quality by being special for walmart).
That's a very elitist attitude. In general, people DO demand products at Wal-Mart prices and at Wal-Mart quality.

I think you're in the minority on this one...

Im glad your rich, but $600 is a months rent to alot of people. How can that not help?

It'll help for about 30 days, then suddenly rent is due again and you still have to pay it and you go on living paycheck to paycheck.

When the average American has $8K in credit card debt and most of them owe on a car that is upside down on it's loan, $600 isn't going to help them much.

I don't advocate the govt. giving them more money though, I didn't think the first round of stimulus was a good idea.

You obviously don't shop at Walmart.

If I go to buy a large bag of snacks of a particular brand name, should I go to my local 7-11 (or quick mart) and pay through the nose, go to the local grocery store and pay more, or go to Walmart and pay the least?

For the exact same product?

as i said, if it doesn't go down in quality for being walmart special. lots of walmart crap gets to be cheap by being cheap crap.

also, my grocery stores here and in idaho were noticeably cheaper than walmart. about the same in michigan and only slightly cheaper in sheboygan.

as i said, if it doesn't go down in quality for being walmart special. lots of walmart crap gets to be cheap by being cheap crap.

also, my grocery stores here and in idaho were noticeably cheaper than walmart. about the same in michigan and only slightly cheaper in sheboygan.

Hanes underwear is Hanes underwear. The dry goods are all cheaper around here (stores tried for a while to compete at lower prices and were significantly hurting their own bottom line - it failed).

Walmart killed off the small town downtown for a reason - Americans primarily care about the bottom line.

That's a very elitist attitude. In general, people DO demand products at Wal-Mart prices and at Wal-Mart quality.

I think you're in the minority on this one...

if this is the case, it is only because people can't do math. the reduced price is often overwhelmed by the reduced quality, such that it is cheaper over the life of the product to pay the extra 3 bucks somewhere else (to say nothing of the more hidden social costs). or perhaps they just have very weird tastes?

in any case, my statement is just trivially true. you can't just tie the concept of wanting up with whatever it is people buy. to want something is to desire it, and people almost always desire things above what they actually get. nobody wants cheap crap; they want nice crap. shit, nobody wants to pay walmart prices; they want to pay nothing at all.

they employ 1.3 million people,so it stands to reason that this helps them as well

they employ 1.3 million people,so it stands to reason that this helps them as well

oh, how good is walmart's profit sharing plan?

oh, how good is walmart's profit sharing plan?

No idea myself. But better than companies that have no profit sharing

They do have a bonus plan called "Myshare" though-employees get a check a few times a year,above and beyond the regular pay tha they agreed to at hiring.

Nonsense. Both are providing things we want at prices we're willing to pay.And both in completely unethical ways.

And both in completely unethical ways.

What is the ethical way of doing business?

What is the ethical way of doing business?Libertarians would suggest that it involves not getting government kickbacks, which both of them do.

I'd suggest it involves that as well as not doing business with human rights abusers.

In my mind, Mobil is different from Apple. You dont need an Apple computer and their product is an optional item to be purchased with discretionary spending.

Mobil on the other hand has the entire fate of the economy wrapped around its product in every conceivable way both directly and indirectly. Hence more attention needs to be paid to profit margins to prevent demogogery. Look what damage companies like Enron did to the average electric consumer in California because they had an unfettered lock on energy.
And that's exactly the problem. Most public school graduates don't know the difference between gross profit, profit margin, and a can of Shin-ola.

But what's the crux of the matter? Some industries should be profitable and some shouldn't? Who decides which is which? Who decides what profit is allowed?

Used to be the only time government needed to be involved was when universal service was desired and having a commercial concern do that wasn't going to work. Water, sewer, transit, and such are good examples of where the government is probably a necessary evil in the industry. Is the suggestion that government should manage the oil industry?

Your comments about California and Enron are sort of a red-herring. If Gray Davis hadn't changed the way utilities had to buy power, Enron and others would never have been able to sell them power on the spot market.

Who decides what profit is allowed?

the people

the people
And that's exactly what happens right now. People buy products for the price that is offered, or they don't. The market adjusts based on that demand.

Are you insinuating something different?

oh, how good is walmart's profit sharing plan?

It is dependent on the profitability of the individual stores, not the entire company. There's a threshold on the minimum profitability of the store (it's been too long for me to remember what the level is, though), before employees get a profit sharing bonus.

because rationing on the basis of who is best off is stupid.

As opposed to the random-lottery style rationing that happens when price controls lead to shortages? Besides price rises are very equitable, they encourage everyone to use less.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/128632187960172177.jpg

Is that directed at me?

No, that's definitely targeted at Myrmi.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (WMT) announced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_wal_mart_4) a 17% profit increase for the second quarter. This is in line with the "soaring (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1445342)" 2Q profits announced by ConocoPhillips of 13% and the similarly astronomical profits announced (http://www.mercurynews.com/markets/ci_10066284) for 2Q by Chevron of 11%.

We need to figure out a way to tax that evil retailer so that we can give those profits back to the people that need them -- the voters -- I mean the customers! No business should be allowed to make more money than the government.

Here's the difference that your sarcastic comments seem to miss. Walmart goes through a painstaking process to make their products as cheap as possible. This enriches the lives of people because it makes it easier for them to afford to cloth and feed their families. Can you say the same thing about the oil companies? Have they invested their large profits in their infrastructure to help bring prices down? The answer is no, they haven't done that since the 1970's. While walmart got a mere 37 million in government help, the oil companies must have received something close to that right? No, they received:

A study by the International Center for Technology Assessment analyzed petroleum industry subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance and tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption.

It assessed up to $17.8 billion per year in tax subsidies, plus government program subsidies (such as R&D programs and environmental cleanup) of between $38 billion and $114.6 billion per year

http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm

Now these numbers are from 2003 and I'm sure they have just become bigger.

This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not directly reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

TAX SUBSIDIES

The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).

Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.

PROGRAM SUBSIDIES

Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).

PROTECTION SUBSIDIES

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

I have no problem with the WalMart profits. As I said before, they make life easier on the American Public while oil companies are quite the contrary.

No, that's definitely targeted at Myrmi.
Hell, anyone can post a cartoon. Knowing why you posted it is something else. I'm not sure you know the difference between straw man and a straw hat. Just to be sure, this is a straw hat...
http://lucerosportsproducts.com/rackhatimages/TXchampstraw.JPG


This is a straw man...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.


I think you have some 'splainin' to do...

I have no problem with the WalMart profits. As I said before, they make life easier on the American Public while oil companies are quite the contrary.
So who is going to bring gas to the pumps if the oil companies don't do it? What motive do they have, other than profit, to do so?

I guess the complaint is that because the oil companies are doing well, it really wouldn't hurt them to lower the price of gasoline (so the thinking goes). No one complains about high prices at Wal-Mart, though.

What high prices at Walmart are we speaking of? The beauty of that company is that they keep their prices low so people who cannot afford high end retailers can still make ends meet. Walmart sells a product and said product can be used, usually for longer than a few days. You can also choose how much money you want to spend at Walmart. You can buy the things you need, and maybe even a little something extra. Unless you live close enough to bike to work you are pretty much stuck buying gas. The only alternative is to go to the other station that charges 5 cent less. Woohoo!

So who is going to bring gas to the pumps if the oil companies don't do it? What motive do they have, other than profit, to do so?

I'm not averse to them making profits. I believe in the capitalist system with some regulation to avoid things like the Great Depression. The problem is that they intentionally manipulate the market for their own benefit. By decreasing the available supply through a lack of maintaining infrastructure they manufacture high prices. We pump plenty of oil, we just don't have enough ability to turn it into products we need. If they would take their billions in profits and subsidies and actually use it to help the consumer it would be great. Therefor they could still make a lot of money, but in a more responsible way. We're only willing to pay the prices they charge because they have their hands wrapped firmly around our nuts.

I'm not averse to them making profits. I believe in the capitalist system with some regulation to avoid things like the Great Depression. The problem is that they intentionally manipulate the market for their own benefit. By decreasing the available supply through a lack of maintaining infrastructure they manufacture high prices. We pump plenty of oil, we just don't have enough ability to turn it into products we need. If they would take their billions in profits and subsidies and actually use it to help the consumer it would be great. Therefor they could still make a lot of money, but in a more responsible way. We're only willing to pay the prices they charge because they have their hands wrapped firmly around our nuts.
I think the fault for lack of refinery capacity lies with Congress and the EPA, rather than with the oil companies. I find it difficult to believe that no oil company has built a new refinery in the last 25 years of their own volition. Further, I can't see a benefit for them to delay infrastructure improvements. To lose refinery capacity only harms a company's ability to recover their costs.

Maybe it's a naive view, but without some law against it, oil companies (or Wal-Mart) are within their rights to withhold product to suit their business strategy. Trying to control that aspect of the business is just as bad as trying to prevent "excessive" profits.

Libertarians would suggest that it involves not getting government kickbacks, which both of them do.

I wholly agree with this. However, you have to realize that the cost of both oil and Wal-Mart products would increase considerably without government subsidies that allow them to absorb costs and produce more. Realistically, although it would be the best policy to abolish subsidies in my opinion (and that of economists), the economic ramifications of it would likely doom any such move.

People don't realize that they are paying the cost of those subsidies through their taxes, even if they don't actually see it when they buy the products.

I'd suggest it involves that as well as not doing business with human rights abusers.

That's not possible, however; the worst regimes in the world seem to sit on the most vital resources, and barring a major shift in the structure of the global economy (which will happen eventually), it will require us to continue to do business with them.

Also, in a lot of cases that would simply exacerbate the problems. China in particular has not seen anywhere near the kind of human suffering, political oppression, or outright devastation of its country as it did during the Maoist era. Opening it up has saved lives and brought increased freedom to its people, something previously impossible. The same is true of all of the countries of the former Soviet bloc.

they employ 1.3 million people,so it stands to reason that this helps them as well

I am one of those people. Whats more, I have shopped at Target, and Wal Mart is regularly cheaper for the same, or effectively the same, product. I have worked in Wal Marts Customer Service department, and if a product is not of sufficient quality, returning the item (for replacement, or refund).

Additionally, Wal Mart groceries are substantially cheaper than the grocery stores around here.

What high prices at Walmart are we speaking of? The beauty of that company is that they keep their prices low so people who cannot afford high end retailers can still make ends meet. Walmart sells a product and said product can be used, usually for longer than a few days. You can also choose how much money you want to spend at Walmart. You can buy the things you need, and maybe even a little something extra. Unless you live close enough to bike to work you are pretty much stuck buying gas. The only alternative is to go to the other station that charges 5 cent less. Woohoo!
There are none; that's why no one complains. And while you probably are stuck buying gas, it is possible to buy less, which is what most people have been doing.

I think the fault for lack of refinery capacity lies with Congress and the EPA, rather than with the oil companies. I find it difficult to believe that no oil company has built a new refinery in the last 25 years of their own volition. Further, I can't see a benefit for them to delay infrastructure improvements. To lose refinery capacity only harms a company's ability to recover their costs

That's correct. Oil companies have added capacity through expanding existing refineries (about 2-3 million bpd or so), but they are still refining less domestically than they did 30 years ago. The effects of refinery closure and consolidation stemming from environmental regulations has cost us that capacity. Even at the 17.5 million bpd of capacity today, we're still around 4 million bpd below our peak refining capacity back in the early 1980's.

While I think those environmental laws are a good thing, we do need to realize that they have consequences. You're going to see less domestic production and higher prices when you restrict the ability of these companies to operate; it's up to us as voters to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

I'm not averse to them making profits. I believe in the capitalist system with some regulation to avoid things like the Great Depression. The problem is that they intentionally manipulate the market for their own benefit. By decreasing the available supply through a lack of maintaining infrastructure they manufacture high prices. We pump plenty of oil, we just don't have enough ability to turn it into products we need. If they would take their billions in profits and subsidies and actually use it to help the consumer it would be great. Therefor they could still make a lot of money, but in a more responsible way. We're only willing to pay the prices they charge because they have their hands wrapped firmly around our nuts.

I wouldn't describe the lack of infrastructure investment as 'manipulation'. There are two very good reasons why there haven't been any new refineries in the US for thirty years. The first is the low price of oil - it was only $40 a barrel 3 years ago. Many refineries were operating at the profit margin at those prices. The other problem is finding new sites for refineries. Permits are extremely hard to get because of environmental regulations. That's why all the investment in the US has been used to expand existing sites rather than build new ones.

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what everyone just said. They just said it quicker than me.

I am one of those people. Whats more, I have shopped at Target, and Wal Mart is regularly cheaper for the same, or effectively the same, product. I have worked in Wal Marts Customer Service department, and if a product is not of sufficient quality, returning the item (for replacement, or refund).

Additionally, Wal Mart groceries are substantially cheaper than the grocery stores around here.

For those of us on fixed incomes Wal-Mart is a lifesaver. I get my basic groceries at Wal-Mart for about 10% less than anywhere else.

I bought a citrus juicer at Target the other day for $19.95. When I looked at the same juicer at Wal-Mart, it was $12.95.

Wal-Mart may be the Devil. If so, I've sold my soul.

I wouldn't describe the lack of infrastructure investment as 'manipulation'. There are two very good reasons why there haven't been any new refineries in the US for thirty years. The first is the low price of oil - it was only $40 a barrel 3 years ago. Many refineries were operating at the profit margin at those prices. The other problem is finding new sites for refineries. Permits are extremely hard to get because of environmental regulations. That's why all the investment in the US has been used to expand existing sites rather than build new ones.

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what everyone just said. They just said it quicker than me.

The oil companies were still receiving tax benefits and subsidies from the US population. The numbers I gave were from 2003, before the time you are quoting and even at a lower ppb. They took roughly 118 billion in tax dollars during that time and did what with it? Don't even get me started on congress and the EPA. The EPA unde4r the Bush administration has been turned into a political organization instead of an oversight commission. If they would have kept the existing sites up to speed then we wouldn't have these problems. We'd still have to build more, but at least the current refineries would be operating near peak capacities.

There are none; that's why no one complains. And while you probably are stuck buying gas, it is possible to buy less, which is what most people have been doing.

Eh, if I have to drive 23 miles each way to work each day for 6 days a week how do I buy less gas? My wife already takes public transportation to commute to NYC daily 5 times a week. We've been spending less in gas in that regard for 2 years or so. Could I get a new car with better gas mileage? I could, but affording the added cost right now is not within budgetary limits right now. It would cost me more to pay the car payments than it would save me in gas. So basically I'm in a no win position. Being able to buy milk at Walmart for 3.69 a gallon instead of the 4.59 the convenience stores, and 4.29 at the Shoprite, is a big help. If you buy 3 gallons of milk a week for 52 weeks, that saves me: $156 a year. It's not a huge amount, but combine that with savings on light bulbs, toilet paper, etc. and Walmart Saves me well over 1-2k a year of my net income. The same cannot be said for gas stations.

Impressive that Wal-Mart still beat its estimate despite rising fuel costs. That speaks to the efficiency of its distribution system, though I'd guess that the stimulus checks are probably what put it over the top for the quarter -- people bought things earlier than they would have, so sales will probably be down for the next quarter.

Interesting that Wal-Mart didn't cut expectations going forward -- I guess it thinks that there's still a lot of down-substituting that consumers have yet to do. C'mon people, we can sink waaaay lower!

Good for Wal*mart.

I still buy my pet supplies from my local pet store tho. they're cheaper.

*snip*
I don't know what you personally can do; your wife taking public transportation is already a way to save money. But nation-wide, people have been taking fewer trips, not driving short distances as much, buying fuel efficient cars if they're looking for a new one...many things. The aggregate demand for gas is certainly less than it was earlier this year, even if your individual demand was not.

The oil companies were still receiving tax benefits and subsidies from the US population. The numbers I gave were from 2003, before the time you are quoting and even at a lower ppb. They took roughly 118 billion in tax dollars during that time and did what with it? Don't even get me started on congress and the EPA. The EPA unde4r the Bush administration has been turned into a political organization instead of an oversight commission. If they would have kept the existing sites up to speed then we wouldn't have these problems. We'd still have to build more, but at least the current refineries would be operating near peak capacities.

They are investing they just aren't investing in the US. A quick look at ExxonMobil's 2006 annual report reveals major capital investment in Canada, Norway, Nigeria, Angola and Indonesia. This is surely testament to the stupidity of oil subsidies as taxpayer money contributes to investment in other countries.

They are investing they just aren't investing in the US. A quick look at ExxonMobil's 2006 annual report reveals major capital investment in Canada, Norway, Nigeria, Angola and Indonesia. This is surely testament to the stupidity of oil subsidies as taxpayer money contributes to investment in other countries.

You've got to go where the oil is. US oil production has been falling since the 1970's, and pretty much all of the viable fields in existing leases are being produced. Opening up offshore drilling or ANWR are realistically the only ways to lead to increased investment in new oil production; right now they're basically maintaining existing fields.

However, it is also true that oil companies pay more in taxes to the US government than they earn off of sales in the United States.

Good for Wal-Mart. *Buys stock*:D

You've got to go where the oil is. US oil production has been falling since the 1970's, and pretty much all of the viable fields in existing leases are being produced. Opening up offshore drilling or ANWR are realistically the only ways to lead to increased investment in new oil production; right now they're basically maintaining existing fields.

However, it is also true that oil companies pay more in taxes to the US government than they earn off of sales in the United States.

Of course. I just wonder if the average American taxpayer grasps the futility of paying for his own reduced petrol prices especially when a lot of the money is likely to be invested in other countries.

Good for Wal-Mart. *Buys stock*:D
In Japan they're buying Wal-Mart debt like maniacs right now.

Anyways, stimulus package or not, consumer sentiments and economic situations don't point towards a repeat for the next quarter. I don't know the details, but you'd think that even a low-end retailer people go to in order to save would feel the pinch at some point.

As opposed to the random-lottery style rationing that happens when price controls lead to shortages?

yeah, see, i'm not really down with price controls either. at least not in the "let's go intervene on top of the still capitalist-run system" sense.

I wholly agree with this. However, you have to realize that the cost of both oil and Wal-Mart products would increase considerably without government subsidies that allow them to absorb costs and produce more. Realistically, although it would be the best policy to abolish subsidies in my opinion (and that of economists), the economic ramifications of it would likely doom any such move.

People don't realize that they are paying the cost of those subsidies through their taxes, even if they don't actually see it when they buy the products.All of this is true, but this doesn't mean we should write all of this off as being okay just because it occurred via the workings of a market system.

That's not possible, however; the worst regimes in the world seem to sit on the most vital resources, and barring a major shift in the structure of the global economy (which will happen eventually), it will require us to continue to do business with them.

Also, in a lot of cases that would simply exacerbate the problems. China in particular has not seen anywhere near the kind of human suffering, political oppression, or outright devastation of its country as it did during the Maoist era. Opening it up has saved lives and brought increased freedom to its people, something previously impossible. The same is true of all of the countries of the former Soviet bloc.Well, things haven't been all positive in those places, but they are better than they were before, yes.

We need to figure out a way to tax that evil retailer so that we can give those profits back to the people that need them -- the voters -- I mean the customers! No business should be allowed to make more money than the government.

:rolleyes:

That is all.

Hell, anyone can post a cartoon. Knowing why you posted it is something else. I'm not sure you know the difference between straw man and a straw hat. Just to be sure, this is a straw hat...
http://lucerosportsproducts.com/rackhatimages/TXchampstraw.JPG


This is a straw man...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.


I think you have some 'splainin' to do...

Um...where did I mention a straw hat? I just made straw man into one word.

Seriously, Myrmi, what the hell are you talking about? :confused:

Um...where did I mention a straw hat? I just made straw man into one word.

Seriously, Myrmi, what the hell are you talking about? :confused:
I guess you must take the short bus to school. You seem to be obsessed with straw without really knowing why. Explain yourself.

As you may learn later, assuming there is higher education for the learning disabled, all tables, graphs, figures, and pictures must be captioned and explained in the text.

All of this is true, but this doesn't mean we should write all of this off as being okay just because it occurred via the workings of a market system.

Absolutely not. There's a difference between recognizing something as a necessary evil, with a goal towards correcting or eliminating the problem, and outright accepting it as okay. Unfortunately, as you know there are too many people that will accept ethically wrong actions for any number of reasons.

Nonsense. Both are providing things we want at prices we're willing to pay.

In regards to WalMart. You want low quality crap that breaks every so often? Assuming it's not made of toxic materials that poison you through contact.

In regards to WalMart. You want low quality crap that breaks every so often? Assuming it's not made of toxic materials that poison you through contact.

They make great disposable, largely untraceable, weapons for assassins.

In regards to WalMart. You want low quality crap that breaks every so often? Assuming it's not made of toxic materials that poison you through contact.

Apparently people do.

Apparently people do.

I don't. If I want machined or assembled items, I'd rather pay a bit more up front and have it last years on end than pay slightly less and have it break in a few weeks.

I don't. If I want machined or assembled items, I'd rather pay a bit more up front and have it last years on end than pay slightly less and have it break in a few weeks.

My Wal-Mart has a grocery. Dry goods don't break. :) I enjoy the 30% savings over the nearest competitor (Von's or Albertson's, here).

I guess you must take the short bus to school. You seem to be obsessed with straw without really knowing why. Explain yourself.

As you may learn later, assuming there is higher education for the learning disabled, all tables, graphs, figures, and pictures must be captioned and explained in the text.

Of course...right...I'm retarded. That's why I'm going into the nuclear program. Uh huh. Sure.

In case you missed it, Myrmi--which you obviously did--I was calling your original post a strawman argument, which it is. The whole dealie about taxing oil profits has nothing to do with businesses being able to make money and everything to do with the fact that it's seen by some as excessive, especially given how important oil is.

Hence my picture, which summed it up nicely.

Walmart goes through a painstaking process to make their products as cheap as possible. This enriches the lives of people because it makes it easier for them to afford to cloth and feed their families.
not for the poor sods slaving away in their sweat-shops working in hazardous conditions just to save Wal-Mart a buck or two, it don't.

My Wal-Mart has a grocery. Dry goods don't break. :) I enjoy the 30% savings over the nearest competitor (Von's or Albertson's, here).

Fortunately, where I live, agricultural output is at near sufficiency levels. Even though petrol hikes effect the price of food, it's still cheaper at wet markets and small grocery stores than what Walmart and other megastores sells.

Yea, at least you have something more than an empty gas tank to show for it after you've been fucked by Wal-mart.

with food prices going up yeah I look like an impoverished African. How dare walmart profit my hunger. burn destroy loot.

Eh, if I have to drive 23 miles each way to work each day for 6 days a week how do I buy less gas?

Not that you (personally) do, but until all those idiots stop driving up my street all night blasting their retard music, I will not believe there is anything wrong with higher gas prices.

Theres probably a cheaper supermaket. In Australia 70% of shoppers do 95%+ of their shopping in one store. The biggest chain (woolworths) is also the most expensive. Shop around. If you look at the competition it will be cheaper for you. If everyone does it prices and profits will fall.

The price of goods will rise with an increasing population. That what occurs when the world blindly keeps on having children. But that dosnt mean you should just shop at a single location without comparing prices

There must be some consumer group that has stated Americas cheapest supermarket. Shop there for a change

Nonsense. Both are providing things we want at prices we're willing to pay.

Gas isn't something we want. It's something we need. For many, many people, there is no choice but to continue commuting the same distance, equally often and continuing buying the same amount of gas. Then you have the FACT that a TON of gasoline is used to transport goods around the country, something we also can't avoid.

Add in that wonderful spice of an economic downturn that makes it impossible to change jobs or move and an oligopoly and you get a recipe for fucking the American people while convincing the government to give you handouts. Oh, wait, yeah, they're not handouts. Republicans never give handouts... unless you're a giant corporation.

Gas isn't something we want. It's something we need. For many, many people, there is no choice but to continue commuting the same distance, equally often and continuing buying the same amount of gas. Then you have the FACT that a TON of gasoline is used to transport goods around the country, something we also can't avoid.

Gas was something that people needed 35 years ago but when the price went up it encouraged and succeeded in causing both individuals and businesses to find ways to become more fuel efficient.

Gas was something that people needed 35 years ago but when the price went up it encouraged and succeeded in causing both individuals and businesses to find ways to become more fuel efficient.

More fuel efficient isn't the same as independent.

Frankly, I think I should be able to charge 1 Billion per pill for the cure for cancer. I mean, what difference does it make if I can limit competition by making sure anything even remotely like my pill costs within a couple of cents? What difference does it make if people have to buy my pill or die horribly?

See, when you have a product that people can't live without, like gas, you get to make money off of suffering. In an economic downturn oil companies are making record profits, taking money from the government without spending it on the things the money was given to them for and basically lying and cheating.

But let's all close our eyes, jam our fingers deep into our ears and pretend that gasoline is a free market. I mean, otherwise Myrmi doesn't have an argument and that's patently impossible.

More fuel efficient isn't the same as independent.

Frankly, I think I should be able to charge 1 Billion per pill for the cure for cancer. I mean, what difference does it make if I can limit competition by making sure anything even remotely like my pill costs within a couple of cents? What difference does it make if people have to buy my pill or die horribly?

See, when you have a product that people can't live without, like gas, you get to make money off of suffering. In an economic downturn oil companies are making record profits, taking money from the government without spending it on the things the money was given to them for and basically lying and cheating.

But let's all close our eyes, jam our fingers deep into our ears and pretend that gasoline is a free market. I mean, otherwise Myrmi doesn't have an argument and that's patently impossible.

You could charge $1bn for the cure for cancer - but what would stop your rival from charging $900m for the cure? What would then stop you from charging $800m for the cure? To prevent a downward spiral like this businesses would need to fix prices with each other, to form a cartel - which is no easy matter, even when regulatory authorities aren't trying to stop you. The incentive to cheat in a cartel is usually very high especially when the cartel is illegal. Now if you're going to accuse oil firms of collusively fixing prices I believe this is the point where you prove these claims.

And you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor American consumer who has to pay the some of the lowest petrol prices in the developed world.

And you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor American consumer who has to pay the some of the lowest petrol prices in the developed world.

The price of oil on the World market is the same for everyone, well you know, in the world. If the prices are far higher in your country then in the US its due exclusivley to the high taxation your country places on your fuel. Sounds like you should be complaining to your government for jacking you so hard on taxes not crying that the the US has cheaper fuel.

You could charge $1bn for the cure for cancer - but what would stop your rival from charging $900m for the cure? What would then stop you from charging $800m for the cure? To prevent a downward spiral like this businesses would need to fix prices with each other, to form a cartel - which is no easy matter, even when regulatory authorities aren't trying to stop you. The incentive to cheat in a cartel is usually very high especially when the cartel is illegal. Now if you're going to accuse oil firms of collusively fixing prices I believe this is the point where you prove these claims.

And you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor American consumer who has to pay the some of the lowest petrol prices in the developed world.


What would stop my rival is that it's not a free market. I patent the cure.

Similarly, in oil, I have no rivals, because all gas companies charge the same within a couple of cents. There is a reason there are not price wars by gas stations. There certainly could be. Obviously, an individual company could increase their sales by lowering their price a few cents.

Collusioin by oil companies isn't an accusation. It's demonstrable. Are you telling me you honestly think it's coincidence that ever gas station in a particular town lands on the exact same price? Well, surely, it must also be true of toothpaste and socks, right? I know I can't find different prices at different stores or for competing brands, can I? Nah, that would, you know, resemble a marketplace.

The price of oil on the World market is the same for everyone, well you know, in the world. If the prices are far higher in your country then in the US its due exclusivley to the high taxation your country places on your fuel. Sounds like you should be complaining to your government for jacking you so hard on taxes not crying that the the US has cheaper fuel.

I'm perfectly aware of why petrol prices are lower in the US. My point is that so many people in the US are whinging about how the petrol price increases mean that they can't afford to drive despite the fact that people in every other developed country manage to drive cars despite far higher petrol prices.

What would stop my rival is that it's not a free market. I patent the cure.

Patents exist for only a limited period of time. Besides, you would still choose a price that maximises profits - I doubt that such a price would be $1bn.

Similarly, in oil, I have no rivals, because all gas companies charge the same within a couple of cents. There is a reason there are not price wars by gas stations. There certainly could be. Obviously, an individual company could increase their sales by lowering their price a few cents.

Have you considered that gas companies charge pretty much the same price because they are rivals and that the margins they make are far lower than if they were actually colluding to set their prices higher? Besides, forecourt price wars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5342818.stm) are not imaginary. If a firm believes the opportunity to undercut a rival is there they will take it.

Collusioin by oil companies isn't an accusation. It's demonstrable. Are you telling me you honestly think it's coincidence that ever gas station in a particular town lands on the exact same price? Well, surely, it must also be true of toothpaste and socks, right? I know I can't find different prices at different stores or for competing brands, can I? Nah, that would, you know, resemble a marketplace.

Petrol is not a horizontally differentiated product. No one claims that their petrol is better than everyone else's. Toothpaste makers do, just witness the advertising for new innovations in dental hygiene. Sock makers compete on quality as well. Petrol makers can only compete on price. In situations where there are only a few gas stations competing they operate as Bertrand competitors. This leads to prices close to the margin and low profitability. Don't forget that retail petrol is not the source of profit for large oil producers - witness ExxonMobil's withdrawal from retail gas (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1238193020080612?sp=true).

No one claims that their petrol is better than everyone else's.

You've not been paying attention to petrol advertisements have you?

You've not been paying attention to petrol advertisements have you?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic to back up my point or if you are genuinely challenging what I just said, but I'll go with the latter for now.

What petrol adverts?

Have you considered that gas companies charge pretty much the same price because they are rivals and that the margins they make are far lower than if they were actually colluding to set their prices higher? Besides, forecourt price wars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5342818.stm) are not imaginary. If a firm believes the opportunity to undercut a rival is there they will take it.



Petrol is not a horizontally differentiated product. No one claims that their petrol is better than everyone else's. Toothpaste makers do, just witness the advertising for new innovations in dental hygiene. Sock makers compete on quality as well. Petrol makers can only compete on price. In situations where there are only a few gas stations competing they operate as Bertrand competitors. This leads to prices close to the margin and low profitability. Don't forget that retail petrol is not the source of profit for large oil producers - witness ExxonMobil's withdrawal from retail gas (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1238193020080612?sp=true).

So the reason why the grocery store on Boughton charges less than the one on Schmidt is because their Cherios are actually different?

Uh, this is where I take my leave. See, I operate in the real world.

From pretty much ever angle your argument is detached from reality. Oil companies do attempt differentiate. Their products are as different as two boxes of Cocoa Puffs are at competing markets charging totally different prices. And oil is not a free market.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic to back up my point or if you are genuinely challenging what I just said, but I'll go with the latter for now.

What petrol adverts?

You've never seen a commercial for a gas company?

So the reason why the grocery store on Boughton charges less than the one on Schmidt is because their Cherios are actually different?

No, its because one spends less money on operating costs than the other. The brand is the shop, not the cereal.

Uh, this is where I take my leave. See, I operate in the real world.

And yet I'm the only one here has shown that a major oil company is ending its retail petrol business because fierce competition means its not profitable and how retailers engage in price wars. For all your posturing about operating in the real world you certainly rely a lot more on personal opinion than actually providing me with any hard facts.

From pretty much ever angle your argument is detached from reality. Oil companies do attempt differentiate. Their products are as different as two boxes of Cocoa Puffs are at competing markets charging totally different prices. And oil is not a free market.

They are differentiated by price and price alone. No one pays more for Shell petrol because they think its better petrol.

You've never seen a commercial for a gas company?

Never one where they claimed to provide 'better petrol'.

No, its because one spends less money on operating costs than the other. The brand is the shop, not the cereal.

Oh, you mean like a gas station or company? Inconceivable.


And yet I'm the only one here has shown that a major oil company is ending its retail petrol business because fierce competition means its not profitable and how retailers engage in price wars. For all your posturing about operating in the real world you certainly rely a lot more on personal opinion than actually providing me with any hard facts.

Again, so it's not a hard fact that supermarkets charge different amounts for the same product and gas companies don't? Hmm... one must question your definition of facts.


They are differentiated by price and price alone. No one pays more for Shell petrol because they think its better petrol.

Uh, again, one wonders what world you're living in. My father most certainly thinks his car runs better specifically on Shell gasoline. He will never ever purchase gas from speedway. Do you want to retract your "no one" statement? One person certainly debunks your "no one" claim. I would argue that there is actually a difference in the quality of different stations. I actually prefer certain stations as well, but not to the extent of my father.


Never one where they claimed to provide 'better petrol'.

Really? Again, I have to wonder what world you live in. Never heard of Platformate? Perhaps you should look it up.

Oh, you mean like a gas station or company? Inconceivable.

Again, so it's not a hard fact that supermarkets charge different amounts for the same product and gas companies don't? Hmm... one must question your definition of facts.

The problem is that gas stations normally use the same distribution networks, making it hard for one to operate at a consistently cheaper price.

Uh, again, one wonders what world you're living in. My father most certainly thinks his car runs better specifically on Shell gasoline. He will never ever purchase gas from speedway. Do you want to retract your "no one" statement? One person certainly debunks your "no one" claim. I would argue that there is actually a difference in the quality of different stations. I actually prefer certain stations as well, but not to the extent of my father.

Yes, I'll retract my comment. It appears that I made it while forgetting about the depths of human gullibility. You might want to ask your dad if he is aware that the petrol in the gas station that he goes to is the same as the petrol in the nearest gas station, because forecourts usually source their petrol from the nearest refinery rather than their own company's refinery.

I'm glad you brought up that some might prefer certain stations as well, as their are independent stations which offer fewer services and cheaper petrol. However, the petrol itself remains homogenous.

Really? Again, I have to wonder what world you live in. Never heard of Platformate? Perhaps you should look it up.

Would that be the additive which clever marketing wags at Shell said makes cars get better mileage while also neglecting the fact that every other petrol provider also had Platformate in their petrol? You'll notice they didn't say that their petrol was better than other brands and for good reason - their petrol wasn't better than other brands.

The problem is that gas stations normally use the same distribution networks, making it hard for one to operate at a consistently cheaper price.

Similar with many local supermarkets. Often their "sales" are built upon moving around product prices or simply making it up at other times (like Labor day weekend type stuff).


Yes, I'll retract my comment. It appears that I made it while forgetting about the depths of human gullibility. You might want to ask your dad if he is aware that the petrol in the gas station that he goes to is the same as the petrol in the nearest gas station, because forecourts usually source their petrol from the nearest refinery rather than their own company's refinery.

I'd love to remind my father of lots of things, but it doesn't change that you were and are utterly wrong. And, now that you're admitting that people buy fuel from companies they think provide a better produce, you can no longer argue that all gas statiions are the same. This demonstrably proves that some stations can afford to charge more since they've differentiated their product.

I'm glad you brought up that some might prefer certain stations as well, as their are independent stations which offer fewer services and cheaper petrol. However, the petrol itself remains homogenous.

That's funny. I travel all over America and almost to a station, the place across the street charges the same.



Would that be the additive which clever marketing wags at Shell said makes cars get better mileage while also neglecting the fact that every other petrol provider also had Platformate in their petrol? You'll notice they didn't say that their petrol was better than other brands and for good reason - their petrol wasn't better than other brands.

You mean you're aware of it? Then you were lying when you've said that gasoline companies never differentiate themselves. Whoops. Kind of (read: totally) refutes your argument.

They are investing they just aren't investing in the US. A quick look at ExxonMobil's 2006 annual report reveals major capital investment in Canada, Norway, Nigeria, Angola and Indonesia. This is surely testament to the stupidity of oil subsidies as taxpayer money contributes to investment in other countries.

Agreed. Giving the companies money and not seeing the benefit is the problem. Look, oil companies make a ton of money. I'm not against profit by any means as it is what business is there to do. I'm against businesses making huge profits and still receiving billions of dollars in tax payer money. The same people who support this practice would throw a hissy if this money were given to families on welfare. We'd hear about "welfare queens" driving Caddies and wearing fur coats coming to get their checks. Profit is fine, but when part of that profit comes from the public it is not fine.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic to back up my point or if you are genuinely challenging what I just said, but I'll go with the latter for now.

What petrol adverts?

The ones from companies like Shell for one maybe? Their advertisements seem to air here more often than any other one, and it's always promising stuff like superior mileage, or better treatment of your engine or what have you.

They don't openly say that other brands are worse than theirs, since that's probably opening themselves to lawsuit country, but they do imply it a lot with their talk about superior performance or just outright implying "ours is better."

Here's an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rICTW65ddw&feature=related

I'd love to remind my father of lots of things, but it doesn't change that you were and are utterly wrong. And, now that you're admitting that people buy fuel from companies they think provide a better produce, you can no longer argue that all gas statiions are the same. This demonstrably proves that some stations can afford to charge more since they've differentiated their product.

That assumes that a majority thinks like your dad. Most people continue to chase the cheap prices.

That's funny. I travel all over America and almost to a station, the place across the street charges the same.

That's probably because if they increased their price everyone would go to the one across the street. Decereasing their price may not be possible because they are already making a tiny margin. In fact, I already demonstrated that ExxonMobil's margins were too small for them to continue. I'm still waiting for you to show me some gas stations where they make high margins thanks to all this collusive behaviour thats going on.

You mean you're aware of it? Then you were lying when you've said that gasoline companies never differentiate themselves. Whoops. Kind of (read: totally) refutes your argument.

Except that we are talking about the current business practices of companies, not what they did 40 years ago. Especially when they are pretending that they have a differenitated product. There are plenty of companies that attempt to differentiate their product but few successfully differentiate their prduct.

The ones from companies like Shell for one maybe? Their advertisements seem to air here more often than any other one, and it's always promising stuff like superior mileage, or better treatment of your engine or what have you.

They don't openly say that other brands are worse than theirs, since that's probably opening themselves to lawsuit country, but they do imply it a lot with their talk about superior performance or just outright implying "ours is better."

Here's an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rICTW65ddw&feature=related

"If you're looking for better mileage, better make sure it's Shell."

That's a direct quote from one of their commercials. Amusingly, they only compare it to their "old" formula, but it's the tagline that gets ya.

That assumes that a majority thinks like your dad. Most people continue to chase the cheap prices.

So the market that has cheaper Cocoa Puffs gets your business always as well, huh?

That's probably because if they increased their price everyone would go to the one across the street. Decereasing their price may not be possible because they are already making a tiny margin. In fact, I already demonstrated that ExxonMobil's margins were too small for them to continue. I'm still waiting for you to show me some gas stations where they make high margins thanks to all this collusive behaviour thats going on.

A tiny margin? This thread and the other one about big oil is about the record profits the gas companies are showing.

Except that we are talking about the current business practices of companies, not what they did 40 years ago. Especially when they are pretending that they have a differenitated product. There are plenty of companies that attempt to differentiate their product but few successfully differentiate their prduct.

Can you tell me exactly when they stopped being able to differentiate between similar products? Gasoline wasn't less identical back then than it is now. Why do you think now is different? Not to mention that Shell currently has a commercial out in some countries that tells you you'll get better mileage with Shell. But, hey, don't let reality knock on your door.

I love how you pretend like oil is such a different market. "With gas people go where the cheapest prices are, but with cereal they buy into the market." "With gas you can't differentiate between stores, but with markets you can." "With markets, you can have cheaper operating costs even if the product costs you the same, but with gas it's all identical."

One wonders how the gasoline market magically became so different from the sale of cereal. Don't worry, I don't expect you to suddenly find a proper argument. Just keep CLAIMING that somehow marketing and business works differently if you're selling gasoline.

So the market that has cheaper Cocoa Puffs gets your business always as well, huh?

A tiny margin? This thread and the other one about big oil is about the record profits the gas companies are showing.

Can you tell me exactly when they stopped being able to differentiate between similar products? Gasoline wasn't less identical back then than it is now. Why do you think now is different? Not to mention that Shell currently has a commercial out in some countries that tells you you'll get better mileage with Shell. But, hey, don't let reality knock on your door.

I love how you pretend like oil is such a different market. "With gas people go where the cheapest prices are, but with cereal they buy into the market." "With gas you can't differentiate between stores, but with markets you can." "With markets, you can have cheaper operating costs even if the product costs you the same, but with gas it's all identical."

One wonders how the gasoline market magically became so different from the sale of cereal. Don't worry, I don't expect you to suddenly find a proper argument. Just keep CLAIMING that somehow marketing and business works differently if you're selling gasoline.

Well, I can see that I can't convince you that gas isn't differentiated. So let me simplify this whole thing - explain to me why if firms are colluding to keep their gas prices high margins for gas stations are so low? Surely by colluding the gas stations should be making big profits but in reality they aren't. They are operating at the margin which is a sign of fierce competition rather than collusion. Please explain to me why supposedly collusive firms are not operating at a collusive profit margin.

Well, I can see that I can't convince you that gas isn't differentiated. So let me simplify this whole thing - explain to me why if firms are colluding to keep their gas prices high margins for gas stations are so low? Surely by colluding the gas stations should be making big profits but in reality they aren't. They are operating at the margin which is a sign of fierce competition rather than collusion. Please explain to me why supposedly collusive firms are not operating at a collusive profit margin.

Because they have to think long term as well as short term. By working together they and keeping the margin lower than it could be they prevent pushing the public to hard to end their collusion. An 8% profit margin would be ENORMOUS in many, many businesses. Keep in mind, this isn't 8% growth, but 8% profit.

How do you propose that when gas goes up on a holiday that it goes up EXACTLY the same amount at every station. Do they all just stand out there with those long sticks waiting to see what the first guy puts up? Or is it possible they all know what it's going to be before they put it up. Hell, on 911 when the prices shot up at some stations, it happened at the same time all over town by the same amount.

So, it's normal that when the cost of your inventory reaches record levels without any improvement in the product for your overall profits to be record-setting? Hmmm... that's interesting.

Except that's not how a free market works in the real world. Only in a market where companies or governments are working against free market principles would profits increase because the cost of the supply increased, while the supply itself didn't.

Also, you've made it clear you don't actually know what differentiated means. It's not limited to actual difference in product, only a perceived difference, something you've admitted exists and that Shell has capitalized on in the past.

Because they have to think long term as well as short term. By working together they and keeping the margin lower than it could be they prevent pushing the public to hard to end their collusion. An 8% profit margin would be ENORMOUS in many, many businesses. Keep in mind, this isn't 8% growth, but 8% profit.

Gas stations don't see anything like 8% profit margins. They are closer to 11 cents on the gallon (http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Press_Releases/Pages/pr062708.aspx) for 80% of gasoline sold, a profit margin of about 2.5%. Hardly an ENORMOUS profit margin. If they were colluding we might see profit margins of about 8% but we don't.

How do you propose that when gas goes up on a holiday that it goes up EXACTLY the same amount at every station. Do they all just stand out there with those long sticks waiting to see what the first guy puts up? Or is it possible they all know what it's going to be before they put it up. Hell, on 911 when the prices shot up at some stations, it happened at the same time all over town by the same amount.

Again, you've got plenty of anecdotes but I still don't see you showing me any examples of gas stations raking in enormous profits.

So, it's normal that when the cost of your inventory reaches record levels without any improvement in the product for your overall profits to be record-setting? Hmmm... that's interesting.

Who are these gas stations which are making enormous profits?

Gas stations don't see anything like 8% profit margins. They are closer to 11 cents on the gallon (http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Press_Releases/Pages/pr062708.aspx) for 80% of gasoline sold, a profit margin of about 2.5%. Hardly an ENORMOUS profit margin. If they were colluding we might see profit margins of about 8% but we don't.

Oil COMPANIES are what we're talking about. Shell and the like are seeing "anything like" 8% profit margins.

Again, you've got plenty of anecdotes but I still don't see you showing me any examples of gas stations raking in enormous profits.

Again, we're talking about oil companies. Gas STATIONS are just where we buy the gas.

Who are these gas stations which are making enormous profits?

I love when someone suddenly changes the argument. I'll give you credit. It shows you recognize you're losing.

Oil COMPANIES are what we're talking about. Shell and the like are seeing "anything like" 8% profit margins.

Again, we're talking about oil companies. Gas STATIONS are just where we buy the gas.

I love when someone suddenly changes the argument. I'll give you credit. It shows you recognize you're losing.

You were complaining that oil companies are exploiting customers at the pump by fixing retail gas prices at gas stations. The big oil companies don't make 8% profit margins at gas stations, they make 8% profit margins through exploration, which is the highly profitable arm of their business. They can't set pump prices any lower because they are already operating at the margin - as I showed you, a profit margin of only 2.5%. Shell don't make 8% on retail gas.

Not that you (personally) do, but until all those idiots stop driving up my street all night blasting their retard music, I will not believe there is anything wrong with higher gas prices.

I'm a little beyond driving up and down streets for no reason blasting any music. But i see your point fully.

not for the poor sods slaving away in their sweat-shops working in hazardous conditions just to save Wal-Mart a buck or two, it don't.

Is this trend exclusive to Walmart, or is it a part of the greater global economy as a whole?

Gas isn't something we want. It's something we need.
To ignore that food is also a necessity is just putting your head in the sand. But the more egregious error is that you think ANY profit made by ANY company should be regulated because we think it's too much. The fact that you think the government can outperform the market in regulating price is just too funny.

To ignore that food is also a necessity is just putting your head in the sand. But the more egregious error is that you think ANY profit made by ANY company should be regulated because we think it's too much. The fact that you think the government can outperform the market in regulating price is just too funny.

Jocabia might like a return to the gas lines and gas shortages of the 1970s. See government in action, fucking up supply and demand.

Oil COMPANIES are what we're talking about. Shell and the like are seeing "anything like" 8% profit margins.

I'd like you to show me what profit Shell does make -- Find any recent 10Q or 10K.

Jocabia might like a return to the gas lines and gas shortages of the 1970s. See government in action, fucking up supply and demand.

I doubt that he remembers those days... Wage and price controls are such a great way to hose an economy. Then there was the effort in the '80s to tax windfall profits. That did well, too.

Of course. I just wonder if the average American taxpayer grasps the futility of paying for his own reduced petrol prices especially when a lot of the money is likely to be invested in other countries.

They don't. As Milton Friedman was fond of saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You're paying the difference whether or not you see it at the retail level.

You were complaining that oil companies are exploiting customers at the pump by fixing retail gas prices at gas stations. The big oil companies don't make 8% profit margins at gas stations, they make 8% profit margins through exploration, which is the highly profitable arm of their business. They can't set pump prices any lower because they are already operating at the margin - as I showed you, a profit margin of only 2.5%. Shell don't make 8% on retail gas.

Actually, you showed that the profit for privately-owned gas stations is 2.5%. The article you linked was specifically pointing out that the gas stations not owned by the oil companies had it harder. You really don't know how that works, do you? It's not hard to figure out why the gas stations not owned directly by the oil companies are barely surviving.

To ignore that food is also a necessity is just putting your head in the sand. But the more egregious error is that you think ANY profit made by ANY company should be regulated because we think it's too much. The fact that you think the government can outperform the market in regulating price is just too funny.

You're good with the strawman. See, the government is ALREADY affecting the market. That's part of the problem. Oil companies are very supported by our government and always happens. Which is what always happens when companies are allowed to become too powerful in a supposedly free market. You think it's coincidence that our country is currently run by a bunch of people who came from big oil and suddenly gas is five times what it was when they entered the office?

Yeah, probably has nothing to do with it. I mean, gass went up 400% under Clinton, too, right?

There is nothing "free" about the oil market. I'm talking about the fact that I would LOVE for it to be a free market. But to do so, the government should do what it's supposed to do and enforce anti-trust legislation. To do so, the government would have to stop treating the oil companies like they're special and treat like every other collusive market. To do so, the government would have to stop skewing the market, and start pushing the market to right itself. But we haven't done that for a long time.

Jocabia might like a return to the gas lines and gas shortages of the 1970s. See government in action, fucking up supply and demand.

I love when you try to latch onto other people's arguments, especially when they're losing. Supply and demand isn't setting the prices. It's not a free competition.

I'd like you to show me what profit Shell does make -- Find any recent 10Q or 10K.

http://www.hoovers.com/royal-dutch-shell/--ID__50019,period__A--/free-co-fin-income.xhtml

This isn't a right or left-wing site attempting to paint these as windfall profits. It's simply a site that does business consultation that offers up the public financial reports from major corporations.

They list net profit for Shell at 8.8% last year and Exxon at 10%.

...An 8% profit margin would be ENORMOUS in many, many businesses. Keep in mind, this isn't 8% growth, but 8% profit.

http://www.hoovers.com/royal-dutch-shell/--ID__50019,period__A--/free-co-fin-income.xhtml

This isn't a right or left-wing site attempting to paint these as windfall profits. It's simply a site that does business consultation that offers up the public financial reports from major corporations.

They list net profit for Shell at 8.8% last year and Exxon at 10%.
I notice that you cannot produce a 10Q or 10K for Shell. I wonder why that is?

Well, you did pass the one test, anyway. You know which profit line is important. But you fail the analysis portion of the problem. A net profit of 9% is not excessively large. Plenty of companies operate at a much higher net profit... Glaxosmithkline, GSK is at 23%. Johnson&Johnson, JNJ is at 17%. Coca-Cola, KO is at 21%. I think you're the one that's arguing the strawman. Oil profits are not excessive...Not when compared to other industries. Even Delta, DAL, is operating at 8.4% net profit.

Explain why 9% is too high, but only for oil. Then tell me what the proper net profit should be.

You're good with the strawman. See, the government is ALREADY affecting the market. That's part of the problem. Oil companies are very supported by our government and always happens. Which is what always happens when companies are allowed to become too powerful in a supposedly free market. You think it's coincidence that our country is currently run by a bunch of people who came from big oil and suddenly gas is five times what it was when they entered the office?

Yeah, probably has nothing to do with it. I mean, gass went up 400% under Clinton, too, right?

There is nothing "free" about the oil market. I'm talking about the fact that I would LOVE for it to be a free market. But to do so, the government should do what it's supposed to do and enforce anti-trust legislation. To do so, the government would have to stop treating the oil companies like they're special and treat like every other collusive market. To do so, the government would have to stop skewing the market, and start pushing the market to right itself. But we haven't done that for a long time.
I love the completely unfounded conspiracy aspect. That's a hell of a way to demagogue an issue but it's been overdone and you should be embarrassed to re-use it. Further, to single out any one industry as being a recipient of government largess is very short-sighted. There really aren't any industries that don't benefit from one government program or another. Or at least from tax advantages that have been written to achieve the same effect. Talk about a real strawman argument.

But your real argument is that the government can meddle with company profits and still achieve better results that we're seeing now, is that correct?

To ignore that food is also a necessity is just putting your head in the sand. But the more egregious error is that you think ANY profit made by ANY company should be regulated because we think it's too much. The fact that you think the government can outperform the market in regulating price is just too funny.

Ahh, and what do you think causes the biggest increase in food prices? A couple of years ago I was paying 2.79 for milk. Suddenly I'm paying upwards of 4.50... Hmm, did someone slaughter all the cows? Are they limiting the supply of milk to artificially inflate milk prices for the cow mafia? No, these increases are directly related to energy prices.

The problem of high fuels prices trickles down throughout the economy. Electric companies are raising rates upwards of 50%. Any idea why this is so? The energy companies control far more of our economic capabilities than you might think. No one likes government intervention (I'm talking of the faux free market economists here) in the oil market to help keep oil prices from killing the economy.

The same people say nothing when the government gets involved with Bear Sterns. The same people don't complain when the government bails out Nationwide, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, et al. when they caused their own demise through making poor financial decisions. It's all right to help those large companies when they F up royally. The same people piss and moan when individual citizens need to declare bankruptcy because credit card companies have rigged the system to have you in debt forever. Or when medical costs cause people to drown in debt. Or when they are so sick that they lose their jobs, their cars, their homes. It just pisses me off that the same people who have no compassion for their fellow Americans don't say boo when the government bails out corporations or gives billions of dollars in subsidies to companies already making a killing. Just he logical and consistent. If you don't care when the govt helps these businesses you should be happy as shit that they help ordinary Americans. But it's just like the big drug companies...There's no money in the cure, there's money in the medicine to "treat" the illness.

Now, I'll go back to pretending that we should feel pity for the oil companies and their small profit margins.

Actually, you showed that the profit for privately-owned gas stations is 2.5%. The article you linked was specifically pointing out that the gas stations not owned by the oil companies had it harder. You really don't know how that works, do you? It's not hard to figure out why the gas stations not owned directly by the oil companies are barely surviving.

Those convenience store gas stations in the article account for 80% of gas sold in the US. 98% of gas stations are privately owned - only 2% are owned directly by petrol companies. In order to collusively fix prices the firms involved must have a vast majority of the market share otherwise people would find it too easy to go to non-collusive gas stations. Or are you going to tell me now that 2% of the market are controlling the prices?

Those convenience store gas stations in the article account for 80% of gas sold in the US. 98% of gas stations are privately owned - only 2% are owned directly by petrol companies. In order to collusively fix prices the firms involved must have a vast majority of the market share otherwise people would find it too easy to go to non-collusive gas stations. Or are you going to tell me now that 2% of the market are controlling the prices?

But we're talking about Oil companies, not the gas stations. They are just the fronts. Oil companies control the supply, the stuff those gas stations sell. Oil companies are the REASON those gas stations have such a low margin.

See, oil companies have a 40% gross margin so they can afford a 2.5% gross margin at the pump. And, like McDonalds, the price is sent by the overall company whether you're a franchise store or not. Again, sarcasm aside, you do know how this works, don't you? Because your responses suggest you don't know how franchise stores compare to non-franchise stores for the same company.

I notice that you cannot produce a 10Q or 10K for Shell. I wonder why that is?

If my sources are wrong, you are welcome to prove them wrong. What's the matter? You can't refute my evidence so you require me to find something I don't actually have? If you have a 10Q or a 10K, feel free to provide it. If my source is unreliable, feel free to prove it so. As yet, you've provided NO evidence.


Well, you did pass the one test, anyway. You know which profit line is important. But you fail the analysis portion of the problem. A net profit of 9% is not excessively large. Plenty of companies operate at a much higher net profit... Glaxosmithkline, GSK is at 23%. Johnson&Johnson, JNJ is at 17%. Coca-Cola, KO is at 21%. I think you're the one that's arguing the strawman. Oil profits are not excessive...Not when compared to other industries. Even Delta, DAL, is operating at 8.4% net profit.

Explain why 9% is too high, but only for oil. Then tell me what the proper net profit should be.

I didn't say it was too high only for oil. In fact, I didn't say it was too high at all. I've got no issue with 9% profits. I know it's difficult for you to follow a straight line, but, please, try. I have an issue with profits being made while getting government handouts designed to help you do things you aren't actually doing. I have a problem with making a 8, 9 or 10% profit in an industry that's not free, especially when your artificial inflation of prices affects the entire economy.

But we're talking about Oil companies, not the gas stations. They are just the fronts. Oil companies control the supply, the stuff those gas stations sell. Oil companies are the REASON those gas stations have such a low margin.

See, oil companies have a 40% gross margin so they can afford a 2.5% gross margin at the pump. And, like McDonalds, the price is sent by the overall company whether you're a franchise store or not. Again, sarcasm aside, you do know how this works, don't you? Because your responses suggest you don't know how franchise stores compare to non-franchise stores for the same company.

So when the oil companies set gas station prices, why do they collude to set them with such low margins? If they can collude to increase prices above market level why are downstream oil profits plummeting?

I love the completely unfounded conspiracy aspect. That's a hell of a way to demagogue an issue but it's been overdone and you should be embarrassed to re-use it. Further, to single out any one industry as being a recipient of government largess is very short-sighted. There really aren't any industries that don't benefit from one government program or another. Or at least from tax advantages that have been written to achieve the same effect. Talk about a real strawman argument.

But your real argument is that the government can meddle with company profits and still achieve better results that we're seeing now, is that correct?

Conspiracy? No conspiracy required. We're not talking about private, closed doors actions. We're all quite aware of collusion in the oil industry. Heard of OPEC. We're also quite aware that it was claimed that oil profits would pay for the war in Iraq. That turned out to be true, didn't it? Oh, wait, it's a conspiracy to actually pay attention to the FACT that we attacked an oil country that was completely unrelated to 9/11, attacked in relation to 9/11, and even admitted we expected it to be paid for by oil. Yup, conspiracy. Make sure you very carefully deny the evidence without, you know, actually providing an alternative.

Meanwhile, you apparently don't know what a strawman is. If I'm presenting MY argument, it cannot be a strawman. It can only be a strawman if I'm misrepresenting the other side. Strawman doesn't mean erroneous. Look it up, it's true. Let me know if you need me to link to a site that describes the definition, k?

What is a strawman is that no matter how many times I explain to you that this is NOT simply about their profits but also the circumstances in which those profits are made, you continue to misrepresent MY argument. See, that's how a strawman works. You can't defeat my actual argument, so you keep making up a new one you can defeat. I accept your recognition that speaking to my real argument is a clear loss for you.

My REAL argument is that the government is already meddling in the profits of the oil industry. My REAL argument is that corporations, ANY corporation, should not be supported by our government (there are rare exceptions, but it's not defined by vertical/industry). My REAL argument is that the meddling our government is legally required to do has stopped happening, and that is to enforce anti-trust legislation.

So when the oil companies set gas station prices, why do they collude to set them with such low margins? If they can collude to increase prices above market level why are downstream oil profits plummeting?

Amusing, I noticed you drop most of the arguments. I accept that you are unable to respond.

As to your question, YES. Again, I recognize that you don't actually understand how it works, but YES, they don't have to have high margins at the pump. It's a pretty common strategy. You can afford to break even in certain areas so long as your profits are unusually high in others. It does an excellent job of limiting competition for your oligopoly. You actually evidenced this in noting the struggles of non-corporate gas stations. It's amusing that you are actually presenting why such things would be done and then acting like you can't think of a reason why they'd happen that way.

Let's list some of the arguments of Cosmo and how they morphed over time -

No one buys a particular brand of gas because they think it's better - Later: well, they do, but only because they're stupid.

You cannot differentiate between brands of gasoline - later: see above

Oil companies don't attempt to differentiate between brands of gasoline - later: well, yeah, sure, but that was a long time ago. *Cosmo ignores the actual references to current commercials*

You cannot differentiate between products that are identical - later: you CAN differentiate between products that are identical, if you're a market, but not if you're an oil company.

And, now, it's down to just dropping every argument that doesn't suit you.

Amusing, I noticed you drop most of the arguments. I accept that you are unable to respond.

As to your question, YES. Again, I recognize that you don't actually understand how it works, but YES, they don't have to have high margins at the pump. It's a pretty common strategy. You can afford to break even in certain areas so long as your profits are unusually high in others. It does an excellent job of limiting competition for your oligopoly. You actually evidenced this in noting the struggles of non-corporate gas stations. It's amusing that you are actually presenting why such things would be done and then acting like you can't think of a reason why they'd happen that way.

So if the companies are selling gas at break even prices what is the problem here?

You said "See, when you have a product that people can't live without, like gas, you get to make money off of suffering."

If they break even they aren't making money, are they?

Ahh, and what do you think causes the biggest increase in food prices? A couple of years ago I was paying 2.79 for milk. Suddenly I'm paying upwards of 4.50... Hmm, did someone slaughter all the cows? Are they limiting the supply of milk to artificially inflate milk prices for the cow mafia? No, these increases are directly related to energy prices.

It's due to higher prices for feed and higher demand. The Chinese in particular are consuming much larger and rapidly rising amounts of dairy, meat, and non-staple food crops. When you have 1.3 billion people in China, to say nothing of other nations like India or Brazil, suddenly and rapidly increasing their consumption of secondary food products (basically anything that needs staple crops as an input), prices are going to rise.

If anything, it's a combination of biofuels and demand that's producing higher prices. Energy plays only a relatively small role, far less than that of feed or raw demand.

The problem of high fuels prices trickles down throughout the economy. Electric companies are raising rates upwards of 50%. Any idea why this is so? The energy companies control far more of our economic capabilities than you might think. No one likes government intervention (I'm talking of the faux free market economists here) in the oil market to help keep oil prices from killing the economy.

Government intervention couldn't do a thing. In fact, the last time we tried it we got gas lines. Honestly, when a cartel like OPEC generates as much in revenue as the US earns from income tax receipts and controls the majority-minority of world oil production, all of the government action in the world won't do a thing to lower prices.

The only government action that will do anything is developing alternatives, and it is a fact that alternatives will be more expensive than fossil fuels for a while longer. Probably not very long, especially if oil remains elevated, but they are still expensive and people will pay more for alternative sources of energy.

But it's just like the big drug companies...There's no money in the cure, there's money in the medicine to "treat" the illness.

No, their strategy is to develop treatments first and then attempt to develop the first working cure to completely destroy their opponents' market share in that field. People are still going to get cancers even after various cures are discovered, so the company that gets the first one is going to make huge sums of money for the foreseeable future.

That's hardly an optimal situation, but that's what charities and government and university research institutes are for.

If my sources are wrong, you are welcome to prove them wrong. What's the matter? You can't refute my evidence so you require me to find something I don't actually have? If you have a 10Q or a 10K, feel free to provide it. If my source is unreliable, feel free to prove it so. As yet, you've provided NO evidence.




I didn't say it was too high only for oil. In fact, I didn't say it was too high at all. I've got no issue with 9% profits. I know it's difficult for you to follow a straight line, but, please, try. I have an issue with profits being made while getting government handouts designed to help you do things you aren't actually doing. I have a problem with making a 8, 9 or 10% profit in an industry that's not free, especially when your artificial inflation of prices affects the entire economy.
Your hoover.com, or whatever, is probably as accurate as the site I like at Business Week, but it doesn't go into the same detail as an SEC filing.
For instance, we can't see what was spent on exploration or R&D on these sites. That's why I asked specifically for quarterly or annual reports. We could quantify the amount of government support that Shell received from the United States. But the fact that Shell's, RDSA, SEC filings are unavailable after 1995 is a good lesson for us.

RDSA no longer makes SEC filings because they are not headquartered in the U.S. A combination of crappy economic policy and unfavorable treatment by the tax codes made it more attractive for the company to be based in the Netherlands. So your first argument that they receive a gazillion dollars from the United States government is wrong. Your second argument that we would be better off with more regulation and enforcement would have the unintended(?) consequence of driving more industry offshore to avoid the additional costs.

And while oil companies that are based in the U.S. may receive subsidies and tax benefits from the Federal government, name an industry that doesn't. And tell me how that's necessarily bad. Every individual in this country that pays taxes can benefit from a variety of tax-based incentives. That's not bad, is it? Why should it be bad for an industry to receive the same treatment?

My REAL argument is that the government is already meddling in the profits of the oil industry. My REAL argument is that corporations, ANY corporation, should not be supported by our government (there are rare exceptions, but it's not defined by vertical/industry). My REAL argument is that the meddling our government is legally required to do has stopped happening, and that is to enforce anti-trust legislation.
Clearly you know nothing about what the government is doing to enforce existing anti-trust actions. I would guess you have never heard of Sorbanes-Oxley, nor of what it requires public companies to do, nor of what penalties it assess for even the smallest infraction.

Provide examples of how existing anti-trust laws are being ignored.

So if the companies are selling gas at break even prices what is the problem here?

You said "See, when you have a product that people can't live without, like gas, you get to make money off of suffering."

If they break even they aren't making money, are they?

Again, you miss the point by a mile. It's not the stations we're talking about. We're talking about the oil companies. And even if the stations they own are breaking even, the areas of the company that sell the gas to those stations are doing much better than that.

Seriously, if you're not familiar with how business works, then why are we even talking about this?

Your hoover.com, or whatever, is probably as accurate as the site I like at Business Week, but it doesn't go into the same detail as an SEC filing.
For instance, we can't see what was spent on exploration or R&D on these sites. That's why I asked specifically for quarterly or annual reports. We could quantify the amount of government support that Shell received from the United States. But the fact that Shell's, RDSA, SEC filings are unavailable after 1995 is a good lesson for us.

RDSA no longer makes SEC filings because they are not headquartered in the U.S. A combination of crappy economic policy and unfavorable treatment by the tax codes made it more attractive for the company to be based in the Netherlands. So your first argument that they receive a gazillion dollars from the United States government is wrong. Your second argument that we would be better off with more regulation and enforcement would have the unintended(?) consequence of driving more industry offshore to avoid the additional costs.

And while oil companies that are based in the U.S. may receive subsidies and tax benefits from the Federal government, name an industry that doesn't. And tell me how that's necessarily bad. Every individual in this country that pays taxes can benefit from a variety of tax-based incentives. That's not bad, is it? Why should it be bad for an industry to receive the same treatment?

I love how your entire style of argument is to keep requiring very specific evidence from me, while ignoring my arguments and the evidence I provide.

You asked for evidence that oil companies were making the profits I cited. I showed you. You claimed that wasn't good enough and then admitted you have access to plenty of evidence of their profits. Obviously, if you could prove me wrong, you'd have done so. You cannot.

That said, you move on to some other ridiculous argument instead and require further very specific evidence. This is the part of the argument where you put or admit you cannot.

Again, you miss the point by a mile. It's not the stations we're talking about. We're talking about the oil companies. And even if the stations they own are breaking even, the areas of the company that sell the gas to those stations are doing much better than that.

Seriously, if you're not familiar with how business works, then why are we even talking about this?

The areas of the oil companies that sell to gas stations (downstream) aren't doing much better though.

ExxonMobil US downstream earnings fall 80% (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings2q08.pdf)
Royal Dutch Shell US oil products earnings fall 72% (http://www-static.shell.com/static/investor/downloads/financial_information/quarterly_results/2008/q2/q2_2008_qra.pdf)
BP records $400m US downstream segment loss (http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_second_quarter_2008_results.pdf)
Chevron records $682million US downstream loss (http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/earnings_1aug2008.pdf)
ConocoPhillips downstream US earnings fall 76% (http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/625CB057-E811-470E-9654-49CE79D427A0/0/2q08_supplemental.pdf)
Total's worldwide downstream profits fall 22% (http://www.total.com/static/en/medias/topic3087/Total_2008_en_2Q_Results_080801_pr.pdf)

I'd say that petrol profits are getting hammered, wouldn't you?

Is this trend exclusive to Walmart, or is it a part of the greater global economy as a whole?Walmart is worse than many other companies operating in similar circumstances, and is less willing to do something about it than many other companies.

We need to figure out a way to tax that evil retailer so that we can give those profits back to the people that need them -- the voters -- I mean the customers! No business should be allowed to make more money than the government.

That's hilarious. Give us more. You're better than Obama at being unintentionally funny.

Walmart: Single stop store for lazy people (all right, I admit, for some super-busy people too, but they are a minority of Walmart shoppers)

when shopping the most important factor for customers in convenience. Dont blame wall-mart for cashing in on peoples lazy choices. Blame the people for being lazy.

Wall-Mart after all is what people want. If you dont want it shop elsewhere