MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Unit 5302 · 09-13-2005, 06:54 PM

So what? So what if big companies make big profits? That's not the point here. Capping profit is inherently against the concept of capitalism. So is the lack of competition, which in a capitalist environment can easily lead to corporate greed and price fixing.

The point is the profit has literally increased between 300%-600% since the merger of Exxon-Mobil. Their gas stations are not responsible for the dramatic increase in profitability.

Microsoft is a very poor example of a fine and upstanding company since they've been attacked in court and defeated for anti-trust violations. Even though I feel Microsoft has made it to its position largely by producing products very few people in the industry actually want or can compete with, growing their products and technology since the inception of the company.

On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil was created out of a merger between two giant corporations, allowed by the federal government despite significant risk to market competition.

I don't know why you keep attempting to go back to the inflation argument. It has almost nothing to do with my complaint. I'm not complaining about the price of oil or gas in itself. I'm complaining about the price of gas that is directly related to the profit the oil companies are making, which also throws out your argument about gas taxes. While profits would need to increase with inflation in order to continue the same adjusted profit, that's hardly reason for a 300-600% increase over the past few years or an 80% increase in the last reported quarter.

I maintain that oil companies do not raise prices to control consumption, and that any person making that argument is naive. I would also wager that the oil companies have not raised their profit component enough at any one period to discourage consumption as that may begin to impact their profitability curve.

Onto government regulation..... Our government, led by a president with huge ties to oil companies decided to give billions of dollars of new tax breaks to the industry. Our government allowed a merger to create the world's second largest oil company despite the great concern of many analysts and consumers. Our goverment hints at an investigation of gas prices, and suddenly prices plummet for a few days quieting the unrest as prices slowly edge back up. You raising this issue is a bit like a prosecutor objecting to an admission of guilt.

Don't get condescending with me. I'm not arguing that people that choose to live further from work shouldn't do so without considering the consequences. I live 3.5mi from my job and own two motorcycles which I use to commute frequently for a reason. Okay, I admit, I own the motorcycles for recreational purposes, but I have begun commuting much more frequently with them because it's so much cheaper.

I realize $100/mo may mean little to the majority, but it does mean something to quite a few people that aren't just making minimum wage or working part time. I'm sure a lot of people that are significantly impacted by the price of fuel are thinking "If I buy another car, that'll fix my budget issue." What do you suppose the average household making $40-60k/yr has for expendible income at the end of the month? Most people I work with have household incomes of around $80k/yr or so. From their net paychecks probably 35% is used to pay for the mortgage, 15% is used to pay for childcare, 15% goes for the car payment, 15% pays for food, leaving 20% of their maybe $52k take home for all other payments. By the time all the bills are paid, that $100 change may be a 10% impact on expendible income. Now, that being said, my model is probably a little conservative with more money being left over, but not every family makes $80k/yr.

Love the shareholder argument. Tell me what percentage of people can invest in a natural resources portfolio within their 401k plan? Seriously. How many average middle class or lower income people have investments in traditionally risky companies? Exxon-Mobil is buying back $5 billion of stock per quarter, and that where the stock is. The company, its employees and especially its high level executives. Of course, there are also a lot of very wealthy shareholders that also like the stock to go up. Few shareholders are middle class non-employee's.

I'm not sure why you were coming after me. My problem is not necessarily with the points MEDIK418 made, but rather with the points he didn't make. He addressed that in his last post, and I'm satisfied.

As for your points, I don't see as they are necessarily relevent to my complaint or even correct under close examination.

09-13-2005, 06:54 PM	#46
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Re: Fuel Prices So what? So what if big companies make big profits? That's not the point here. Capping profit is inherently against the concept of capitalism. So is the lack of competition, which in a capitalist environment can easily lead to corporate greed and price fixing. The point is the profit has literally increased between 300%-600% since the merger of Exxon-Mobil. Their gas stations are not responsible for the dramatic increase in profitability. Microsoft is a very poor example of a fine and upstanding company since they've been attacked in court and defeated for anti-trust violations. Even though I feel Microsoft has made it to its position largely by producing products very few people in the industry actually want or can compete with, growing their products and technology since the inception of the company. On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil was created out of a merger between two giant corporations, allowed by the federal government despite significant risk to market competition. I don't know why you keep attempting to go back to the inflation argument. It has almost nothing to do with my complaint. I'm not complaining about the price of oil or gas in itself. I'm complaining about the price of gas that is directly related to the profit the oil companies are making, which also throws out your argument about gas taxes. While profits would need to increase with inflation in order to continue the same adjusted profit, that's hardly reason for a 300-600% increase over the past few years or an 80% increase in the last reported quarter. I maintain that oil companies do not raise prices to control consumption, and that any person making that argument is naive. I would also wager that the oil companies have not raised their profit component enough at any one period to discourage consumption as that may begin to impact their profitability curve. Onto government regulation..... Our government, led by a president with huge ties to oil companies decided to give billions of dollars of new tax breaks to the industry. Our government allowed a merger to create the world's second largest oil company despite the great concern of many analysts and consumers. Our goverment hints at an investigation of gas prices, and suddenly prices plummet for a few days quieting the unrest as prices slowly edge back up. You raising this issue is a bit like a prosecutor objecting to an admission of guilt. Don't get condescending with me. I'm not arguing that people that choose to live further from work shouldn't do so without considering the consequences. I live 3.5mi from my job and own two motorcycles which I use to commute frequently for a reason. Okay, I admit, I own the motorcycles for recreational purposes, but I have begun commuting much more frequently with them because it's so much cheaper. I realize $100/mo may mean little to the majority, but it does mean something to quite a few people that aren't just making minimum wage or working part time. I'm sure a lot of people that are significantly impacted by the price of fuel are thinking "If I buy another car, that'll fix my budget issue." What do you suppose the average household making $40-60k/yr has for expendible income at the end of the month? Most people I work with have household incomes of around $80k/yr or so. From their net paychecks probably 35% is used to pay for the mortgage, 15% is used to pay for childcare, 15% goes for the car payment, 15% pays for food, leaving 20% of their maybe $52k take home for all other payments. By the time all the bills are paid, that $100 change may be a 10% impact on expendible income. Now, that being said, my model is probably a little conservative with more money being left over, but not every family makes $80k/yr. Love the shareholder argument. Tell me what percentage of people can invest in a natural resources portfolio within their 401k plan? Seriously. How many average middle class or lower income people have investments in traditionally risky companies? Exxon-Mobil is buying back $5 billion of stock per quarter, and that where the stock is. The company, its employees and especially its high level executives. Of course, there are also a lot of very wealthy shareholders that also like the stock to go up. Few shareholders are middle class non-employee's. I'm not sure why you were coming after me. My problem is not necessarily with the points MEDIK418 made, but rather with the points he didn't make. He addressed that in his last post, and I'm satisfied. As for your points, I don't see as they are necessarily relevent to my complaint or even correct under close examination.