BP earns $6.53 Billion!
Hohn, with all due respect sir I would not be stealing form the Canadian people as you have led us to believe. It is not illegal for the Canadians to sell the cheaper drugs to us it is just illegal for us to go buy them....now you figure that out if you can.........What say
Jim
Jim
Originally Posted by Beamwalker
why dont we all protest with a million truck drive-off in d.c.? if they can do a million man march why not a million truck convoy
You'd never fit even 100K CTD on those roads, never mind 10x that.
Originally Posted by dezeldog
Hohn, with all due respect sir I would not be stealing form the Canadian people as you have led us to believe. It is not illegal for the Canadians to sell the cheaper drugs to us it is just illegal for us to go buy them....now you figure that out if you can.........What say
Jim
Jim
I meant "stealing" in a different sense. Maybe I should have said "free riding" or "defrauding".
To me, it's the same as the guy who buys an H2 for his "business" and writes it off. Hey, buddy-- we tax payers are SUBSIDIZING your gas-hog H2. You are stealing from taxpayers by using the writeoff loophole.
Originally Posted by t-7 firefighter
I posted this a few weeks ago.
From the Boston Herald:
“Oil companies came under new fire yesterday when it emerged that ExxonMobil's profits are likely to soar above $10 billion this quarter on the back of the fuel crisis. That's $110 million a day, and more net income than any company has ever made in a quarter.”
After they posted these numbers they apologized for not making more for their shareholders. 110 Million Dollars a day profit!
Now I completely agree with Jack, Lary, Hohn, and the others about making a profit in our great country. But at what point do we start considering it price gouging? It is almost to the point that you think big oil is just trying to see how much we are willing to put up with. Oil is not something that we can do without. Most of us here have to work and we have to drive our vehicles to the workplace. We really don't have many options. We have to drive to the store to buy our groceries, etc. Fuel is one of those commodities that we can’t do without. We can live without going to the movies, or going out to eat, or all of our T.V. channels on Sat. or cable, or even (heaven forbid) Internet service. But we can’t live without fuel. They have us over a barrel (pun intended) and they know it. Do I want government to step in? At this point I don’t know. The FTC is already starting to look into price gouging from the oil companies so we will have to see how that pans out. My experience with the government getting involved is that we will be worse off then we are now. Call it a catch 22.
This is just my take on things.
Britt

From the Boston Herald:
“Oil companies came under new fire yesterday when it emerged that ExxonMobil's profits are likely to soar above $10 billion this quarter on the back of the fuel crisis. That's $110 million a day, and more net income than any company has ever made in a quarter.”
After they posted these numbers they apologized for not making more for their shareholders. 110 Million Dollars a day profit!
Now I completely agree with Jack, Lary, Hohn, and the others about making a profit in our great country. But at what point do we start considering it price gouging? It is almost to the point that you think big oil is just trying to see how much we are willing to put up with. Oil is not something that we can do without. Most of us here have to work and we have to drive our vehicles to the workplace. We really don't have many options. We have to drive to the store to buy our groceries, etc. Fuel is one of those commodities that we can’t do without. We can live without going to the movies, or going out to eat, or all of our T.V. channels on Sat. or cable, or even (heaven forbid) Internet service. But we can’t live without fuel. They have us over a barrel (pun intended) and they know it. Do I want government to step in? At this point I don’t know. The FTC is already starting to look into price gouging from the oil companies so we will have to see how that pans out. My experience with the government getting involved is that we will be worse off then we are now. Call it a catch 22.
This is just my take on things.
Britt

It is a catch-22.
I tend to look at things a little simplistically in terms of economics. There is supply and there is demand-- period.
Therefore, the solution to many problems lies in changing supply and demand.
Take the "war on drugs." Making drugs illegal has done nothing to reduce drug use. Supply follows demand. The ONLY way to eliminate the drug problem is for the US to say as a nation that we won't use drugs. If the demand disappears, the problem goes away. So the source of the problem isn't drug dealers-- it's the demand for drugs. The dealers are simply supplying a market need (however immoral it may be), and quite profitably.
So now we go back to oil. What is the role of Gov't to be? What is the role of business?
I tend to think that businesses should be as loosely regulated as possible, because gov't regulation has a bad track record of making things worse, not better.
The oil companies are just meeting a market need. Just as the drug dealer are secondary to the drug demand, so are oil companies secondary to the demand for oil.
A key wrinkle here, though, is that oil is a global commodity, and reducing American oil demand does little to lower the price, because the price is based on WORLD supply.
But there are things the US gov't could, and should do to reduce overall consumption of oil in the US-- and it's not what they've done so far. CAFE and EPA stuff is going about it all wrong.
So here's my list of things that should be done:
1) Provide STRONG incentive to replace oil-heating systems with electric. We can make electricity any number of ways, but you can't make heating oil as many ways. The idea is to reduce/eliminate petroleum.
2) Setup massive wind farms in portions of the US that are sparsely populated. We just setup two wind turbines (just two) here in Cheyenne, WY, and [b]each one] generates 750KW of electricity. Now the whole state of WY has less than 500K people. Why can't we setup up hundreds of these turbines out in pasture land and cattle grazing fields?? WY is very windy, and there's no reason that this state ALONE could generate ALL of its own electricity from wind, with enough left over to power southern MT and northern CO.
3) Convert liquid fuels to renewable-- ethanol and biodiesel are suitable substitutes, with the only drawback to ethanol being you'll want a bigger fuel tank.
We cannot wean ourselves completely from petroleum, at least not yet. Petroleum is also used for things like plastics and cosmetics, and no easy replacement for it yet exists.
But the idea is NOT that we can reduce the world price of oil by reducing American demand. This won't work because we are not the only economy demanding oil.
Rather, the idea is to reduce the IMPACT of high oil prices on our critical infrastructure. We want to minimize American EXPOSURE and VULNERABILITY to high and volatile oil prices.
Unfortunately, the Gov't itself has tied its own prosperity to high oil consumption via fuel taxes. We use less fuel, the gov't gets less money.
Now, show me ANY bureacracy that's content to have LESS money????? Therefore, gov't bureaucracy ENCOURAGES HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION!!
What's wrong with this picture??
jmo
If I ever get enough money together to buy some land a couple of small windmills are going to be the first things that are set up. A friend of mine has one freakin windmill on his property in northern CO and it generates all of his electricity, even enough to heat his barn - the cows love that...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
banshee
Fuels / BioDiesel / Diesel Prices
53
Nov 19, 2005 10:02 AM
12PACK
Fuels / BioDiesel / Diesel Prices
4
Sep 8, 2005 07:01 AM



