Obama


Swatguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Now below I will add enough to make sense to a third grader since you can't grasp the 4th grade level.

Company A would have needed $110 million of revenue to turn a $10,000,000 profit

Company B would only need $60 million in revenue to turn the same $10,000,000 profit.

So is profit still profit diesel ? You can't pretend to act like you know what your talking about after a statement such as that.

Coach you make my point for me. Profit is still profit.

Instead of company A and Company B... Let's say Company A in 2008 and Company A in 2004.

As you note, in both cases, Company A makes 10 million dollars. That's the profit.

However, the revenues required to make the 10 million dollars change.

My point was that if you are making the same amount of profit as you were before, then you are sticking it to the consumer.

Well, by your example... The company has to make nearly twice as much revenue to maintain the same profit.

However, for Oil companies today... They are not making even profits as before (I misspoke). They are making Record Profits (as I showed in the previous Post).

So now the example changes to this:

Company A in 2008 would have needed $220 million of revenue to turn a $20,000,000 profit

Company A in 2004 would only need $60 million in revenue to turn the same $10,000,000 profit.

Do you get it yet Coach. Profit is still profit. It's still the amount your bring home after the expenses. In a sagging economy for a company to be making record profits, it means that they are sticking it to the consumer. There's no way around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Quote:


Diesel don't try to pretend like you understand the gas crises by just saying saying don't tell me something funny is not going on. Read this and learn something.

The global economy is what is driving up the price of gas and not America or its politicians.

1.) Its also the big banks buying "futures" in oil by the barrell. This where the price of oil today is $145 a barrell. A bank may buy "futures" in gas at $170 a barrell. Then my no coincidence this same bank will come out with a high projections of where they estimate oil will go up to $200 barrell in an attempt to drive up the price. They do this b/c every dollar oil goes up over $170 a barrell is profit to them since they have a locked in price at $170/barrell but if oil prices stay steady or go down they loose ALOT of money and whoever made that buy on "futures" is fired. This is why banks are constantly over stating their projections of oil by the barrell. (Banks are also at fault in large part for the housing crisis but I will cover that another day, this is a sports forum after all.)

2.) Now back to the global economy / oil:

Just 5 years ago India, South America, Africa, and China were not using nearly the amount of gas they use now. Global demand has shot through the roof while he supply has remained steady / this is just Economics 101. With a global economy its the rest of the world's growing energy needs that are driving the prices up. The USA is just a blimp on the screen. America is not the center of the universe and we cannot control everything in a global economy...though many Americans think we do.

This is why it is essential that we harvest our own oil off the coast of Florida and in Alaska. Too bad the democrats voted against us being able to this 50-200 miles off the coast. It failed 9 votes to 6 in order to go to the House floor where all Reps would vote. Funny how the 9 no's were all democrats and the 6 yes votes were from Republicans. If you don't like this please write your local representative.

3.) Sure we need to invest in finding alternate energy as both McCain and Obama say repeatedly but that "new" source is 20 years away minimum. What about right now ?

Go ahead and start building some more refiners in the good ole USA and lets use some of our own oil. Then in 20 years hopefully all the research for new energy sources pays off.

4.) BTW:

The cost of refining gas could be greatly reduced if we did not have to refine oi to 87 octane, 89 octane, 92 octane, 93 octane, etc.

Limit it to 2 types, 87 octane and 93 octane for example. This would greatly reduce the cost of refining oil.

5.) BTW: New energy supplies will be found by the country's most gifted students. Do you all realize that the public school systems shells out $5 in special education programs to every $1 when compared to gifted programs...a 5/1 ratio is unacceptable and we wonder why families struggle to send save money to send their kids to private schools........This should be especially upsetting to the families who CAN'T afford pvt schools b/c if your child is indeed gifted they will not get what they need in the public school system...........Where are this country's great thinkers of the future going to come from if we are more interested in letting "handicapped" children know their ABC's and get high school diplomas that mean nothing other then making them feel better about themselves then helping the best students America has to offer the necessary assets to reach their potential. We constantly hear how Asia and Europes gifted studensts out perform our own. This should not be a secret why. Asia and Europe poor money and special treatment to their gifted students where is America is more concerned with the sports players and handicapped kids then the kid's with the best minds. America needs to wake up and forget about all this political correctness and make the choices that make practical sense. America is doing itself a diservice to our country's future. (My little brother is a special education teacher so I know all about his side of the discussion but a $5/ $1 dissparity is simply unacceptable.

I am by no means an expert or a professional economist (just took some business classes like many of you have and love to study stocks, investments, and the global market almost as much as sports). So many poster's want to throw in their 2 cents.....I hope this helps some of you see the big picture. After all, forming and opinion without much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

First point: Global Economy. I agree that some of the oil prices are driven up by the global markets. IN fact, the Group of 8 bargained with the arabs so that China and India would get reduced Oil prices. Last I checked, when we were paying $128 per barrel They were paying $80. The reason is because their economies are in shock.

2nd point: Democratic Slur. First off you said that the Democrats help up drilling off the coast of Fla?? That's a joke right? Originally it was JEB BUSH then Charlie Crist who has held up drilling off the coast of Fl. They have made the case that tourism might suffer if there's an accident.

Moreover,

Quote:


More than 20 states have requirements for converting a portion of their electricity production to renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or biomass. Most set deadlines that kick in several years from now, but some are already reducing greenhouse gases and replacing foreign energy supplies.

Take Texas, where a modest renewable electricity requirement in 1999 helped spawn a robust wind energy industry, in part by reassuring investors that if they sank money into wind turbines, there'd be a market for them. It's a good example of the government setting a goal and private enterprise figuring out how to get there.

It's curious, then, that the same guy who signed that bill as governor of Texas — George W. Bush — is now the enemy of a plan that would impose a similar requirement across the USA.

Opposition from Bush and Senate Republicans has thwarted a House-passed plan that would require utilities to produce as much as 15% of the nation's electricity by 2020 with renewables.
That sort of mandate made sense when Bush signed the Texas plan, and it makes even more sense eight years later, when the nation's energy and global warming problems are just that much worse.

Utilities produce almost three-quarters of the nation's electricity with fuels that generate greenhouse gas emissions — coal, natural gas and oil. That's reason enough to argue for aggressive change, but there's a national security issue as well. Natural gas generates 20% of the nation's electricity, and the USA is running short. There are plans to begin importing liquefied natural gas from some of the same countries that use their huge oil earnings to finance terrorism and oppose U.S. political efforts.

Go figure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesel, we simply speak different languages. Go tell your financial advisor that "profit is profit" and that you want to invest your life earnings without even looking at profit margin and see if he can hold back laughing in your face. If you are hell bent on argueing that the sky is green type of stuff I will not stop here since we will just go in circles.

On what Jed Bush and other Florida politricians did was in their state's best interest at that time. Florida's #1 industry is tourism and it's their govenor's and elected officials job to protect Florida's interest first. At this time gas was MUCH lower then it is now. We are now under different set of circumstances. The fact that elected officials from FLA. were against drilling off their shores to protect the revenue they get from tourism should be a suprise to no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't seen a good rationele to do offshore drilling when there are no real benefits to the US in general.

Drilling certainly will payoff for those who own the rights, but in terms of economic advantage for the US there really is none. In fact, the argument could be made that drilling carries high costs for the US in general in that

1) increases the chance of an oil spill. The clean up costs for the spill in that case would exceed the general benefit of the added oil (add in tourism, acutal clean up, ecological damage and repairs, etc.)

2) The oil will not come on line for a decade for the offshore drilling, thus no immediate relief to fuel pricees

3) The added oil would not offset prices in 10 years, and even if it does its a 2-6 cents reduction in cost, which, again would be wiped out by a single oil spill.

From a risk management perspective offshore drilling is not the best way to go when we could use those same dollars to continue to invest in better technologies and/or get more fuel efficient cars on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Previously you said:

Quote:


This is why it is essential that we harvest our own oil off the coast of Florida and in Alaska. Too bad the democrats voted against us being able to this 50-200 miles off the coast. It failed 9 votes to 6 in order to go to the House floor where all Reps would vote. Funny how the 9 no's were all democrats and the 6 yes votes were from Republicans. If you don't like this please write your local representative.

However, upon hearing that it was Jeb Bush, George Bush and the Rupublican Machine making the call to protect Florida's coast... you say...

Quote:


On what Jed Bush and other Florida politricians did was in their state's best interest at that time. Florida's #1 industry is tourism and it's their govenor's and elected officials job to protect Florida's interest first. At this time gas was MUCH lower then it is now. We are now under different set of circumstances. The fact that elected officials from FLA. were against drilling off their shores to protect the revenue they get from tourism should be a suprise to no one.

Here's the problem coach. Either it's a good thing to do or not. It shouldn't matter if it's democrat or republican idea. It's either good or not. You're too busy trying to defend republicans that you look flip floppy like KB in your defense.

I don't have a problem drilling in our own markets... However, as Frosgrim states, at least for Alaska, there's going to be no quick relief. Experts have stated this too. My thing is that we should stop banning those scientific breakthroughs that would limit our dependence on oil. As far as drilling goes... What about the other 68 million acres of land and water that big oil has not developed for drilling? McCain needs talking points and this talking point about lifting the ban is a farce. First off before you start talking Democrat, Democrat Let me tell you... I'm a moderate. 2nd off, the ban on drilling were placed there by Daddy Bush not by congress alone. Third off, Big Oil companies have stopped the building of refineries and the development of leased land that it already has. That is why I say there should be a federal oil company who would developed leased land, who would build refineries and who could compete with "Big Oil" companies. Somebody who could keep a standard because I believe that Big Oil has placed itself in a situation where it has to make the price of gas higher...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


I still haven't seen a good rationele to do offshore drilling when there are no real benefits to the US in general.

Drilling certainly will payoff for those who own the rights, but in terms of economic advantage for the US there really is none. In fact, the argument could be made that drilling carries high costs for the US in general in that

1) increases the chance of an oil spill. The clean up costs for the spill in that case would exceed the general benefit of the added oil (add in tourism, acutal clean up, ecological damage and repairs, etc.)

2) The oil will not come on line for a decade for the offshore drilling, thus no immediate relief to fuel pricees

3) The added oil would not offset prices in 10 years, and even if it does its a 2-6 cents reduction in cost, which, again would be wiped out by a single oil spill.

From a risk management perspective offshore drilling is not the best way to go when we could use those same dollars to continue to invest in better technologies and/or get more fuel efficient cars on the road.

Frosgrim, I agree here. The better technologies must be developed.

Fuel Cells have been around since 1955. We have not developed that Technology.

Biofuels have been capable since the 70s.

Not to mention, liquified coal, Oil Shale, Oil Sands, Tar Sands, and even Methane...

We are not developing ANY of THAT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:


We are not developing ANY of THAT...

Who is the "We" that you are referring to? There are scientists developing numerous ways of alternative fuel every day so I'm really not sure who you are talking about here. Over the past few years we have seen cars go into production that run primarily on ethanol, cars that run on batteries, and it won't be too long until you see cars running on water as contrary to your belief these already exist and ARE being developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue with alternative fuels/technologies is that they are woefully underfunded. In fact, funding has declined over the past 20 years. Right now about .02% of GNP is spent on alternative fuel sources. That figure needs to go up to around 2% of GNP to meet fuel needs by 2050 (this is according to Sachs and a couple of other publications that I have seen).

Ultimately, we can find those alternatives relatively easily. Its this transition period that is going to be critical (2008-2030/2040). Something will have to be done about fuel prices or inflation will go hog wild and we'll see a global melt down socialy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that something has to be done about it, but I don't believe alternative fuels are the answer as it will be a while before the technology will be readily available and even more so before people are able to sell their vehicles and buy news one that run on alternative fuels. To be honest I'm not sure what that answer is, but someway somehow the price for gasoline and diesel has to come down or you're right we are headed for a massive problem that will continue to affect the global economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Quote:


I agree that something has to be done about it, but I don't believe alternative fuels are the answer as it will be a while before the technology will be readily available and even more so before people are able to sell their vehicles and buy news one that run on alternative fuels.

To answer your question earlier in the thread... This is the we are not developing any of that that I'm talking about. I don't think we are that far off from developing alternative fuels... it just needs funding. Brazil using fuel from Sugar cane right now. Are we really behind Brazil in technology? This perfect storm that Oil companies find themselves "victims" of is not a natural one at all. It was manufactured. Manufactured by our failure to build new refineries. Manufactured by our failure to build new Nuclear plants. Manufactured by our failure to build refineries for Oil Shale, Oil Sand, and Tar Sand. Manufactured by our failure to promote Fuel Cells for the last 63 years. Manufactured by our failure to wait until now to start talking about clean energy sources. Manufactured by our failure to keep healthy relations with countries like Venezuela. Manufactured by our failure to create a fair deal when leasing to the Alyeska consortium.

It's stupid. We give a 30 year lease to the oil companies. They are pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons a day... Where's that oil going. Dol, you will find one that the oil companies are loading up their coffers.. And are leveraging the World Economy in order to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is how I see this thread.

Coachx- is defending Republicans and defending any propositions made against his party alone with others who believe in the same ideals.

Diesel- He is doing the same but with defending democrats and both are trying to outsmart each other but either has yet to accomplish that. Just like coachx, has a group of ppl who agree with him and are backing him.

To me, this thread is really dumb. Either one of you would really agree with the other and both of you have your minds made up on who your voting for and neither of you have showed enough necessary info to prove the other wrong and make ppl swinging the fence choose a side. This thread is total nonsense from my view of this thread.

I’m an Independent. I have no side I favor more then the other. I do favor one candidate over the other but only people who know that is my closest friends, my family, and my girl. As for this argument, I see what both sides are saying. Both are using a defense mechanisms over just explaining the facts and both think their right and is/are smarter then the person their arguing against.

EDIT: I stopped reading the thread after coachx last post. I did not see that the thread has move to oil and alternative production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Oh dear God Diesel you are such an articulate bs'er. I'll give you credit for that. Maybe one day you'll have your society where people like me will be rounded up by the imperial federal government, have our eyelids help open while we're brainwashed out of our individuality so we'll be good little workers for the system rather than free individuals who can create their own state of well being. You keep wishing for your society where everyone is a government subject. There is a reason why America rose to being the world's superpower and it's economic freedom. Democrats and republicans alike are taking that freedom away, slowly but surely. Remember when Bush proposed privatizing a small portion of social security(a system that is a train wreck)? The ignorant masses didn't want the responsibility. They didn't want to have the burden of caring for themselves. They just want the government to take care of them. Even though the evidence in incontrovertible that private investing, historically, will net much much higher returns than what people will receive with social security investments. Are you that person Diesel? Do you want a society where the government takes care of people from cradle to grave? Do you want bigger government? Do you really believe that the upper class, generally speaking, don't work hard for their wealth? Do you think that the poor in this country are, generally, poor because of no fault of their own? Do you refuse to believe there are many people who will vote for politicians simply because they promise to take money from high income earners to redistribute it to them if they'll just give them their vote? Are you that guy?

Oh and kudos to you for your subtle attachment once again to me and racism. You win the childish race card mvp again for that one. And I don't post under 2 names here either. Check with the mods if you want to.

Nice avatar, Mayor Campbell f'd up and he is where he belongs. One more thing, please don't say that stupid race card crap again. Leave that trash to ppl like former Congresswoman McKinney and others like her. I just hate that crap, it in reality makes you look bad for saying it. For goodness sakes, keep it to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

I still haven't seen a good rationele to do offshore drilling when there are no real benefits to the US in general.

Drilling certainly will payoff for those who own the rights, but in terms of economic advantage for the US there really is none. In fact, the argument could be made that drilling carries high costs for the US in general in that

1) increases the chance of an oil spill. The clean up costs for the spill in that case would exceed the general benefit of the added oil (add in tourism, acutal clean up, ecological damage and repairs, etc.)

2) The oil will not come on line for a decade for the offshore drilling, thus no immediate relief to fuel pricees

3) The added oil would not offset prices in 10 years, and even if it does its a 2-6 cents reduction in cost, which, again would be wiped out by a single oil spill.

From a risk management perspective offshore drilling is not the best way to go when we could use those same dollars to continue to invest in better technologies and/or get more fuel efficient cars on the road.

Frosgrim does it again, great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.