In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



Then include more oil burned for electric power.....

How much oil is burned for power? Most of those plants are natural
gas, which isn't an oil product.

"Carl Swanson" wrote in message
et...
VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
"OneTwoThree" wrote in crayon...

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:25 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Bull****

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNU7VU217.DTL



The oil company executives contended that their record profits last
year were in line with other industries, noting that oil and gas
companies earned an average of 8.3 cents per dollar of sales, compared
with 7.8 cents per dollar for the Dow Jones average.

the story is sadly lacking in analysis. for example, is that 8.3 cents
the net profit? let's say it is. what was the net a year ago? two years
ago?

Curious George doesn't analyze anything. He just goes off on knee jerk
rants.

I am guessing but confident that the oil company net has no where near
increased at the rate that the retail price of gasoline has, or more
accurately, at the rate that the cost of a barrel of oil has.

Crude and taxes affect gasoline prices. Profit margins haven't changed
much in the last few years.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1/b3934114.htm




The biggest profit-margin gains came in two comparatively low-margin
sectors: energy and materials, which continue to benefit from supersized
jumps in oil and commodity prices. Oil prices hanging above $50 per barrel
and the world's insatiable appetite for energy pushed the profit margin
for that industry up to 9.1%, from 7.5% for the first quarter of 2004.
Total earnings surged 50% over the period. Materials companies did energy
one better: Higher metal and timber prices led margins to widen by 2.6
percentage points, to 6.3%, as profits jumped 103%.


very good reading, as is usually the case with business week - however - the
article is close to 3 years old.

hey wait - I thought the economy was in the toilet 3 years ago. that's what
the leftist anti Bush loons were saying, anyway.....




http://www.reuters.com/article/reute...22168020070504


this one year old Reuters article is pretty shallow on the face of it. it is
speculative, and gives no indication as to the basis of the speculation.






"The profit outlook is incredible, the refinery margins are significantly
higher than last year or the past three years," Fadel Gheit, an analyst
with Oppenheimer& Co., told Reuters.

"It would be safe to say that if margins don't collapse from here, the
refiners will probably do 20 to 30 percent higher profits this year than
last year," added Gheit


In all the posts in this thread no one has presented any proof the oil
companies are gouging. Government makes twice the profit margin on a
gallon of gas than the oil companies themselves. Good luck in having
the Feds investigate the gouging done by government.
-

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



Then include more oil burned for electric power.....

How much oil is burned for power? Most of those plants are natural
gas, which isn't an oil product.


1.6% of all electric power,in 2006
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epa_sum.html

I know it's a very small amount relative to the other fossil fuel power
sources,but it's still using petroleum.

(due to EPA regs,many oil-fired plants are converting to natural gas.)

here's the breakdown of fossil fuel use by type;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epat4p1.html

In addition,oil[diesel-electric trains] is also used to transport coal for
electric power generation...I don't know if that's included in the figures
for oil-fired generators. ;-)


I vote for more nuclear power plants,drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of
Mexico.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 10:12 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Jesse" wrote in message

news:[email protected]...



Elsewhere on Tuesday, many independent truckers parked their rigs and
others slowed to a crawl on highways to protest high fuel prices.

Wasting fuel to protest high fuel prices. Genius!
An to be sure the parkers were running those engines to keep amused and
warm.

Maybe I'm missing something, but truckers have been charging a fuel
surcharge for a few years now. Where is that money going? The purpose of
the surcharge is to cover the high fuel costs.

Yeah, you are missing something. Can you say "indepenent truckers"???


I certainly can, and I certainly see a lot of freight bills from the
independent truckers with the fuel surcharge. I'm paying it so they should
have the money to buy fuel. Sure, there may be some lag from pump increase
to actual surcharge change, but change they do.

Our local carrier does the same thing. He buys fuel in bulk (usually once a
month) and applies the surcharge accordingly. He does it to cover costs and
he is not hurting from the fuel cost for that reason.

"NotMe" wrote in message
Shippers, not truckers have been applying a surcharge. Little if any is
getting to the independents.

We use a lot of independents. Every one of them has a fuel surcharge. So,
where is the money.?

"neoconis_ignoramus" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 1:01 pm, David Hartung wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:32 am, "OneTwoThree" wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message

y.net...

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:25 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.
Bull****
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/04/02/MNU7VU...
The oil company executives contended that their record profits last
year
were in line with other industries, noting that oil and gas companies
earned an average of 8.3 cents per dollar of sales, compared with 7.8
cents per dollar for the Dow Jones average.
the story is sadly lacking in analysis. for example, is that 8.3 cents
the
net profit? let's say it is. what was the net a year ago? two years
ago?

I am guessing but confident that the oil company net has no where near
increased at the rate that the retail price of gasoline has, or more
accurately, at the rate that the cost of a barrel of oil has.

.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd be guessing wrong, but hey, that's what you and your slobbering
con friends are good at.

XOM's net income and profit margins over the last 10 years below.
Notice anything, nitwit? That's riiiggghht - a player in a mature,
purportedly competitive industry has managed to doulbe its profit
margin in 10 years.

Do tell us how a restrictive exploration / drilling policy is holding
XOM back again? I need some good laughs.

Year Net Inc. Margin
1998 6,370 5.41%
1999 7,910 4.26%
2000 17,720 7.61%
2001 15,320 7.18%
2002 11,460 5.60%
2003 21,510 8.72%
2004 25,330 8.50%
2005 36,130 9.75%
2006 39,500 10.46%
2007 40,610 10.04%

Where did you get this information?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Available anywhere. Try Morningstar.com

I'm sorry, but if the information and facts do not agree with the bias of
the uninformed person, it is invalid, false, and irrelevant.

Steve ;-)

"VRWC Destruction Machine" wrote in message
...
wrote in crayon...

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:25 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it over
a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.


Bull****

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Your link gives incomplete estimates b because it leaves out other
costs.

For California it gives:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html

Other taxes include a 6% state sales tax and 1.25% county, plus
additional local sales taxes and 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee.

Actual costs Gallon of Gas (California) for March 31, 2008:

Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.06
Crude Oil Cost $2.42
Refinery Cost and Profits $0.48
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.01
State and Local Sales Tax $0.27
State Excise Tax $0.18
Federal Excise Tax $0.18

Retail price $3.61
Net Profit $0.49

Profit Margin 13.5%

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

I knew someone would pick nits on a state to state basis. The original
premise still stands. Oil companies do not make as much as governments do
on petroleum products. They just do all the work. And take all the risks.

Steve

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
|
| "NotMe" wrote in message
| Shippers, not truckers have been applying a surcharge. Little if any is
| getting to the independents.
|
| We use a lot of independents. Every one of them has a fuel surcharge. So,
| where is the money.?

By independents are you talking owner/operators or independent trucking
companies?

My sample is admittedly small (and may not be representative) but none of
the owner operators I know personally are seeing any of the surcharge.

"OneTwoThree" wrote


its interesting looking at the numbers closely. my question to you is
this: does that 49 cents net profit include the profit of the retail gas
seller? my quick work on the calculator indicate that the 49 cent number
includes profits of several entities along the way. so the 13.5% margin is
not what goes into the "oil company" pocket, but into several different
pockets.


The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have 10,000
gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer Karsfarkistan,
and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though the ten thousand
gallons in the ground were bought at the pre Karsfarkistan War price. But,
nonetheless, the price immediately goes up a quarter. Now, peace is
declared in Outer Karsfarkistan, and it still takes three months for the
price to ratchet down. A little.

Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp charges no
matter how cheap they bought the gas.

Steve

"NotMe" wrote in message

By independents are you talking owner/operators or independent trucking
companies?

My sample is admittedly small (and may not be representative) but none of
the owner operators I know personally are seeing any of the surcharge.



We use both, but I'm referring to the owner/operator, the guy that pays the
fuel bill. I'll have to ask them to be sure they are getting the money we
are paying and not the brokers.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



Then include more oil burned for electric power.....

How much oil is burned for power? Most of those plants are natural
gas, which isn't an oil product.


1.6% of all electric power,in 2006
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...a/epa_sum.html
Thanks. Interesting.

In article ,
"SteveB" wrote:

I'm sorry, but if the information and facts do not agree with the bias of
the uninformed person, it is invalid, false, and irrelevant.

Steve ;-)

Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on

an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.

Stolen from Billo in misc.writing

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"NotMe" wrote in message
Shippers, not truckers have been applying a surcharge. Little if any is
getting to the independents.

We use a lot of independents. Every one of them has a fuel surcharge. So,
where is the money.?

There was a rather interesting thing on 20/20 or one of the similar
shows about how the brokers are getting the fuel surcharge and then
keeping it instead of sending it along to the truckers. Sorta surprised
no one has sued over that.
O

SteveB wrote:

The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have
10,000 gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
Karsfarkistan War price. But, nonetheless, the price immediately
goes up a quarter. Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. A
little.
Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.


In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
pricing works for commodities.

First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's tank,
or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the market.

Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses and
two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the sale
for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to take in
$6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.

The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one of
his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50 cents
gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to sell
that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!

Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
replacement cost of the raw materials.

"Kurt Ullman"

| Shippers, not truckers have been applying a surcharge. Little if any
is
| getting to the independents.
|
| We use a lot of independents. Every one of them has a fuel surcharge.
So,
| where is the money.?
|
| There was a rather interesting thing on 20/20 or one of the similar
| shows about how the brokers are getting the fuel surcharge and then
| keeping it instead of sending it along to the truckers. Sorta surprised
| no one has sued over that.

Don't file suit and you get the short end of the stick. File suit and get
beaten with the stick (i.e. no jobs)

As to the oil companies maintaining 'it's not our fault' reminds me of many
of the pronouncements of the ENRON bunch.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 10:12 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Jesse" wrote in message

news:[email protected]...



Elsewhere on Tuesday, many independent truckers parked their rigs and
others slowed to a crawl on highways to protest high fuel prices.

Wasting fuel to protest high fuel prices. Genius!
An to be sure the parkers were running those engines to keep amused and
warm.

Maybe I'm missing something, but truckers have been charging a fuel
surcharge for a few years now. Where is that money going? The purpose of
the surcharge is to cover the high fuel costs.

Yeah, you are missing something. Can you say "indepenent truckers"???


I certainly can, and I certainly see a lot of freight bills from the
independent truckers with the fuel surcharge. I'm paying it so they
should have the money to buy fuel. Sure, there may be some lag from pump
increase to actual surcharge change, but change they do.

Our local carrier does the same thing. He buys fuel in bulk (usually once
a month) and applies the surcharge accordingly. He does it to cover costs
and he is not hurting from the fuel cost for that reason.

WHAT! THE IDEA OF IT ALL. CHARGING A SURCHARGE FOR FUEL! AREN'T THESE
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS TO HELP PEOPLE?

Steve ;-)

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"NotMe" wrote in message

By independents are you talking owner/operators or independent trucking
companies?

My sample is admittedly small (and may not be representative) but none of
the owner operators I know personally are seeing any of the surcharge.



We use both, but I'm referring to the owner/operator, the guy that pays
the fuel bill. I'll have to ask them to be sure they are getting the
money we are paying and not the brokers.

All of mine just say, "Do you want the shipment or don't you? I'm busy."

Steve

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
| SteveB wrote:
|
| The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have
| 10,000 gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
| Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
| the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
| Karsfarkistan War price. But, nonetheless, the price immediately
| goes up a quarter. Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
| and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. A
| little.
| Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
| gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
| charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.
|
|
| In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
| pricing works for commodities.
|
| First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's tank,
| or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the
market.
|
| Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
| expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses
and
| two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the sale
| for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to take
in
| $6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.
|
| The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one of
| his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50
cents
| gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to
sell
| that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!
|
| Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
| replacement cost of the raw materials.

I'm reminded of the fuel shortages of the '70s. No fuel at $n but the next
day lots of fuel at $n+x. (even with price controls)

And don't kid yourself there was LOTS of fuel in the '70s to the point were
there was no place else to store it.

wrote in message
...
Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Don't blame us, oil industry chiefs told a skeptical
Congress. Top executives of the country's five biggest oil companies
said Tuesday they know record fuel prices are hurting people, but they
argued it's not their fault and their huge profits are in line with
other industries.
ADVERTISEMENT

Appearing before a House committee, the executives were pressed to
explain why they should continue to get billions of dollars in tax
breaks when they made $123 billion last year and motorists are paying
record gasoline prices at the pump.

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

"We depend on high earnings during the up cycle to sustain ...
investment over the long term, including the down cycles," he
continued.

The up cycle has been going on too long, suggested Rep. Emanuel
Cleaver, D-Mo. "The anger level is rising significantly."

Alluding to the fact that Congress often doesn't rate very high in
opinion polls, Cleaver told the executives: "Your approval rating is
lower than ours, and that means you're down low."

Several lawmakers noted the rising price of gasoline at the pump, now
averaging $3.29 a gallon amid talk of $4 a gallon this summer.

"I heard what you are hearing. Americans are very worried about the
rising price of energy," said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil
Co., echoing remarks by the other four executives including
representatives of BP America Inc., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips.

While Democrats hammered the executives for their profits and demanded
they do more to develop alternative energy sources such as wind, solar
and biofuels, Republican lawmakers called for opening more areas for
drilling to boost domestic production of oil and gas.

What would bring lower prices? asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican

"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone,
chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's
coastal waters are off limits to drilling.

But Markey wanted to know why the companies aren't investing more in
energy projects other than oil and gas -- or giving up some tax breaks
so the money could be directed to promote renewable fuels and
conservation and take pressure off oil and gas supplies.

"Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable revolution," asked Markey,
noting that the other four companies together have invested $3.5
billion in solar, wind and biodiesel projects.

Exxon is spending $100 million on research into climate change at
Stanford University, replied Simon, but current alternative energy
technologies "just do not have an appreciable impact" in addressing
"the challenge we're trying to meet."

The appearance Tuesday before the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming was not the first time that oil
executives had faced the harsh words of a lawmakers frustrated over
their inability to do anything about soaring oil and gasoline costs.

In November 2005, executives of the same companies sought to explain
high energy costs at a Senate hearing at which Hofmeister emphasized
the cyclical nature of his industry. "What goes up almost always comes
down," he told the senators on a day when oil cost $60 a barrel.

About six months later, the executives were grilled again on Capitol
Hill when a barrel of oil cost $75. As the three-hour House hearing
came to a close Tuesday, the price of oil settled at just over $100 a
barrel on the New York exchange.

"We face a new reality, volatility, high prices, greater competition
for resources," said Peter Robertson, vice president of Chevron Corp.,
adding that he understands that "Americans see the pain" of $100-a-
barrel oil.

Markey challenged the executives to pledge to invest 10 percent of
their profits to develop renewable energy and give up $18 billion in
tax breaks over 10 years so money could be funneled to support other
energy and conservation.

They responded that their companies already are spending on
alternative energy projects and argued that new taxes would dampen
investment and could lead to even higher prices.

"Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already
pay record taxes, will discourage the sustained investment needed to
continue safeguarding U.S. energy security," said Simon. He said over
the past five years Exxon Mobil's U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S.
earnings by $19 billion.

Markey was not impressed.

"These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies ... while
reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last
year alone," he said. The companies are reaping "a windfall of
revenue" while poor people have to choose between heating and eating
because of high energy prices.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, many independent truckers parked their rigs and
others slowed to a crawl on highways to protest high fuel prices. The
demonstrations were only scattered, but long lines of trucks were
moving at about 20 mph on the New Jersey Turnpike, and three drivers
were ticketed for impeding traffic on Interstate 55 outside Chicago,
driving three abreast at low speeds.



Sure, even a murder said its' not his/her fault..

George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve


So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

"SteveB" wrote in message

All of mine just say, "Do you want the shipment or don't you? I'm busy."

Steve

Tim, from the broker we use just told me of a potential customer asking for
a rate and it was $900. They asked if he could do better since Brand X was
only $700. He said, "then use Brand X" The reply, of course, was "but they
don't have any trucks available."

We're in luck most of the time shipping outbound from New England. Rates
are much cheaper than inbound the same distance. Going south to Virginia or
NC I can still get about $1000. Coming north from the same locations it is
about $1800. Comes down to supply and demand as there is not as much
freight moving out as in to the Boston area

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" wrote in message

All of mine just say, "Do you want the shipment or don't you? I'm busy."

Steve

Tim, from the broker we use just told me of a potential customer asking
for a rate and it was $900. They asked if he could do better since Brand
X was only $700. He said, "then use Brand X" The reply, of course, was
"but they don't have any trucks available."

We're in luck most of the time shipping outbound from New England. Rates
are much cheaper than inbound the same distance. Going south to Virginia
or NC I can still get about $1000. Coming north from the same locations
it is about $1800. Comes down to supply and demand as there is not as
much freight moving out as in to the Boston area

God, makes me so glad I'm retired now and not worrying about freight rates
or LTL Ben Dover delivery shipments.

I really feel for people today.

Steve

"NotMe" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
| SteveB wrote:
|
| The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have
| 10,000 gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
| Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
| the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
| Karsfarkistan War price. But, nonetheless, the price immediately
| goes up a quarter. Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
| and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. A
| little.
| Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
| gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
| charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.
|
|
| In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
| pricing works for commodities.
|
| First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's
tank,
| or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the
market.
|
| Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
| expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses
and
| two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the
sale
| for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to
take
in
| $6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.
|
| The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one
of
| his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50
cents
| gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to
sell
| that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!
|
| Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
| replacement cost of the raw materials.

I'm reminded of the fuel shortages of the '70s. No fuel at $n but the next
day lots of fuel at $n+x. (even with price controls)

And don't kid yourself there was LOTS of fuel in the '70s to the point
were
there was no place else to store it.

I really don't have any sympathy for Rip and Gyp stores, since they sell
almost every product on their shelves for twice normal retail.

You want it or don't you? That's their attitude.

Steve

Carl Swanson wrote in crayon...

VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve


So why do the companies show record profits?

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Curious George. All one has
to have is a pulse.

They have record sales. If a company sold 5 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar one year and they sold 10 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar the next year. Will they show a record profit the
second year?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUD3VSBR6.DTL

Specifically, state residents bought 1 percent less gas last year, but
California's rate of gas consumption has now fallen for two years in a
row, something that almost never happens outside a serious recession.
Sales tracked by the state Board of Equalization dropped 0.7 percent in
2006.



It's time to ask yourself, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
Curious George?

I think not.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Carl Swanson wrote in crayon...

VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve


So why do the companies show record profits?

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Curious George. All one has
to have is a pulse.

They have record sales. If a company sold 5 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar one year and they sold 10 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar the next year. Will they show a record profit the
second year?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUD3VSBR6.DTL

Specifically, state residents bought 1 percent less gas last year, but
California's rate of gas consumption has now fallen for two years in a
row, something that almost never happens outside a serious recession.
Sales tracked by the state Board of Equalization dropped 0.7 percent in
2006.

As the price of producing a gallon of gas, from crude to the refine
product, goes up, so does profits. Oil on the global market goes up,
everything goes up. Profit margins stay the same, but profits do go up
with the price of production. When gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon,
oil companies had a profit margin of 10%-13%. They still maintain that
margin which isn't unreasonable when gasoline exceeded $3.00 a gallon.
So they sold 1% less this year. Gasoline prices went over 1%. The cost
to produce a gallon of gas is maintained throughout the process. As I
said, government makes a larger profit off gasoline than the oil
company without lifting a finger. Maybe we should have an independent
counsel and see if the government is gouging the public over the cost
of gasoline.

Do politicians who beat their chests over oil company profits actually
think the price of gasoline will go down if they impose punitive
taxes on the industry?

It's time to ask yourself, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
Curious George?

I think not.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Carl Swanson wrote in crayon...

VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
"OneTwoThree" wrote in crayon...

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:25 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Bull****

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNU7VU217.DTL



The oil company executives contended that their record profits last year
were in line with other industries, noting that oil and gas companies
earned an average of 8.3 cents per dollar of sales, compared with 7.8
cents per dollar for the Dow Jones average.

the story is sadly lacking in analysis. for example, is that 8.3 cents the
net profit? let's say it is. what was the net a year ago? two years ago?

Curious George doesn't analyze anything. He just goes off on knee jerk
rants.

I am guessing but confident that the oil company net has no where near
increased at the rate that the retail price of gasoline has, or more
accurately, at the rate that the cost of a barrel of oil has.

Crude and taxes affect gasoline prices. Profit margins haven't changed
much in the last few years.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1/b3934114.htm






The biggest profit-margin gains came in two comparatively low-margin
sectors: energy and materials, which continue to benefit from supersized
jumps in oil and commodity prices. Oil prices hanging above $50 per
barrel and the world's insatiable appetite for energy pushed the profit
margin for that industry up to 9.1%, from 7.5% for the first quarter of
2004. Total earnings surged 50% over the period. Materials companies did
energy one better: Higher metal and timber prices led margins to widen
by 2.6 percentage points, to 6.3%, as profits jumped 103%.


http://www.reuters.com/article/reute...22168020070504

That article is a bit misleading. Gross profit margin is not
mentioned.


Example:

In 2004 Exxon Mobil earned more money -- $25.33 billion -- than any
other company on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations. But by
another measure of profitability, gross profit margin, it ranked No.
127.

Gross profit margin is a financial metric used to assess a firm's
financial health by revealing the proportion of money left over from
revenues after accounting for the cost of goods sold. Gross profit
margin serves as the source for paying additional expenses and future
savings.



"The profit outlook is incredible, the refinery margins are
significantly higher than last year or the past three years," Fadel
Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer& Co., told Reuters.

Raw and operational costs are not taken into consideration. It would
be unrealistic to think that the cost to the refinery/oil company have
remained constant throughout this whole mess.

"It would be safe to say that if margins don't collapse from here, the
refiners will probably do 20 to 30 percent higher profits this year than
last year," added Gheit

And the costs go up at the same time.

In all the posts in this thread no one has presented any proof the oil
companies are gouging. Government makes twice the profit margin on a
gallon of gas than the oil companies themselves. Good luck in having
the Feds investigate the gouging done by government.
-
It is the government that wants to gouge the consumer.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

"OneTwoThree" wrote in crayon...


"VRWC Destruction Machine" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in crayon...

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:25 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it over
a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.


Bull****

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Your link gives incomplete estimates b because it leaves out other
costs.

For California it gives:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html

Other taxes include a 6% state sales tax and 1.25% county, plus
additional local sales taxes and 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee.

Actual costs Gallon of Gas (California) for March 31, 2008:

Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.06
Crude Oil Cost $2.42
Refinery Cost and Profits $0.48
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.01
State and Local Sales Tax $0.27
State Excise Tax $0.18
Federal Excise Tax $0.18

Retail price $3.61
Net Profit $0.49

Profit Margin 13.5%

its interesting looking at the numbers closely. my question to you is this:
does that 49 cents net profit include the profit of the retail gas seller?

The retailer's margin is much smaller. That's why gas stations are
basically self service and why they sell convenience store items. In
the gasoline food chain, the gas pump is at the bottom. Service
stations, I heard a while back, get about 4 cents a gallon.

That 13.5% goes to stockholders, payroll, properties and operation. It
is far from being free and clear. I still hold the contention
government gets the biggest share next to the oil producers.

my quick work on the calculator indicate that the 49 cent number includes
profits of several entities along the way. so the 13.5% margin is not what
goes into the "oil company" pocket, but into several different pockets.

Exactly.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

"HeyBub" wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:

The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have
10,000 gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
Karsfarkistan War price. But, nonetheless, the price immediately
goes up a quarter. Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. A
little.
Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.


In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
pricing works for commodities.

First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's tank,
or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the market.

Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses and
two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the sale
for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to take in
$6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.

The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one of
his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50 cents
gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to sell
that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!

Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
replacement cost of the raw materials.

Conclusion: Congress is blowing smoke and is trying set the foundation
to nationalize oil companies like their neighbor Hugo Chavez.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

David Hartung wrote:
George Grapman wrote:
SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

So why do the companies show record profits?

Perhaps because they are selling billions of gallons?

I don't know but if a Democrat was pres during this ordeal he\she
would be to blame.

"VRWC Destruction Machine" wrote in message
...
Carl Swanson wrote in crayon...

VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a
dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve


So why do the companies show record profits?

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Curious George. All one has
to have is a pulse.

They have record sales. If a company sold 5 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar one year and they sold 10 million widgets at 10
cents on the dollar the next year. Will they show a record profit the
second year?



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUD3VSBR6.DTL

Specifically, state residents bought 1 percent less gas last year, but
California's rate of gas consumption has now fallen for two years in a
row, something that almost never happens outside a serious recession.
Sales tracked by the state Board of Equalization dropped 0.7 percent in
2006.

As the price of producing a gallon of gas, from crude to the refine
product, goes up, so does profits. Oil on the global market goes up,
everything goes up. Profit margins stay the same, but profits do go up
with the price of production. When gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon,
oil companies had a profit margin of 10%-13%. They still maintain that
margin which isn't unreasonable when gasoline exceeded $3.00 a gallon.
So they sold 1% less this year. Gasoline prices went over 1%. The cost
to produce a gallon of gas is maintained throughout the process. As I
said, government makes a larger profit off gasoline than the oil
company without lifting a finger. Maybe we should have an independent
counsel and see if the government is gouging the public over the cost
of gasoline.

Do politicians who beat their chests over oil company profits actually
think the price of gasoline will go down if they impose punitive
taxes on the industry?

Well said!!


It's time to ask yourself, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
Curious George?

I think not.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

"VRWC Destruction Machine" wrote


Do politicians who beat their chests over oil company profits actually
think the price of gasoline will go down if they impose punitive
taxes on the industry?

It's time to ask yourself, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
Curious George?

I think not.



Would politicians ever think of cutting the % they rake in to support their
inflated wages and benefits that follow them and their families to the
grave?

And don't even get me started about the money they could save on lobster
studies and fly mating sequences.

I think not.

On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. DOUBLED. Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...USA&Symbol=XOM

Year Net Inc. Margin
1998 6,370 5.41%
1999 7,910 4.26%
2000 17,720 7.61%
2001 15,320 7.18%
2002 11,460 5.60%
2003 21,510 8.72%
2004 25,330 8.50%
2005 36,130 9.75%
2006 39,500 10.46%
2007 40,610 10.04%




I'll post it again for your stupid ass. Do try to decipher this
time.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"NotMe" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
| SteveB wrote:
|
| The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. On Monday, they have
| 10,000 gallons of gas delivered. On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
| Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
| the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
| Karsfarkistan War price. But, nonetheless, the price immediately
| goes up a quarter. Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
| and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. A
| little.
| Fascinating. And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
| gouging. They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
| charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.
|
|
| In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
| pricing works for commodities.
|
| First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's
tank,
| or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the
market.
|
| Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
| expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses
and
| two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the
sale
| for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to
take
in
| $6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.
|
| The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one
of
| his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50
cents
| gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to
sell
| that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!
|
| Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
| replacement cost of the raw materials.

I'm reminded of the fuel shortages of the '70s. No fuel at $n but the
next
day lots of fuel at $n+x. (even with price controls)

And don't kid yourself there was LOTS of fuel in the '70s to the point
were
there was no place else to store it.

I really don't have any sympathy for Rip and Gyp stores, since they sell
almost every product on their shelves for twice normal retail.

You want it or don't you? That's their attitude.

higher overhead means a different (more expensive) pricing model. that's why
places like Costco and Safeway and Circuit city can sell things cheaper than
comperable mall stores





Steve

"SteveB" wrote in crayon...


"VRWC Destruction Machine" wrote


Do politicians who beat their chests over oil company profits actually
think the price of gasoline will go down if they impose punitive
taxes on the industry?

It's time to ask yourself, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
Curious George?

I think not.



Would politicians ever think of cutting the % they rake in to support their
inflated wages and benefits that follow them and their families to the
grave?

Of course not. They pick on the success and perpetuate class warfare
because it's the strategy of the Marxist.

And don't even get me started about the money they could save on lobster
studies and fly mating sequences.

Next on the agenda for Olympia Snowe (Rino-Me) and Susan B. Colins
(Rino-Me) is to propose a research grant to find out how to make a
world class lobster bisque.

I think not.


Amongst the presidential candidates Hillary Clinton signed of on $292
million worth of pork, Obama-lama-ding-dong $97 million and John
McCain $0. McCain promises to veto any bill that comes across his
desk that contains earmarks.

For her years in the Senate, Clinton was bestowed with the honor of
being so aptly named "the Queen of Pork." If elected to the White
House, Clinton's first order of business, "Where's the Presidential
checkbook?"

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...

On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. DOUBLED. Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...USA&Symbol=XOM

Year Net Inc. Margin
1998 6,370 5.41%
1999 7,910 4.26%
2000 17,720 7.61%
2001 15,320 7.18%
2002 11,460 5.60%
2003 21,510 8.72%
2004 25,330 8.50%
2005 36,130 9.75%
2006 39,500 10.46%
2007 40,610 10.04%




I'll post it again for your stupid ass. Do try to decipher this
time.

It is now at 10% isn't excessive, only the Socialist. I posted that
said Mobil-Exxon made the most profits of the of Fortune 500
companies, but was 127th in gross profit margin. Overhead costs
increased every year also which accounts for their increased profits.
You gotta stop being influenced by Liberal Dummycrat talking points.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

wrote in crayon...



David Hartung wrote:
George Grapman wrote:
SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. Various governments tax it
over a dollar a gallon. Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

So why do the companies show record profits?

Perhaps because they are selling billions of gallons?

I don't know but if a Democrat was pres during this ordeal he\she
would be to blame.

For what? Dummycrat Congressmen, whether they are the majority or
minority, they will always bitch and moan about oil company profits.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

On Apr 4, 1:52*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...





On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. *DOUBLED. *Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. *You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...10.aspx?Countr...

Year * *Net Inc. * * * *Margin
1998 * *6,370 * 5.41%
1999 * *7,910 * 4.26%
2000 * *17,720 *7.61%
2001 * *15,320 *7.18%
2002 * *11,460 *5.60%
2003 * *21,510 *8.72%
2004 * *25,330 *8.50%
2005 * *36,130 *9.75%
2006 * *39,500 *10.46%
2007 * *40,610 *10.04%

I'll post it again for your stupid ass. *Do try to decipher this
time.

It is now at 10% isn't excessive, only the Socialist. I posted that
said Mobil-Exxon made the most profits of the of *Fortune 500
companies, but was 127th in gross profit margin. Overhead costs
increased every year also which accounts for their increased profits.
You gotta stop being influenced by Liberal Dummycrat talking points.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Overhead costs increased every year also which accounts for their
increased profits"

So tell us, retard, how does increasing overhead costs lead to
increased profitability?

Please, if you don't know what the **** you're talking about, I
suggest you don't even try.

By the way, retard, only silly neophytes actually try to compare
margins (gross margin, profit margin, etc.) across industries. They
teach you that in any high-school-level business course.

On Apr 3, 1:08*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...| SteveB wrote:

|
| The local Rip and Gyp has always fascinated me. *On Monday, they have
| 10,000 gallons of gas delivered. *On Tuesday, there's a war in Outer
| Karsfarkistan, and the price goes up 25 cents a gallon, even though
| the ten thousand gallons in the ground were bought at the pre
| Karsfarkistan War price. *But, nonetheless, the price immediately
| goes up a quarter. *Now, peace is declared in Outer Karsfarkistan,
| and it still takes three months for the price to ratchet down. *A
| little.
| Fascinating. *And yet, some clueless morons whine about oil companies
| gouging. *They have nothing to do with what the local Rip and Gyp
| charges no matter how cheap they bought the gas.
|
|
| In Economics, this is called "Rocket Up, Feather Down." It is the way
| pricing works for commodities.
|
| First, whether the 10,000 gallons is in your tank, the gas station's tank,
| or still in the ground in Ickystan, it has a value determined by the
market.
|
| Take a simple example: Gas station buys two gallons of gas at $3 each
| expecting to sell them for $3.25 (twenty-three cents for other expenses
and
| two cents profit). That is, he needs an additional fifty cents on the sale
| for his business to survive. If his prices don't change, he needs to take
in
| $6.50. He sells one gallon of gas the first day at $3.25.
|
| The next day, his replacement cost goes to $3.25 before he can sell one of
| his gallons. He needs $6.50 ultimately to replenish his stocks and 50
cents
| gross profit, but has on hand $3.25 and one gallon of gas. He's got to
sell
| that remaining one gallon at $3.75 to break even!
|
| Point is, it's not only the markup that has to be considered - it's the
| replacement cost of the raw materials.

I'm reminded of the fuel shortages of the '70s. No fuel at $n but the next
day lots of fuel at $n+x. (even with price controls)

And don't kid yourself there was LOTS of fuel in the '70s to the point were
there was no place else to store it.

I guess you slept through the Arab oil embargo while everyone else
waited in lines that were real. Many people couldn't get any gas at
any price because the station had none. Other stations had long
lines and were limiting purchases to 5 gallons to try to help as many
people as they could. If there was no fuel at a station one day,
but it was there the next, it was because they had run out and got a
new and limited delivery the next day.

On Apr 4, 8:40*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:09:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
And don't kid yourself there was LOTS of fuel in the '70s to the point were
there was no place else to store it.

I guess you slept through the Arab oil embargo while everyone else
waited in lines that were real. * Many people couldn't get any gas at
any price because the station had none. * Other stations had long
lines and were limiting purchases to 5 gallons to try to help as many
people as they could. * *If there was no fuel at a station one day,
but it was there the next, it was because they had run out and got a
new and limited delivery the next day.

I was wide awake but I also knew there were tankers sitting in
Chesapeake bay waiting for the price hike before they would unload.
Did you notice that as soon as the government dropped the price freeze
there was suddenly gas everywhere?


Yeah, another urban myth resurfaces. The tankers waiting offshore
myth was widely circulated, investigated and dismissed as nonsense 3
decades ago. There was gas everywhere again when the Arabs lifted
the embargo. Simple as that.

On Apr 4, 10:08 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Yeah, another urban myth resurfaces. The tankers waiting offshore
myth was widely circulated, investigated and dismissed as nonsense 3
decades ago. There was gas everywhere again when the Arabs lifted
the embargo. Simple as that.

... and that happened the same day the government lifted price
controls. The gas was here the next day. I suppose they air freighted
it in.

More nonsense. The price of gasoline shot up dramatically during the
Arab oil embargo, while at the same time there were lines, shortages
and rationing. I was there, I remember and it's well recorded
history. It wasn't a price problem, it was a pure supply problem.
The reference below does a pretty good job at explaining what
happened. The Arabs cut off 25% of the west's oil supply and you
attribute gas lines and shortages to a mythical fleet of tankers,
lurking off shore? The shortages ended in the Spring of 74, when
the Arab oil embargo ended. BTW, how big of a fleet of tankers do
you think there is in the world, capable of holding so much oil. An
endless supply to just store oil in? And your reference for this
mythical fleet of tankers is?

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/Hist...ton/horton.htm

"In October of 1973 Middles-eastern OPEC nations stopped exports to
the US and other western nations. They meant to punish the western
nations that supported Israel, their foe, in the Yom Kippur War, but
they also realized the strong influence that they had on the world
through oil. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil
prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.

The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of
gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in
just a few months. The American Automobile Association recorded that
up to twenty percent of the country's gas stations had no fuel one
week during the crisis. In some places drivers were forced to wait in
line for two to three hours to get gas (Frum, p.320). The total
consumption of oil in the U.S. dropped twenty percent.re nonsense. "