Down with the evil Gas lords II: Kaak's Revenge!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm asking why you, Kidicious, feel that just because you bought a tank of gas from Exxon once-upon-a-time, feel that you ought to be able to dictate to Exxon how they spend the money YOU parted with willingly.

How's that logic work in your brain? How do we arrive at that point?

That's what I wanna know.

-=Vel=-

It has nothing to do with me buying anything actually. Exxon is allowed to be a corporation and function as one as long as they are able to benefit society. If we need to tell them what to do and what not to do to maximize that benefit then that's what we do. We don't allow them to exist and function so that they can make profit. We do so so that we can get gas and jobs, and other things that benefit us.

[Velociryx]

It has nothing to do with me buying anything actually. Exxon is allowed to be a corporation and function as one as long as they are able to benefit society. If we need to tell them what to do and what not to do to maximize that benefit then that's what we do. We don't allow them to exist and function so that they can make profit. We do so so that we can get gas and jobs, and other things that benefit us.

Then you admit that you have no argument.

Exxon IS benefitting our modern society.

They ARE providing a valuable service.

And (thankfully), the real world is not "Kidatopia," where decisions about "what's fair" are subject to the whims of whatever strikes your fancy on any particular day.

Here in the real world, the market mechanism sets the price.

Again, if you want a say, buy some stock. Use your voting privledges.

Otherwise, unless you can point out to a specific law they're breaking, or something they're not adhering to, you've got no legs to stand on.

Taking your argument to its ultimate extreme then, Exxon should not be allowed any profit at all. Because the act of allowing profit siphons money away from projects that could "benefit society."

Never mind the fact that without an incentive to invest, no investment would ever have occured, and thus, Exxon would not exist, and the gas you put in your car last week would probably be sitting deep underground right now, not even discovered.

But of course, we knew that was the road you were heading down.

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Result: You come across as making less-than-no sense much of the time.

It's really not that complicated.

Anyway, carry on, I just popped in to see what this thread was about, and found....pretty much what I expected.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




The point is that they're paying their CEO and outrageous amount of money and they aren't expanding capacity when that's what society needs. Therefore people are pissed about the $450 million.

Read my lips . . . The oil companies are not capital constrained . . They are constrained by available trained personnel and equipment. Everyone wants to get production on as fast as possible and there are not enough people for all the possible projects

[MikeH]

It was announced this morning that UK petrol (gas) prices are set to hit £1 a litre.

Google calculator tells me that 1 British pounds per litre = 6.76301672 U.S. dollars per US gallon

[Japher]

but England doesn't have an economy that is as tied to the price of fuel as the US does.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Exxon IS benefitting our modern society.

How do you know if that benefit is maximized with your blinders on?

Again, if you want a say, buy some stock. Use your voting privledges.

I don't just assume that the shareholders make the best decision for society like you do. Shareholders are primarily concerned with profit, not the benefit that the company has to society.

Otherwise, unless you can point out to a specific law they're breaking, or something they're not adhering to, you've got no legs to stand on.

What are you talking about? Just because they aren't breaking laws doesn't mean society is getting the maximum benefit from them.

Taking your argument to its ultimate extreme then, Exxon should not be allowed any profit at all. Because the act of allowing profit siphons money away from projects that could "benefit society."

Never mind the fact that without an incentive to invest, no investment would ever have occured, and thus, Exxon would not exist, and the gas you put in your car last week would probably be sitting deep underground right now, not even discovered.

But of course, we knew that was the road you were heading down.

-=Vel=-

It's obvious that in a capitalist system you need profit. My point, since you are obviously not paying attention, is that they should be expected to keep up with the demand of society for the product that they produce, even if that means that they should recieve less profit. If they don't we need to set some policy or something.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MikeH
It was announced this morning that UK petrol (gas) prices are set to hit £1 a litre.

Google calculator tells me that 1 British pounds per litre = 6.76301672 U.S. dollars per US gallon

But it's only the American oil companies conspiring

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Read my lips . . . The oil companies are not capital constrained . . They are constrained by available trained personnel and equipment. Everyone wants to get production on as fast as possible and there are not enough people for all the possible projects

That looks like bull**** to me. It seems obvious that they are withholding production to make more profits. They pay their top executives at these levels because that's what happens when you make shocking profits.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Higher prices are needed because people need more profit. Man, that's rich.

Do you have a comprehension problem-- There are barrells out there that lose money if produced at less than $40 , some at less than $30 etc etc. If you want the expensive stuff, the price has to be high enough to make it worthwhile. The fact that oil produced more cheaply gets the same price is the nature of a completely interchangeable commodity

[Lawrence of Arabia]

why would they withhold production? it is very expensive to do so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Do you have a comprehension problem-- There are barrells out there that lose money if produced at less than $40 , some at less than $30 etc etc. If you want the expensive stuff, the price has to be high enough to make it worthwhile. The fact that oil produced more cheaply gets the same price is the nature of a completely interchangeable commodity

Why do you jump around like this? We were talking about refining.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why would they withhold production? it is very expensive to do so.

What do you mean?

[Velociryx]

How do you know if that benefit is maximized with your blinders on?

You don't. You can't. In any case. Best you can do is use the SWAG method. You surely know this. There's no such thing as "one right answer." Never will be, and it's pointless to pine away for it.

I don't just assume that the shareholders make the best decision for society like you do. Shareholders are primarily concerned with profit, not the benefit that the company has to society.

I don't make that assumption either, tho I am 100% convinced that IF you had shares in Exxon, you would vote, and you would cast your votes with what you felt was "fair" and "of maximum benefit to society" at the forefront of your mind. Which was my point.

What are you talking about? Just because they aren't breaking laws doesn't mean society is getting the maximum benefit from them.

That's not why companies exist in the real world (nor should it--benefit to society--be). The sooner you square with that, the sooner everything else begins to make much more sense.

It's obvious that in a capitalist system you need profit. My point, since you are obviously not paying attention, is that they should be expected to keep up with the demand of society for the product that they produce, even if that means that they should recieve less profit. If they don't we need to set some policy or something.

I'm paying perfect attention, I assure you. The trouble is, you're making about as much sense as usual, which isn't saying much.

-=Vel=-

PS: Read Flubber's posts. He knows what he's talking about. Learn from him. It will do you good.

[Velociryx]

That looks like bull**** to me. It seems obvious that they are withholding production to make more profits. They pay their top executives at these levels because that's what happens when you make shocking profits.

Since you called bull$hit, so am I.

Cite please.

Show me where you got the data that leads you to the conclusion that big oil is intentionally witholding production.

Or...to put it another way....put up, or shut up.

-=Vel=-