Truckers' strike/slowdown

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So the refineries are manipulating output to increase the profit margin and oil at $126 a barrel has nothing to do with it? please.

That is what TheMercenary believes. Not what was posted or reported. Reality - prices are clearly not set by oil companies. Many oil companies are making less profits due to high oil prices. It was not difficult to read. But it was not 'sound byte' logic. It only required TheMercenary to even read the report.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Many oil companies are making less profits due to high oil prices. It was not difficult to read.

Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.

Your recollection is the popular myth some confuse the exception with reality.

Exxon has record profits. If you move $100 of a commodity and make $10, then when a commodity costs $1000, the profit better be $100. That (and not speculation) is why Exxon is earning a less percentage while moving a more expensive product. Record profits but taking a less percentage in profits.

Exxon is one of the best - most productive in this business. If reaping so much benefit, well, why is Exxon's P/E ratio a paltry 12. Average is maybe 14. Apple is 39. Google is 40.

Exxon is the exception. Most oil firms are not doing as well. During every oil spike, that reality routinely gets forgotten by people who only hear what they want to hear. People who want to blame someone rather than themselves.

The source was already cited - NY Times of 14 May 2008.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.

Originally Posted by tw

Your recollection is the popular myth some confuse the exception with reality.

Exxon has record profits. If you move $100 of a commodity and make $10, then when a commodity costs $1000, the profit better be $100. That (and not speculation) is why Exxon is earning a less percentage while moving a more expensive product. Record profits but taking a less percentage in profits.
The source was already cited - NY Times of 14 May 2008.

Seems like you are now arguing semantics. Whatever. At best/worst we are both correct. I guess it depends on whether you are referring to gross/net or percentages.
DO NOT DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE - I ALREADY GOT IT.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I guess it depends on whether you are referring to gross/net or percentages.

Which then returns to a fundamental question. Who routinely stifled technology for so long as to get us into this problem? Definitely not the oil industry. Personal testimony from Exxon executives - GM (et al) would routinely deny or reject innovations from the oil companies. Even GM engine problems (that never appeared in Japanese products) would get blamed on oil companies. It happened so frequently that everyone here should have understood this. Instead, GM is so good at propaganda that the naive instead blame the oil companies. GM is so good at propaganda that we have one here repeatedly praising GM products.

Solutions for our excessive oil consumption would have been started in the early 1980s. 30 MPG on a large SUV therefore would have been normal. Instead, those same size engines get only 1960 technology gas mileage - even with the better gasolines provided by the oil companies.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Blah blah blah

Your rant has NOTHING to do with what I posted - why bother quoting me?

BTW, did you get turned down or fired from GM?