Wolf Leverich wrote:
> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, if you want to blame someone for the short-term run-up
>>>>>>> in oil prices, blame Republicans.
>>>>>> You stupid bastard, that's the dumbest thing you said all day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bugger off, liar.
>>>>> Um, which part was inaccurate?
>>>> All of it.
>>>>
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>> The industry is having a feeding frenzy?
>>>> On what?
>>> Consumer dollars.
>> Do tell...so DEMAND drives profits...who knew....
>
> So does supply restriction in inelastic markets.
>
> Can you say "OPEC"?
Indeed, the cartel has far too much pricing power, so?
>
> Can you say "American oil companies restricting
> refinery capacity"?
No, but I can say enviroweenies obstructing new refinery permitting and
construction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/us/31refinery.html?ref=us
Chicagoans Protest as Indiana Lets a Refinery Add to Lake Pollution
>
> ###
>
>>>>> All the majors are re****ting record profits.
>>>> Yet the profit margins remain the same - 8%.
>>> First, if it were true, it would be irrelevant.
>> Oh my, would it now?
>>
>> You poor stupid bastard, you walked right into that:
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/120.html
>>
>> Industry Center - Major Integrated Oil & Gas
>> Market Capitalization: 1,629B
>> Price / Earnings: 9.6
>> Price / Book: 2.8
>> Net Profit Margin (mrq): 8.8%
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/821.html
>>
>> Industry Center - Application Software
>> Market Capitalization: 488B
>> Price / Earnings: 19.6
>> Price / Book: 17.9
>> Net Profit Margin (mrq): 23.2%
>
> So?
So why aren't you *****ing about Microsoft or Symantec's profits?
> This shows that margins on oil is lower than margins
> on software. That's meaningless.
Is it really?
They're both bulk consumer staples, but somehow you take umbrage at big
oil's profits and not big software's?
> Margins vary by
> industry, and are driven by many factors.
But 8.8% is anything but usury, agreed?
> Earlier, you asserted that oil profit margins are
> steady at 8%.
>
> So, where's the evidence?
I posted the latest data.
Historically they trend around that number, sometimes higher, sometimes
lower.
Face it, you just got yer ass kicked.
> ###
>
>>> Record
>>> profits -- profits that are approaching $1,000 a year for
>>> every man, woman, and child in America -- are, ahem,
>>> record profits.
>> And record demand in China and India are record DEMAND!
>>
>> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/content_8075648.htm
>>
>> BEIJING, April 29 (Xinhua) -- Soaring oil prices have not slowed
China's
>> consumption of oil as statistics show that China's apparent consumption
>> of crude oil and refined oil products both hit record highs in the
first
>> quarter of the year.
>>
>> According to statistics released Tuesday by the China Petroleum
and
>> Chemical Industry Association (CPCIA), China's apparent consumption of
>> oil products composed of gasoline, diesel and kerosene rose by 16.5
>> percent year on year to 52.73 million tonnes in the first three months,
>> and crude oil, rose by eight percent to91.8 million tonnes.
>>
>> Remember that's a nation of 1.3 BILLION people with at present only 33
>> MILLION cars.
>>
>> DO THE MATH!
>
> Sure, and they didn't all just arrive yesterday and they
> are still a quite poor nation. Nothing's going on that
> would justify a sudden doubling or tripling of oil prices.
Wow, do you understand tyat markets are forward looking?
I suggest you watch a few of the many programs on China available now.
Discovery and Ted Koppel had a great series, and CNBC has one out now as
well.
After that you may come back and speak in a somewhat more clueful manner.
The Chinese auto industry is on a flat tear, as are the Chinese road
building projects,
And that demand is what drives commodity price speculation increases.
>
> ###
>
>>> Second of all, the margin thing is wrong. Identify the
>>> source, and I'll explain to you what's going on.
>> Oh do - have at, you netwit!
>
> I still don't know where you got the stable margins thing.
You're flailing, fool.
I was referring to the historically low margins of the industry.
Face it, you walked right into it and got smacked.
Now stop foundering.
>
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>> Republicans have been blocking CAFE standards and such?
>>>> The Bush energy plan provided hybrid car subsidies, try again.
>>> Wow, cool. An actual, honest-to-gosh fact. I'm impressed.
>> And swiftly upbriaded.
>
> Upbriaded?
Oh sorry, a sp. flame, how droll.
> ###
>
>>> And note that Republicans are blocking increased CAFE
>>> standards and virtually all other conservation measures.
>> Here's a hint - the MARKET can handle it.
>>
>> When people DEMAND high mileage, that's precisely what they will get!
>>
>> http://gm-volt.com/
>
> No, actually, this is a case of market failure.
The Volt is???
You're insane.
It may very well rescue GM from dire straits.
> Consumers are famously myopic, and will choose to buy a
> (initially) cheaper vehicle even if it results in a
> higher lifetime cost.
Not the issue, obfuscator.
Right now they can buy very cost effective hybrids from GM, Toyota, and
Ford - and are doing so.
> This "myopia" is why people still buy incandescent bulbs.
You do al ot of shape ****fting, as expected.
> Also, if the good doesn't exist, then the market can't
> signal demand.
And yet it does, and consumers have responded.
> I live in the country, and I need a truck.
> I can't buy a pluggable hybrid for any price. There's no
> way for me to signal my demand to Detroit.
Oh yes there is:
>http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/phoenix-sut.php
Get on the waiting list.
>
> And there are other technical reasons why the market isn't
> and won't work here.
Try again:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/13/detroit-2008-chrysler-will-introduce-a-dodge-ram-hybrid-in-2010/
Detroit 2008: Chrysler will introduce a Dodge Ram hybrid in 2010
>
>>> ###
>>>
>>>> {off topic partisan spin indictments deleted}
>>> Which part of record deficits devaluing our currency and
>>> driving up oil prices is partisan spin?
>> Which part of regular economic cycles do you not grasp, or do just
>> dislike us having stronger ex****ts?
>
> You want stronger ex****ts because your production
> facilities are more efficient than everyone else's,
> and not because you've debased your own currency.
You want strong ex****ts but are faced with a labor wagwe rate imbalance
- what to do...
Stop obfuscating, asshole.
>>> The record deficits are just a fact, like the sky is blue.
>> Big whoop.
>
> You're a Democrat, right?
You're an enviroweenie, right?
>
> ###
>
>>> Pretty much all economists will tell you that persistant
>>> large deficits will debase the currency. Printing money
>>> isn't a good thing.
>> Care to cite how much we're printing?
>
> By definition, the deficit is the amount of money the
> government has printed.
That's not an answer.
Cite your evidence that we've turned up the presses, or stfu.
> ###
>
>>> The falling dollar inherently increases foreign oil costs.
>>> That's how currency swings work. It's physics.
>> And at the same time a weak dollar increases our ex****ts.
>
> It's the wrong way to generate ex****ts.
It's workable given wage rate imbalances.
> You want more
> efficient production.
There is a small modi*** of efficiency gain possible in consumer goods
assembly, but no particular way to gap over a low wage rate in foreign
markets.
> When you generate ex****ts through
> weak currency, in effect you are giving away your products.
I'm sure all the manufacturers sending containers BACK to China will bow
to your great wisdom and halt their production lines.
> ###
>
>>> It's a matter of record that Republicans have recently
>>> blocked anti-speculation legislation.
>> It's matter of record that much of the "speculation" is being driven
by
>> large pension funds like CALPERS.
>
> Actually, pension funds have some strong limitations based
> upon their fiduciary responsibilities.
Oh my, back to it again:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/28/calpers-investments-in-commodities-to-impact-the-u-s-economy/
Calpers' investments in commodities to impact the U.S. economy
> They do provide some
> of the capital being used by hedge funds, but you have an
> incorrect understanding of the situation if you think CALPERS
> management is sitting somewhere planning to corner the oil
> market.
Did I SAY that?
No.
Stop the ****ing intellectual dishonesty, you twat.
> And pensions funds are not the big winners in these things.
So they are making NO money off commodities?
You're sinking real fast here asshole.
> ###
>
>>> I miss the old days, when the reality-impaired folks were
>>> all Democrats.
>> They still are, you just deluded yourself into believing that
throttling
>> the free market out of existence will be a good thing.
>>
>> You poor ****ing fool.
>
> What free market?
There you go again....
> You think oil is a free market? OPEC? The fewer-than-Seven Sisters?
Not purely, you want to chase away the domestic trading thereof where we
have SOME transparency?
Fool.
> You think autos are a free market, with just a handful of players?
A what?
There are at least a DOZEN major manufactures, fool.
> "Free market" is something you see when 50 farmers are in the town
> square all selling the same lettuce. For just about everything else,
> the interesting issues all involve how the free market is failing,
> and what can be done to patch up the brokenness.
>
You have a collectivist mentality and demonstrable intellectual
dishonesty.
Stip wasting my time.
|
