Wolf Leverich wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, 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:
>>>>>>> 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?
>
> Then talking about demand driving prices in a cartelized
> market is meaningless.
Wrong.
Any perceived increase in NON-cartel production (Brazil, USA, Canada)
will impact future prices.
Stop lying.
It already happened.
> ###
>
>>> 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
>
> So?
I made my point, ecoweenie.
This has been a 30 year trend.
> The fact that you can find NIMBYism here and there
You lost the point, be honest.
ALL refinery expansions in the past 30 years have been protested.
>>> ###
>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>
> No, I don't agree.
Then you're a fool and a liar.
> Suppose I did nothing, but positioned myself so I could
> skim 8.8% off every transaction in the economy.
"Did nothing"?
So you claim big oil does no E&P?
Really?
****ing A man, you're total liar.
> It would
> look like I had a margin of 8.8%, but I'd be wildly
> profitable for no good reason at all.
You just made a claim you can not prove nor sup****t.
> A monopolist squatting on an inelastic good basically can
> do precisely that with their sector of the economy.
There is no domestic oil monopoly - stop lying.
> Note that oil and gas are enjoying a 27.3% return on equity.
> Dunno about you, but I can't go to my bank and make that
> kind of money on my savings.
>
> 27.3% smells kinda like usury to me.
Sure you can do that, do a software startup.
Nothing usury there.
Why do you keep losing points and then shape ****fting the argument?
You're a disgrace to that Sierra Club you front for, fool.
>>> ###
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Markets are forward-looking? That was precisely my point.
So they measured demand.
You didn't.
> Nothing unexpected has happened this year. So why do we get a wild
> price swing?
Increased attention on China, fool.
How stupid are you?
>
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>>> {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?
>
> Actually, I'm a mountain climber, if you're reading my sig.
> Prolly pretty much middle-of-the-road on environmental matters.
Unlikely.
> ###
>
>> You have a collectivist mentality and demonstrable intellectual
dishonesty.
>>
>> Stip wasting my time.
>
> Stip?
Oh my, the loser's hallmark, the sp. flame - again.
Sorry I have large fingers.
You ****ing asshole.
> Accusing an old Goldwaterite of having a collectivist mentality is
> gut-rupturingly funny.
Claiming to be one is even more mirthful.
Why do you lot try and play that 'outraged ex-R game' here?
It's over, the charade is over.
> The interesting thing is that Bu****es (I refuse to defile the term
> "conservative" by applying it to them) are much, much closer to
> Communists than
Enough.
You and your partisan haters can esad.
|
