On 2008-08-04, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, the increase in NON-cartel production has to be
larger than the amount that the cartel is believed to be
willing to restrict production to have any price impact at all.
And it's absurd to believe that anything that will affect
production a decade from now will immediately affect current
prices.
What's going on is that the current economic news has been
worsening, oil inventories have been growing, and the
speculative component of the current price is becoming
unstable.
>> ###
>>
>>>> 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.
So?
Dirty long-haired hippies used to protest outside my office
at RAND every week, but that didn't keep me from "planning
the nuclear slaughter of our children".
Protesting tells you nothing.
There's no question, though, that Shell was trying to close
a perfectly good refinery in Bakersfield, and was refusing to
sell it to interested parties. It took the threat of anti-
trust action to force them NOT to close the refinery.
The refinery shortage is a choice made by the industry.
>>>> ###
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
I'm second generation Shell E&P. My father was an
exploration geologist, and one of my first jobs was
as a production engineer.
E&P expenditures are tiny compared to revenues or,
even, current profits.
>> 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.
Huh? In the hypothetical I just laid out, my business
would have margins of 8.8% but profits that amounted to
a twelth of the country's GDP. That's just arithmetic.
>> 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.
Huh? Remember your Ec 101 -- excess profits aren't possible
in a competitive free market. ;)
>> 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.
Um, you can go to the bank and make 27.3%?
>>>> ###
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
Stupid enough that where we are in 2008 was obvious to me
5 to 10 years ago, when the business rags first started
talking about China.
It's amazing to think that the markets are even more stupid
than I am. Who wudda thunk?
>>>>>> ###
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {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.
Which part?
I've done over a thousand ascents, leading more than 200
of them.
Most engineers, especially ones who grew up in the oil
industry, are fairly reasonable on environmental matters.
>> ###
>>
>>> 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.
Um, actually, I also make spelling errors. Twitting you
on that is mainly interesting because you respond so nicely.
>> 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?
Because it's accurate. If you check my voter registration,
you'll note I'm *still* a registered Republican.
>> 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.
You realize, of course, that it's gut-rupturingly funny having
somebody accuse you of being a "partisan hater" in the same
sentence that they suggest you go eat **** and die.
Cheers, Wolf.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 leverich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
