Actually, that's debatable. Since fuel is a necessity, it is required to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness. (Unless you are one of the lucky few who don't need fuel to survive.) Those are the unalienable rights we have, as expressed by the Declaration of Ind.. Don't like the Declaration? Move somewhere else and quit your bitching.
TheAdvocate
Platinum Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 2,561
- 7
- 81
BTW, here is the face of one of the guys the apologists are protecting...
Text
That's who you are arguing for. Former ExxonMobil CEO Raymond Lee, who recent stepped down and received one of the largest golden handshakes in history ($686 MILLION total compensation - for one guy). That's your defendant, counselors. Still feel great about your fervent idealogical defense?
Text
That's who you are arguing for. Former ExxonMobil CEO Raymond Lee, who recent stepped down and received one of the largest golden handshakes in history ($686 MILLION total compensation - for one guy). That's your defendant, counselors. Still feel great about your fervent idealogical defense?
No, most poeple attempt to make poignant arguments stating how corporations are evil and out to get you, especially big oil. Bitching would be moaning, "man, gas is $3 a gallon that sucks dude!", as you fill up your gas tank.
Many are trying to come off as somewhat intelligent individuals who truely grasp the intricacies of the socio-economic level in America, when in reality they are just jackasses who probably don't make enough money.
If gas hit $10 a gallon, I would still buy it, and at that point there would probably be MORE for me!
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
who claimed they "had a right" to gasoline? in the same vein then, you have no right to be alive either. :roll:
gas is a necessity along the lines of food, water, and shelter. i am not talking about being wasteful with gas and driving an SUV or driving all over the place unnecessarily, i am talking about getting to work so you can make money and buy food and pay rent.
stop preaching that we can get along fine without gas. that's ridiculous.
the holier than thou attitude of a select few in this thread is what is amazing to me, but then again i've hung around here long enough to realize it's the same people who are putting themselves up on pedestals and looking down on we "stupid" people.
Those "holier than thou" select few will never be changed.. I think they seriously do not understand.. Of course, they most likely do not have to wake up in the morning, and wonder if they'll be able to afford to fill up their tank of gas to go to work, so they can pay the rent. They probably have combined household incomes of over six digits, so they have that luxury of looking down on the middle class and spit out constant ridicule..
Probably the same as the snooty types that run around here with their nose all high in the air, behind the wheel of their BMW's..
Originally posted by: DingDingDao
Sorry about the late reply (can't sit at the computer ALL night), but I feel this should be addressed.
The price of gasoline is determined by a number of factors, all of which have contributed to the current high price level of gasoline.
1) Price per barrel of crude oil - this number is determined in large part by OPEC, which is something the oil companies have no control of. If the price of crude oil is high (which it is), gasoline is going to be more expensive. Is this surprising given the current state of affairs in the middle east? I hardly think so.
2) Exploration cost - finding deposits of crude oil buried thousands of feet underground is no easy undertaking. Forget what you saw in history books, where Texans in the 1900s just stuck a pipe in the ground and found gushers everywhere they looked. Finding crude oil these days is a highly sophisticated (and expensive) undertaking requiring expertise in seismology, geology, and geophysics (and those experts, i.e. Ph.Ds, have to be paid).
3) Production cost - current new sources of crude oil are being located in more and more difficult-to-access locations, particularly off-shore. It's not cheap to build an off-shore drilling rig (think hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in construction and overhead maintenance). In addition to this, crude oil is being extracted from places previously inaccessible, due to depth, sediment composition, etc. etc. Doing this requires extensive research and development--also very expensive.
4) Inaccessibility - there is an exceedingly large amount of crude oil in North America - particularly in Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. Why is it that we can't access these deposits? It's prevented by the environmentalist lobby leaning on the governments of these countries, making it extremely expensive (or impossible) to drill in these locations.
5) Something crazy had to have happened to cause this increase - Are you kidding me? Our government is doing its darndest to recreate the Vietnam War in Iraq, the middle east is in turmoil, consumer consumption of gasoline is at an all-time high, and you're seriously wondering what's causing the increase in gas prices?
Don't forget the Canadian dollar is gaining strength quickly compared to US dollar, and that Canada is the US's largest source of crude oil.
Uh, did you actually READ the thread? Many in this thread do not directly say, but VERY STRONGLY imply they have a right to gasoline (actually somebody may have directly said that, but I'm not willing to go back and reread the entire thread). Yes I DO have a right to be alive. In fact that right is protected by this country.
I did not ever preach you can get along without gas, I said: "you have no right to gasoline or any other companies product. No matter how much you NEED it, you have no god given right to have it, end of story". Where exactly did I say you can get along without it? You are making a point against Amused and slsmnaz, not me.
Who is acting holier than thou? The people who understand how market economics work? The people who don't expect companies to jsut hand over their product at less than rock bottom profit margins (less than 10%)? How is anyone looking down on you? This argument STARTED because people are looking down on a company for performing the action that it was created to do. The only people who are putting themselved on a pedestal are the ones who hate companies (specifically big oil) for making so much money on a product they use SO MUCH OF.
I know you fancy yourself and intelligent women, and you probably are, but you are in no way displaying it in this thread.
Your jackass response to my post only desrved another post of equal or lesser quality.
Oh please, your posts reads like a bad Op-ed article out of the NY Times. Oh WAIT, you ripped that ideology directly from the NY Times, because thats the article they ran a couple days ago.
Way to think for yourself!
The only holier than thou attitudes are those by the fascists who want a few companies to be subservient to the rest of us.
You heard the almighy everybody. You must give up your automobiles now.
Unless of course you are rich like himself.
Gotta kill the nested quotes, ruins the whole thread.
So what's so snooty? I think snooty is that for the vast majority of people in this nation fuel costs are still trivial, and will still be trivial if gas is $5 a gallon. The overwhelming majority of the world pays more than we do, yet were the richest and most entitlement minded group of people on the planet (except the French). We as a whole, in America, are a snooty society.
Will there ever come a day when you make a worthwhile comment, and not just attacking someone who doesn't agree with you?
TheAdvocate
Platinum Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 2,561
- 7
- 81
When you cannot attack the logic, attack the messenger, ad hominem. The guy took home $686M dollars during a time when the nation was reeling from Katrina and the Iraq war. That's a fact.
Actually, everything I've posted is stuff I've worked on myself, including the gross margin analysis of Exxon's quarterly financials, that you so predictably glazed over. There are only two ways to improve gross margin:
1. Charge more for the same goods
2. Reduce costs of production
If you look at Exxon's Q1 2006 and Q4 2005 financials, Gross margin INCREASED, despite the ballooning cost of crude oil. How do you offset that and make a BETTER margin? By charging more than 100% of the cost increase. It's one thing to say that they have an aboslute right to pass along cost increases to consumers at 100% because there are no equivalent alternatives (a theory I strongly disagree with for reasons of national security and well being), but it's another thing entirely to pass along MORE than 100% of your cost increases - that's called gouging or profiteering, and given the circumstances, it's highly unethical.
Care to address that, or will you predictably proceed with your windbag idealogue rants full of personal attacks and partisan talking points?
unnecessary tirade
Realize that it's not a necessity since you have become so accustomed to it. Learn some self-control and common sense.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
Wow, could you be any more wrong? I make around $50k per year and have a mortgage and car payment, not to mention all the other bills that go along with those. Also, there is no one behind me helping if I run out of cash so I know where all of my money goes. I base my choices on this. I CHOOSE to ride my bike to the farmers market down the street to get my food. I walk to church and we all carpool to our soccer league games or when we go out. I really only drive myself to work and back. I enjoy the way I live.
It is a choice I have made to give up taking needless trips in the car. The thing is, most Americans don't want to be forced to make those types of choices. I'm not saying they must make them, but it sounds very dumb to complain about the very choices that YOU make.
And thanks Sampson for the compliment. I do have a degree in Econ and have dealt with selling commodity products for the past 6 years before moving into our IT dept. Glad it shows (at least to some).
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
So, what's your point?
The guy worked for a living and got paid for it, I know it is a bizarre concept for many people but I think it is reasonable. Should the guy not get paid as much simply because events that he has no responsibility for (i.e. Katrina and Iraq) are happening? Why in the hell should his salary be based off of things like that?
TheAdvocate
Platinum Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 2,561
- 7
- 81
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
Questions typically end with a question mark and/or rhetorical statement. Not with the phrase "That's a fact."
You are making a weak attempt to somehow lay blame on this individual for the salary he earned by making a fallacious correlation with other world events in hopes of making some bizarre point that his salary is "unfair."
It is somewhat ironic that you want to play the "ad hominem" attack card when it works to your benefit, however when you attack the former CEO because he made a large sum of money then it seems to be fair game.
I just find it crazy as hell that you seem to think that we should somehow hate this guy for earning a living and additionally that he represents some "fervent ideology."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter