Price fixing among tire manufacturers

Tony Harding wrote:

> ...Exxon Mobil
> hasn't posted record profits the past few years because they're cutting
> prices to the bone.

Yes - since you mention that, why don't you give us their profit figures
- IN PER-CENTAGES! Almost everything is higher than it used to be IN
DOLLARS when you look at it on long term running averages - what we get
paid, what we pay for cars, groceries, and yes gas.

IN DOLLARS, I guess everyone who moves to a higher paying job or gets
good raises in place is evil because they are making more money (IN
DOLLARS) regardless of what it looks like against inflation. IOW - a
person who is now making X% more today than he did 20 years ago is bad
because he's making "record highs" in dollars. Yet when you look at the
numbers as percentages of cost of living, it may or may not be a
*relative* increase.

What *cowards* will do to denigrate the oil companies is talk about
"record" profits IN DOLLARS - *never* IN PER-CENTAGES. Come on - be a
man. Give us percentages and compare to typical expected business
profits IN PER-CENTAGES.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> No such thing, you either have aluminum wheels or you have magnesium wheels
> (mags) you do not have aluminum "mags" (magnesium) wheels. "mags" is short
> for magnesium alloy wheels, not "fancy" aluminum wheels.
>
> Magnesium alloy wheels, or mag wheels, are sometimes used on racing cars, in
> place of heavier steel or aluminium wheels, for better performance.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_alloy_wheel

At some point during my growing up, word on the street was that mag
wheels were made illegal for street use due to the fire hazard discussed
in the Wikipedia article. So what's the scoop - is it just illegal to
manufacture them and sell them to consumers, or could a person make his
own and put them on his car, or would that be illegal too?

Strange that *any* race track or association would allow them. Perhaps
they are just considered part of the hazard of racing?

Common terms die hard. Just like people call valve lash adjusters valve
lifters even though the latter is not technically accurate for most of
today's engines. And then there's the fluctuation of the terms
generator and alternator both on the street and in the auto industry
(which now has officially reverted back to calling those things that
produce electricity on our cars generators even though they are what we
learned to call alternators when the switch from what used to be called
generators was made years ago). (and there's nothing technically wrong
with calling what we have been calling alternators generators - but your
right - an aluminum wheel is not a mag wheel)

Then there's the commonly used term 'front wheel spindle', even though
technically there's no such thing on a typical front wheel drive vehicle
(steering knuckle, yes - spindle? - no).

Yadda yadda yadda...

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
<...>

> What *cowards* will do to denigrate the oil companies is talk about
> "record" profits IN DOLLARS - *never* IN PER-CENTAGES. Come on - be a
> man. Give us percentages and compare to typical expected business
> profits IN PER-CENTAGES.

What makes these people cowards?

Percentages of what? Return on investment? Income?

I forget the exact numbers, but I compared the profit margin of some oil
companies to the profit margins of other companies, including utilities,
which I think is a fair comparison. The profit margins of the oil
companies were right in line. However, in the last year or so, oil
companies did make a lot of money in the refining of gasoline, which, to
me, indicates the price of gasoline was higher compared to price of
crude oil than it had been in the past.

The other question I have is what if an oil company is well run or made
the right investments? Should it be rewarded for that with higher profits?

I would add a lot of other companies are making more money now, like the
companies that make oil drilling equipment. Oh, and gee, I own shares of
mutual funds that own these sorts of equipment.

Jeff

> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <coNej.16072$DG4.2865@trnddc04>,
> says...
>> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>> After "consumption" by a mammal, water is excreted, but is combined with
>>> salts, sugars, acids, and proteins. It is then no longer fit for human
>>> consumption. You can't drink urine, at least not for long, without
>>> destroying your kidneys.
>> I disagree.
>>
>> You can drink your own urine or the urine of someone else. It is
>> contaminated on the way our of the body in the urethra, but while in the
>> bladder, ureters and kidneys, it is sterile, unless there is an infection.
>
> I never said it wasn't sterile. Here's the problem:
> The normal saline concentration of human blood is about 9,000 ppM.
> The saline concentration of human urine is about 22,000 ppM.

The saline concentration of human urine varies greatly, depending on
diet, activity, volume of urine and other factors.

> If _all_ you drank was your urine, the saline concentration of your
> blood would rise; normally your body deals with this by dilution,
> adding more water (you get thirstier). So, you have another glass of
> urine. Now, remember, you're also losing water via perspiration and
> respiration. Sooner than later, you will collapse from dehydration.

True. It's also the same reason why people lost at sea don't survive if
they drink urine and/or sea water.

However, I haven't seen anyone suggest drinking all the urine one makes
(with the exception of mothers of rats and other rodents - the mothers
drink the urine of their pups when they are small because the pups can't
concentrate urine, it's a form of water concentration).

>> If you drink your urine, the stuff in the urine will further
>> metabolized,
>
> Excess salt doesn't get metabolized any further. It will just get more
> concentrated.

That was rather dishonest of you to cut off my sentence in the middle. I
never suggested that excess sodium is further metabolized.

In fact, I said: "If you drink your urine, the stuff in the urine will
further metabolized, excreted again by the kidneys or pooped. Your
kidneys won't be harmed."

The people who do drink their own urine usually only drink the urine
first thing in the morning.

Obviously, if you drink all your urine, you will never get rid of the
waste products.

Jeff

> --Gene
>
>
>

Jeff wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
> <...>
>
>> What *cowards* will do to denigrate the oil companies is talk about
>> "record" profits IN DOLLARS - *never* IN PER-CENTAGES. Come on - be a
>> man. Give us percentages and compare to typical expected business
>> profits IN PER-CENTAGES.
>
> What makes these people cowards?
>
> Percentages of what? Return on investment? Income?

Two answers to that:
(1) Ask Mr. Harding what "profits" he was talking about - ask him to
provide percentage profits in the context he was talking in. (you
snipped his original comment).
(2) Ask all the people that keep talking about "record profits" to
define what they mean by that (they won't because they are just
repeating whatever they are told on the blogs about that and have no
concept of running a business or whay you talk in terms of percentnage
and not dollars to have any relative meaning).

Certainly these companies have - let's see - "profit and loss
statements". What does an accountant call "profit"? What does the IRS
call "profit". But - again - ask these people who are complaining about
these "record profits" to define what they mean by that (and again, my
guess is they won't be able to tell you because they don't know -
they're just repeating a mantra), and once that is in place, determine
that as a percent like an accountant would. Once that is done, *then*
we can talk about these "record profits" instead of them being thrown
out there with no meaning and no definition just as an emotional and
political argument.

> I forget the exact numbers, but I compared the profit margin of some oil
> companies to the profit margins of other companies, including utilities,
> which I think is a fair comparison.

Damn - you asked me "Percentages of what?", and now you start talking
about "profit margin" that you have actually looked up. I'm no
accountant, but are not "profit margin" figures the very numbers from
which "percentage profits" are determined? Use those "profit margins"
you just mentioned in terms of percentages.

The profit margins of the oil
> companies were right in line. However, in the last year or so, oil
> companies did make a lot of money in the refining of gasoline, which, to
> me, indicates the price of gasoline was higher compared to price of
> crude oil than it had been in the past.

"...a lot...indicates...higher...compared to...". Get the mush out of
your mouth and put it in terms of percentage profit margin, and lets
look at in terms of a year, 5 years, 20 years... Quantify it.

Let the people making the accusations put the number - percentage
numbers - not dollars - out there for discussion (put dollars out there
*too* if they want, but not *just* raw dollars). Otherwise you've just
got people being manipulated by emotion, and numbers being tossed around
for convenience only when it suits their purpose (like the global
warming hoax).

> The other question I have is what if an oil company is well run or made
> the right investments? Should it be rewarded for that with higher profits?

Should the local hardware store? Would we possibly agree that the
answer to both is 'yes'?

> I would add a lot of other companies are making more money now, like the
> companies that make oil drilling equipment. Oh, and gee, I own shares of
> mutual funds that own these sorts of equipment.

And your point about that is...? My reply to that is good for you.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:YW1fj.7505$yv5.2051@trndny07...
>
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What happens with those is if the tires are really nice, really
expensive
> > tires, the places
> > that sell used tires (there's a few in our area) all have deals with the
> > yards where they
>
> They don't all have deals. Most wrecking yard sell their own tires right
in
> their own front office, at least the good sets.
>

I don't know about that anymore. The yards around here USED to do that
years ago. But it's been a while since I've been in a wrecking yard that
had an extensive tire rack.

What they still seem to do is if they come across a nice set of 4 intact
aluminum wheels, most espically a popular aftermarket pattern,
they will setup for display the -entire- set of 4 -with- tires still on
them,
regardless of the condition of the tire. I also see from time to time
sets of the largest SUV tires on display in the yards, the most popular
sizes, that is. But nothing smaller than a 16 inch rim.

The last time I bought a tire in a yard was I bought a set of 2 for an
old trailer I own that someone welded up out of some 1930's Ford
truck axle. The tires on it are something like dump truck tires, they
have an outrageously high load rating, and the tire and hub use inner
tubes and have a really weird size rating. I found the ones I wanted
- easily 20 years old - both still
on rims and the yard made me take them rims and all and leave a
deposit, so I would bring back the rims. I took those and the trailer
down to an old industrial truck tire sale place (since closed) where
they dismounted them (by hand, using a crowbar) and mounted them
(by hand) on the trailer rims.

>
> > get called when those cars come in and they get first dibs on them.
> > Otherwise they
> > go right into the yards. And 90% of the time, 1 of the quadrants of the
> > car
> > is really
> > smashed up bad, and that side wheel and tire are hashed.
> >
> > If the car has aluminum mags, the yards immediately dismount the tires
and
> > throw them
> > into the big pile of old tires and they go off to the tire recycler, and
> > the
> > aluminum
> > mags go to the smelter. My van has aluminum mags. If they have steel
> > rims,
>
> No such thing, you either have aluminum wheels or you have magnesium
wheels
> (mags) you do not have aluminum "mags" (magnesium) wheels. "mags" is short
> for magnesium alloy wheels, not "fancy" aluminum wheels.
>

Your right, I was using the term "mag wheels" as a generic term. The
'93-'95
T&C's came with factory aluminum alloy wheels with a snowflake pattern, for
the record.

>
> Today, I would never purchase used tires, the safety issue is just not
worth
> any possible savings, period.
>
>

I don't see a problem with it, if you find a tire in a yard that has most of
it's
tread left, still mounted on a wheel, and still holding air. Of course it's
going
to be almost impossible to find a match to your existing tires so that is
where
the safety factor comes in.

But if you really want a set of good used tires, the hot place to look
nowadays
is craigslist. There's tons of young kids on there who have replaced sets
of
4 perfectly good blackwall tires with "premium" tires with raised white
lettering,
etc. and are trying to make some money off of the set.

Ted

Well - once again, someone who wants to kick dust up about the oil
company profits disappear when you ask them to talk *PERCENTAGES* (or
margin) instead of raw dollars. I'm no fan of the oil companies either,
but regardless of the subject or what "side" you're on, at least be honest.

Just so everyone's awareness/sensitivity is raised: Whenever a
politician starts talking about oil company profits, *NOTICE* that they
will *only* talk raw dollars, and *NEVER* mention percent profit
(because then they can't spin people up on emotion rather than fact). I
heard John Edwards do it just within the last two days.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Oh for Christ sake, Bill, your distinction is MEANINGLESS!

*PERCENTAGES*? If you want to talk percentages, feel free to produce them,
we will look at your percentages. They won't change the conversation. Big
oils profits are obscene, period. Twisting the data around won't change
that.


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well - once again, someone who wants to kick dust up about the oil company
> profits disappear when you ask them to talk *PERCENTAGES* (or margin)
> instead of raw dollars. I'm no fan of the oil companies either, but
> regardless of the subject or what "side" you're on, at least be honest.
>
> Just so everyone's awareness/sensitivity is raised: Whenever a politician
> starts talking about oil company profits, *NOTICE* that they will *only*
> talk raw dollars, and *NEVER* mention percent profit (because then they
> can't spin people up on emotion rather than fact). I heard John Edwards
> do it just within the last two days.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> Oh for Christ sake, Bill, your distinction is MEANINGLESS!
>
> *PERCENTAGES*? If you want to talk percentages, feel free to produce them,
> we will look at your percentages. They won't change the conversation. Big
> oils profits are obscene, period. Twisting the data around won't change
> that.

You missed the point, which was that people are using sleight of hand
(by using raw dollars) to use the term "record profits". *ANY* viable
industry (or individuals in their personal income) at most times in
history are making "record profits" in raw dollars, but not in
percentages. That is true of the oil industry, is it not? (hint: answer
'yes') (another hint: Look up the word "inflation")

I don't need to produce the percentages for this discussion. The point
is that the argument you are using can be used as a barometer by which
to gage a person's intelligence and honesty.

Anyone who doesn't see that point, especially after it has been pointed
out to them multiple times) is stupid or dishonest or both (sometimes
it's hard to tell the difference).

Shows how much you understand. For every dollar made there's risk.
Part of profit is to cover or insure against the risk of disaster (of
any kind), as well as return on investment. Why would you risk your
money (and a lot of it) to constantly hover above and below break even
like apparently you expect the oil companies to do but which I submit
you would not do in your personal life if you ran a business?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:Ufkhj.3853$K%6.3124@trndny04...
> Oh for Christ sake, Bill, your distinction is MEANINGLESS!
>
> *PERCENTAGES*? If you want to talk percentages, feel free to produce
> them, we will look at your percentages. They won't change the
> conversation. Big oils profits are obscene, period. Twisting the data
> around won't change that.
>

Using percentages is NOT twisting data. It is how every company views its
profit on sales, it is how every consumer views the interest banks give you
on savings.

Do you think an increase of 500% is obscene? If my company had sales of $1
million last year and made $1 profit, you'd say it was not worth being in
business. Yet, if I said my profits increased 500% this year, you'd be
saying they are obscene, yet I only made a mere $5. Oil companies, like
every other business, must make a healthy profit in order to remain in
business, pay dividends to shareholders, and increase in value in our
investment portfolios and 401k's. Let's get back to the real issue, profit
as a percentage of sales. What is it?