Price fixing among tire manufacturers

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "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.

What's with this on topic post, Ted? <vbg>

Tony Harding wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>>> news:OQohj.13532$9e1.10897@trnddc02...
>>>
>>>> Speaking of percentages, about $2.2 B of ExxonMobil's profit came
>>>> from the US, and about $7.2 B came outside the US, so more than 70%
>>>> of ExxonMobil's profit comes from outside the US.
>>>
>>> Sigh, and of course the accountants at ExxonMobil would never arrange
>>> things (to the extent that is legal, or at least can be claimed to
>>> be legal in some twisted way) so that the money was made in countries
>>> with favorable tax laws. ExxonMobil produces and buys crude oil
>>> overseas. They can adjust the price of the crude so that it appears
>>> the profit were made in the country of production or almost any
>>> other, effectively transferring the profit on the complete supply
>>> chain away from the US.
>>
>> Well, gee, it is not in the US if the product is outside the US.
>>
>>> Likewise, they own or lease tankers that are technically owned by
>>> subsidiaries operating in countries with more favorable tax laws.
>>> Again, they can adjust the cost of transporting oil to move some of
>>> the profits to these countries. I am not saying any of this is
>>> illegal, or even bad business practices, but it does happen. So
>>> saying that X% of ExxonMobil's profit came from outside the US is
>>> almost completely meaningless.
>>
>> Well considering that it gets most of its oil outside the US, and a
>> lot of the sales are outside the US (they own or supply gas stations
>> in many countries besides the US) from oil that has never been in the US.
>
> Gees, Jeff, I doubt ExxonMobil supplies refined products directly to gas
> stations.

Well, they own a bunch of gas stations in the US and probably other
countries. Where do you think those ExxonMobil gas stations get their
fuel? Sunoco?

Did you ever drive down the road and see gasoline tankers with names
like Exxon, Mobil, BP, Getty, Gulf, LukOil, Valero, Citco and Chevron on
them. Well those tankers are taking fuel from the refiners to the gas
stations. So in the case of Exxon and Mobil, they taking gasoline (the
refined product) and supplying it directly to the gas stations. In some
cases the gas stations actually do the trucking, in others it is
independent truckers or trucking companies, and in others, it is the oil
companies. But in any case, it is the refineries supplying the refined
product (the gasoline) directly to the gas stations.

I think in some cases the oil companies supply the gasoline through
distributors, but I don't know how often. And in the case of gas
stations that are part of local regional chains, the chains may have
their own fuel depots.

Jeff

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:OQohj.13532$9e1.10897@trnddc02...
>> 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.
>> The oil industry has operating margins of about 10.56% average
>> (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=XOM - click on Competitors on the left
>> hand side). The electric utility industry has operating margins of about
>> 15% (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=PPL click on competitors). Microsoft
>> has operating margins of about 37%.
>>
>> Speaking of percentages, about $2.2 B of ExxonMobil's profit came from the
>> US, and about $7.2 B came outside the US, so more than 70% of ExxonMobil's
>> profit comes from outside the US.
>>
>> Based on this, I would say that the percentages are right in line. The
>> only reason why ExxonMobil's profit is much is that ExxonMobil is a huge
>> company, with operations all over the world. They pump out of the ground
>> over 2,600,000 barrels of oil a day. Do you really think that they should
>> be doing this for free? They have to explore for oil, drill for oil, pump
>> the oil out, transport the oil, refine it into gasoline and other
>> products, and then sell it. Exploration and drilling are very complex and
>> expensive operations, often in very difficult places, miles out from shore
>> or in very cold places.
>>
>> What do you expect? Them to do this for free?
>>
>> Before you call profits obscene, tell why the profits are obscene. The
>> number are very big. But so are the costs and the numbers in terms of
>> product (crude oil, gasoline, heating oil, natural gas) delivered.
>>
>> ExxonMobil and the other oil companies are in business to make money. They
>> invest billions of dollars in exploration and drilling. They deliver
>> 100,000,000 gallons of crude oil every day. Gee, I don't expect them to do
>> this for free.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> "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')
>
>
> I'm sure with your attitudes, the blatant thievery going on in Russia's
> newly privatized energies industries is perfectly acceptable to you too...
> Sheesh...

No, it isn't. I don't buy gasoline from Luk Oil or Getty Oil (which is
owned by Luk Oil).

> Where do the many billions of dollars in US tax payer provided OIL industry
> subsidies fit into your accounting scheme?

What subsidies?

> No other industry gets over a trillion a year in subsidies while pulling in
> a hundred billion in profits.

Evidence for these subsidies, please.

> Big oil companies are swimming in a sea of record-breaking profits while
> American consumers and taxpayers pay the price. In 2005, the world's biggest
> oil companies reported a combined $111 billion in profits. In the first
> three quarters of 2006 they reported more than $94 billion.
>
> Here are some *PERCENTAGES* for you!
>
> ExxonMobil 2005 Profits $36.1 billion % increase from 2004 43 %
> Royal Dutch Shell 2005 Profits $25.3 billion % increase from 2004 37 %
> BP 2005 Profits $22.3 billion % increase from 2004 30 %
> ConocoPhillips 2005 Profits $13.5 billion % increase from 2004 66 %
> Chevron Texaco 2005 Profits $14.1 billion % increase from 2004 6 %
>
>
> SPIN that Bill. Dollar or percentages, the oil industries profits are
> indeed OBSCENE.

What is wrong with an increase in profit year over year? Of all that
profit that the big oil companies made, how much was made from products
sold in the US?

And how about ExxonMobil's latest quarterly earnings growth (year over
year) of -10.30%. Gee, they didn't make as much money.

You're wrong about the profits being obscene. Most of the profits are
from overseas. And, the profits the companies make are right in line
with the profits utilities makes.

Jeff

"Jeff" > wrote in message
>
> How do you figure? If they increased 500%, they increase $5. $1 + $5 = $6.
>
> Percentages can be confusing, too.

Especially first thing in the morning, but you get the point. Numbers can
be said in different ways to change the perception of actuality. Other
tricks like showing bar graphs at the top portion instead of the entire bar
to make it look like the difference between 98 and 100 is a big jump, not
the tiny difference if you show the entire scale of 100.

Tony Harding wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>> 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).
>
> You must work for the API or AEI or some other rightwingnut
> organization.

And if the answer to that is 'no' (and it indeed is 'no', maybe your
thought processes are flawed (generally if a person's conclusions based
on assumptions they make are nowhere near accurate, it is a safe bet
that their main premise(s) is(are) faulty).

Let's see - this is how much "connected" with the API and AEI a API =
American Petroleum Institute - that's the logo or whatever you see for
certification of motor oil? Did I get that right? AEI = American
Energy Institute - that's my SWAG - I'd have to Google it to see if I
got it right, but won't waste the time.

> I'm not the one who described ExxonMobil's profits as
> "record", virtually everyone has:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...xonmobil_x.htm

Yes - and they make the mistake that you either are or pretend to be
blind to: Never stating the profits in percent but only in raw dollars.
They talk in places about *changes* (year to year or whatever) in
percents - but *NEVER* state the actual annual profits in percent -
*ALWAYS* in raw dollars. Gee - why is that? Because to state the same
typical ho-hum barely double digits profits that typical viable
companies make wouldn't be sensational, sell their publication, etc.?

> (note "record" profits for 2004, 2005 & 2006)

In raw dollars - not in percent. Duh.

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922298/
>
> Well-known Socialist writer Larry Kudlow characterizes their profits as
> "record":
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...IyY2Q5NWM5ZTM=

I'm not even going to look at it, but I will make a really wild (actualy
pretty safe) guess that in that article too, that is stated as record
profits in raw dollars - not in percent, and I'll even go way out on a
limb and state that I bet he never gives the annual percent profit for a
single year - past or present. SOmeone who looked at the articleel -
How'd I do?

> http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news...obil/index.htm
>
> You'll probably argue that these are all "liberal" sources and, thus,
> BS, so how about ExxonMobil's annual report for 2006? Note the use of
> terms like "strongest ever" & "record":

> http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/file...m_2006_SAR.pdf
>
> etc., etc., etc. If you want to argue otherwise you need to document it.

No - some things are obvious. For example - I'd be safe in saying that
your computer keyboard has keys for the letter 'U' and 'Z' and the
number '3'.

The issue is - and you know it, but you pretend not to realize it - I've
stated it multiple times, but you ignore it - is that the "record
profits" phrase is used as a negative term by certain people if they
don't like a certain entity. Inflation doubles the raw dollar value of
things like every 15 to 20 years (don't know what the figures are today
- used to be like every 8 or 10 years). So any viable business that
doesn't make "record profits" in RAW DOLLARS almost every year will soon
be out of business. Will you at least acknowledge that? (probably not)
So most business entities and people (personal income) are constantly
making "record profits" every subsequent year. This is about the tenth
time I've laid it out for you. If you don't have it now, you probably
never will (or at least will pretend like you don't even see it).

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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:25:44 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message
>news:OQohj.13532$9e1.10897@trnddc02...
>
>> Speaking of percentages, about $2.2 B of ExxonMobil's profit came
>> from the US, and about $7.2 B came outside the US, so more than 70%
>> of ExxonMobil's profit comes from outside the US.
>
>Sigh, and of course the accountants at ExxonMobil would never arrange
>things (to the extent that is legal, or at least can be claimed to be
>legal in some twisted way) so that the money was made in countries
>with favorable tax laws. ExxonMobil produces and buys crude oil
>overseas. They can adjust the price of the crude so that it appears
>the profit were made in the country of production or almost any other,
>effectively transferring the profit on the complete supply chain away
>from the US. Likewise, they own or lease tankers that are technically
>owned by subsidiaries operating in countries with more favorable tax
>laws. Again, they can adjust the cost of transporting oil to move some
>of the profits to these countries. I am not saying any of this is
>illegal, or even bad business practices, but it does happen. So saying
>that X% of ExxonMobil's profit came from outside the US is almost
>completely meaningless.
>
>Ed
>
Except for the FACT Exxom Mobile sells a lot more product outside of
the US than in, and in a more favourable economic climate (like people
are used to paying high prices for everything).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tony Harding wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Note to Mr Putney: some of us have other things to do than to spend all
> day arguing BS in Usenet.

So that's how you "win" the argument? Pretty lame.

>> 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.
>
> Maybe that's because profits are reported in raw dollars, not in
> percentages?

Yes - but when used to try to denigrate an entity simply because you
don't like them when the same criteria could likely be used to show that
the company you work for must be evil since certainly they are making
record profits (in raw dollars) compared to 1, 5 or 10 years ago.

Here it is a one sentence: To denigrate an industry by saying that they
are making "record profits" (on raw dollars) is dishonest - unless you
want to *also* denigrate yourself and practically everyone you know,
their employers and the local small businessman for the same reason,
because if they aren't making "record profits" (in raw dollars), they
are soon declaring bankruptcy. (granted it is a run-on sentence, but
one sentence nonetheless)

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

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> How do you figure? If they increased 500%, they increase $5. $1 + $5 = $6.
>>
>> Percentages can be confusing, too.
>
> Especially first thing in the morning, but you get the point. Numbers can
> be said in different ways to change the perception of actuality. Other
> tricks like showing bar graphs at the top portion instead of the entire bar
> to make it look like the difference between 98 and 100 is a big jump, not
> the tiny difference if you show the entire scale of 100.

One of my favorite questions is:
If '200% increase' means 'twice what it was', what does '100% increase'
mean?

Yet public figures often state things as 200% or 300% or whatever
increase. I bet if you asked them what 200% increase meant, they
wouldn't know, and would probably would get it wrong if you asked them
if it meant twice or thrice (IOW, they're just regurgitating something
someone told them to say, or they are maybe intentionally trying to
deceive). Nor does the public understand that they don't know the
meaning of the "percent increase" "statistic" they heard either. Yet
policy decisions are made based on ignorance (or intentional deception)
like that.

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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>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")
>

It's called ROI - Return on Investment.
When you can do better by putting your money in the bank than by
running a business, percentage really DOES matter.

Not to say Exxon/Mobil is NOT making record profits, not saying they
are.
BUT if a company cannot make more money by operating than by putting
their money in the bank, SOMETHING IS WRONG and there is no reason for
them to be in business.


>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')


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
>> I'm sure with your attitudes, the blatant thievery going on in Russia's
>> newly privatized energies industries is perfectly acceptable to you
>> too... Sheesh...
>
> That's quite a jump of logic. What do you base that on? Are we talking
> Russian mafia (also called "thieves in the law" when translated into
> English)? Why do you equate stealing with business profit?
>
>> Where do the many billions of dollars in US tax payer provided OIL
>> industry subsidies fit into your accounting scheme?
>
> What "scheme" are you talking about!?


Your big oil is not ripping the American public of "scheme".
Did you follow the Enron market manipulation insanity? That was a so called
"price controlled" utilities market. Big oil's practices are more like that
than not.
They have no more right to "gouge the American public for this necessity
than they would for drinking water, period.



>
>> No other industry gets over a trillion a year in subsidies while pulling
>> in a hundred billion in profits.
>
> When profit figures are stated, do they not take into account whatever
> these subsidies are? I mean, if they are making 9 to 11% profit (oh those
> evil *******s!!!!!), you're saying that the profit figures are what they
> have left over, and then they also - in addition - stick the amounts of
> the subsidies into their pockets on top of the debits and credits that go
> into the profit/loss calculations? I doubt if that is the case.
>
>> Big oil companies are swimming in a sea of record-breaking profits while
>> American consumers and taxpayers pay the price.
>
> So are other companies on average - compared to what they used to make in
> non-inflation-adjusted dollars, which seems to be what you want to talk
> about.
>

Are you suggesting we have seen 37-66% inflation in the last year?


>
>> In 2005, the world's biggest oil companies reported a combined $111
>> billion in profits. In the first three quarters of 2006 they reported
>> more than $94 billion.
>
> And their percent profit is...?

?

>
>> Here are some *PERCENTAGES* for you!
>>
>> ExxonMobil 2005 Profits $36.1 billion % increase from 2004 43 %
>
> What was their percent profit in 2005? What was their percent profit in
> 2004? And what do you want me to do about it?

You tell me that's you thing...
To start with, STOP DEFENDING IT!

>
>> Royal Dutch Shell 2005 Profits $25.3 billion % increase from 2004 37 %
>
> Same questions for 2005 and 2004.
>
>> BP 2005 Profits $22.3 billion % increase from 2004 30 %
>
> Same questions...
>
>> ConocoPhillips 2005 Profits $13.5 billion % increase from 2004 66 %
>
> . . .
>
>> Chevron Texaco 2005 Profits $14.1 billion % increase from 2004 6 %
>
> . . .
>
>> SPIN that Bill. Dollar or percentages, the oil industries profits are
>> indeed OBSCENE.
>
> No spin necessary. 9 to 11% profit is obscene in your book. Whatever.
> Again - what do you want me to do/say?
>
> Is what a Hollywood actor/actress or professional sports personality makes
> obscene? Why or why not? Are the million or more dollars that a
> Hollywood actor or actress spends on a wedding for a marriage that has a
> lifespan of 2 or 3 years obscene? Why or why not?
>

We don't have to pay to see their movies, we can choose not to buy Nike
shoes, or McDonalds hamburgers, we CANNOT opt out of oil and gas use, it is
not the same thing at all.

Water, electricity, oil and gas are not consumer commodities modern society
can just decide not to buy. Even if you don't have a car or lawn mower, and
never personally purchase a gallon of gas/diesel, you still cannot walk down
to your corner grocery store and buy your food without it.


> So what's your political or government solution to "obscene" oil company
> profits (I assume that's what you would favor). Whatever your solution,
> would it be different than communism?

Stop subsidizing them to start with, isn't that like communism anyway?


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