Price fixing among tire manufacturers

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')
>
>

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "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.

How do you figure? If they increased 500%, they increase $5. $1 + $5 = $6.

Percentages can be confusing, too.

> 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?

It less than the profit made by regulated industries, like utilities.

And most of many oil companies' profits come from outside the US.

Jeff

"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

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.

So, it is not nearly as meaningless as you suggest.

Jeff

> Ed
>
>

"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...

Where do the many billions of dollars in US tax payer provided OIL industry
subsidies fit into your accounting scheme?
No other industry gets over a trillion a year in subsidies while pulling in
a hundred billion in profits.

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.

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!?

> 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.


> 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?

> 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?

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?

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

Bill Putney wrote:
> 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).

You must work for the API or AEI or some other rightwingnut
organization. I'm not the one who described ExxonMobil's profits as
"record", virtually everyone has:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...xonmobil_x.htm


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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922298/

Well-known Socialist writer Larry Kudlow characterizes their profits as
"record":

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...IyY2Q5NWM5ZTM=

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.

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.

> 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?

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")
>
> 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.

LOL, you rightwingnuts kill me!

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.