Aggie87

They *haven't* tripled their profit margin. It's remained steady at 8.5%. 8.5% of $4.50/gallon is nicer than 8.5% of 2.80, I'll agree with you on that. But their margin has remained the same at 8.5%, and I'm sure their stockholders expect that sort of return to remain. OPEC + speculators are the primary culprit for the rise in pump prices. Be mad at them.

Looks like Baron Davis is heading south to the Clippers (for 5 yr, $65M). Assuming Brand now comes back, how do the Clippers look for next year? They also drafted Texas A&M's DeAndre Jordan, who I don't think is ready for the NBA, but he's big and has potential I guess. Could have used a year or two more seasoning in college though. He wasn't even good enough to remain a starter at A&M.

I can almost guarantee you that when the DOE releases their figures for 2008, the % of the total that equals "refining costs and profit" will remain the same, despite the increase in the cost at the pump. The prices are going up because the cost of a barrel of oil coming into the country is higher than it was before, not because U.S. oil companies randomly decide to increase it. Your vitriol is misdirected. edited to remove Goodspeak's random extra blank lines.

That wasn't my main point, despite your contention. I'll admit I thought the $18B was an overall figure, but I hadn't noticed any links to say otherwise at that point. So you "win" that point, if that makes you feel better about yourself. However, go back and look at the chart I posted again. I'm taking the 8.5% as an estimate of profit, based on it being half of the "Refining Costs & Profit" figure stated by the Dept of Energy. Can you tell me why it's not fair for the oil companies to harbor a profit of 8.5%? They've maintained that 8-8.5% figure since at least the year 2000, and quite possibly alot longer. If you run a business you certainly have to factor in a profit margin, or it's not practical to keep the company going. 8.5% isn't that much. And those profits are shared by all of the stockholders, the majority of whom probably are middle class Americans, not the multimillionaires you think they are.

Seen on another board, but this is a pretty cool cover: Neil Young - A Day in the Life

SI: Bonds' No. 756 ball not going to Hall of Fame NEW YORK (AP) -- The ball Barry Bonds launched for his record-breaking 756th home run took a strange turn Tuesday on its possible path to the Hall of Fame. First, the Hall announced it wouldn't take the asterisk-stamped souvenir because talks with its owner broke down over whether the ball would be loaned or donated. Hours later, the man who paid $752,467 for the prize presented a different view. "At this time, the ball is on route to the Hall of Fame," fashion designer Marc Ecko said in a statement. "I hope that they will accept it and honor their commitment to display it at some point in time." Ecko spokeswoman Laurie Baker said the ball would be offered as a "permanent donation." Not since Boston first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz caught the last out of the 2004 World Series has a Hall-bound ball caused so much commotion. It was uncertain whether the Bonds ball would actually wind up inside the shrine at Cooperstown, N.Y. "Should the owner choose to unconditionally donate the ball, we would be delighted and, of course, accept the offer and would display it at some point in time," Hall spokesman Brad Horn said Tuesday night. Horn said new artifacts need to be mounted and labeled before they can be shown. If the Hall took the Bonds ball, he said, there would be no delay in presenting it. "It would be the same thing we told Ken Griffey Jr. about his batting helmet from his 600th home run," Horn said. Ecko bought the 756 ball in an online auction last September, a month after Bonds broke Hank Aaron's career home run record. Ecko then asked fans to vote in an Internet poll on what he should do with the ball. The winner: Brand it with an asterisk, to reflect the steroid allegations surrounding Bonds, and give it to the Hall. The ball indeed was marked, with the asterisk dye-cut into the cowhide where "Major League Baseball" is printed. Nearly all of the Hall's 35,000-plus artifacts were given on a permanent basis. The Hall does make exceptions, especially when it has nothing else to illustrate a story -- Willie Mays loaned the glove he used to make his famous, over-the-shoulder catch in the 1954 World Series. Bonds donated the batting helmets he wore when he hit his 755th and 756th home runs. After many conversations back and forth, the Hall said Tuesday afternoon that recent talks with Ecko had "unfortunately reached an impasse." "The owner's previous commitment to unconditionally donate the baseball has changed to a loan. As a result, the Hall of Fame will not be able to accept the baseball," the Hall said. Early Tuesday evening, Ecko responded. "I am surprised that the Hall issued a statement that said they would no longer accept the Barry Bonds' 756th home run baseball. We had been in communication with them just this morning and the Hall did not mention that they would change their position and no longer accept the ball," he said. "Based on the Hall of Fame's previous statements that they would both accept and display the ball, the only open issue we were talking about was the Hall's recent indication of discomfort in displaying it and addressing the controversy surrounding the record." The Hall held many internal discussions and consulted with several prominent museums last year before deciding it would accept the marked ball. Bonds called Ecko an "idiot" when the designer announced plans to hold the vote. The slugger later said he would boycott the Hall if it displayed the ball with an asterisk. Bonds finished the season with 762 home runs. The San Francisco Giants did not offer him a contract for this year, and he hasn't gotten an offer to play for another team.

Goodspeak - Is 8.5% profit a fair figure or unfair?

I would think it's safe to assume the current price is broken down in a chart that's identical to those charts. 16-17% of the cost you pay at the pump is for refining costs and profits. If you assume half of that is profit, you get 8 to 8.5%. 8.5% of $4.00 is 34 cents. What is a reasonable profit you should expect a company to make on a product? Is 8.5% a reasonable profit for a business? Does it compare to other businesses? I'm guessing it's not out of line with most businesses. Your gripe is the cost at the pump (which is more the fault of speculators and/or maybe OPEC, driving the barrel cost up), or the 8.5% profit/return on investment that the big oil companies make? edit - Keep in mind that $18 Billion figure you keep bandying about is divided among many companies, it's not one super-mega-corporation. edit - Microsoft's net quarterly profit was $4.7 Billion, according to this article. So in terms of pure figures, it's probably higher than any of the individual oil companies you're talking about. DAMN MICROSOFT!

Happy Birthday Ro-Beer!!! Rejoin the live chat crew!!

The problem is the cost per barrel simply does not translate to 20 and 50 cent price spikes at the pump. Secondly, how can the oil companies justify that price hike on oil already refined and in the underground tanks at the gas station? The hike in price should come after the higher priced oil has been refined then shipped out for consumption. In effect, we are paying in advance for price increases not yet realized by the refineries. As to profit, that $18 Billion dollar figure is based upon free and clear profit, Aggie. That means money left over after everybody has been paid off and services have been rendered. The oil companies are making themselves and their stockholders multi-millionaires while we all suffer for it. That is just plain greed. Make no mistake. From the Dept of Energy (here): If you look at this, the "refining costs/profits" portion of what you pay at the pump essentially hasn't changed. As a business, the Exxons and Shells aren't taking MORE percentage of profit than they were before the prices started going crazy. And I'm quite sure as a company dependant on making a return on investment, they're not going to be willing to cut their profits in half (and alienate all their shareholders and disrupt the stock market even further), just because somebody thinks they're greedy. And if you don't think companies should be trying to make a return on investment, what would their purpose be in a capitalist society?

Free has no time for Live Chat! Priorities, bro, priorities!

There's a whole lot of middle men that make a living on that gallon of gas you pump - from the convenience store clerk to the delivery truck driver to the distributors to the refineries, engineers, and so on. It's not *ALL* profit that goes into some huge faceless corporation's coffer. That said, I think prices should be $2/gallon or under myself. It just ain't gonna happen when the cost of a barrel of oil coming into the country is so high.

Why would it be anybody famous in particular? It clearly isn't Coltrane (to me). But it could be anybody else. Is there a reason you think it's someone famous?

The Complete Nessa Studio Recordings of Bobo Stenson

Happy Birthday!

(moved this article from the Tour de France 2007 thread, since it's more appropriate here) Landis loses doping appeal before sports' highest court LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) -- Floyd Landis lost his final chance to retain his 2006 Tour de France title Monday, the last step of a long, multimillion-dollar process that poked holes in the anti-doping establishment but ultimately left the cyclist as just another convicted cheater. A three-person panel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld a previous panel's decision, ruling his positive doping test during the Tour two years ago was, indeed, valid. Landis also must pay $100,000 toward the legal fees of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. "I am saddened by today's decision," Landis said in a statement. "I am looking into my legal options and deciding on the best way to proceed." He has 30 days to appeal to the Swiss Federal Court. In its 58-page decision, the panel at sports' highest court said the lab that analyzed Landis' positive test results used some "less than ideal laboratory practices, but not lies, fraud, forgery or cover-ups," the way the Landis camp had alleged. In the end, the panel saved its harshest criticism for Landis, who it said essentially tried to muddle the evidence and embarrass the French lab, and continued on that course even after the evidence was shown not to exist. "Appelant's experts crossed the line, acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant's cause, and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth," the decision read. The decision comes just six days before the start of the 2008 Tour. Landis won the 2006 edition after a stunning comeback in Stage 17, a rally that turned out to be fueled by synthetic testosterone. "We are pleased that justice was served and that Mr. Landis was not able to escape the consequences of his doping or his effort to attack those who protect the rights of clean athletes," said USADA chief executive officer Travis Tygart. The ruling upholds Landis' two-year ban from cycling, which is due to end Jan. 29, 2009, though at this point, the ban wasn't the real issue. Landis hoped to be exonerated and to get his title back. He also wanted to use the protracted case to shed light on procedures at USADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency, which he says are unfair and rigged against athletes who often don't have the resources to fund their defense. "That's always been part of the system, that they've always had more resources than the athlete. This is the first time it's even been close," Landis' attorney, Maurice Suh, said in an interview last year. Bankrolled through several private sources, including a fundraising campaign he launched on his own, Landis forced a case that cost more than $2 million -- a burden on him, but also a strain on the bottom lines of both USADA and WADA, which shared the cost of prosecuting the case. After his unprecedented public hearing at his first arbitration case last May, the arbitrators upheld his doping ban but scolded USADA and the labs it uses for practices that were less than airtight. That appeared to give Landis the opening he needed to justify an appeal to CAS. The hearing took place in March in New York, and was considered a "trial de novo" -- not technically an appeal, but a chance to have the case heard anew. Although the CAS panel agreed with the idea that the lab was less than perfect, the evidence presented over the five-day hearing didn't change the final outcome. "The Landis case will set a precedent not only for the issues related to the application of the standard for laboratories but also for the management of CAS procedures," said CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb. "CAS appeals must be conducted promptly, efficiently, in a fair manner and with reasonable costs involved." Thus ended the longest, most expensive and most bizarre case in modern anti-doping history. It included some scandalous revelations during the public hearing, nothing more shocking than when former Tour de France winner Greg LeMond entered the hearing room. LeMond told of being sexually abused as a child, confiding that to Landis, then receiving a call from Landis' manager the night before his testimony threatening to disclose LeMond's secret to the world if LeMond showed up. Though it made for great theater, it was damaging for Landis. In the end, the only aspect of the LeMond testimony the panel considered was LeMond's claim that Landis had admitted to him that he doped -- and the panel disregarded that testimony, saying it couldn't be used as an admission. The cyclist's future plans aren't yet known, though he was said to be hurting financially. What's for sure is he will go down as the first cyclist in the history of the Tour to have his title stripped for a doping violation. "Cycling has moved on already," said Pat McQuaid, president of cycling's world governing body. "It just puts this episode behind us now, we can forget it."

Toshiko Akiyoshi - Let Freedom Swing (2 cd)

Welcome home, Free! now drinking - Waving Wheat, a Belgian style wheat beer from the Choc Brewery in Oklahoma.

It all depends on how much you're interested in paying probably, but I'd check out Trek's roadbikes, they're good, solid "everyman" bikes. I bought a Trek 1400 in 1991, which at the time was their high-end aluminum bike. Composites and carbon-fiber frames were the new thing at the time, and priced quite a bit higher. Nowadays a Trek 1.5 (aluminum frame) has an msrp of right around $1K. Maybe a good entry level road bike, and if you discover you really enjoy it, you can upgrade later to a lighter framed bike. I'd also consider buying locally if it's your first bike in a while. They'll size it to you properly.

Happy Birthday Phil!

I think maybe it's partially because on-line people get to think they're the expert on something, instead of being open to other's opinions and points of view. And they try to steer everyone else into the mindset that works for them, because it is the "right" one.

That's true. Unfortunately, though, it's not aimed at you, either. I think part of this goes back to my original comment in post three that it's an age thing. I think JETman has simply grown out of the age group that contemporary rock/pop/etc is made for, whether he can accept that or not. And there's nothing wrong with continuing to think Clapton is the greatest guitar player ever. If he does it for you, enjoy it and be happy. My daughter currently likes Chris Brown, Rihanna, Lil Wayne, etc. I don't see it as breaking any new ground, but ultimately who cares? It's not stuff that touches me, but she enjoys it. And she will look back at it fondly some day, as her mother did to ABBA (and other things that make me shudder). As you look back on Clapton now. edit - I agree with impossible too, in that there's plenty of music out there that's "aimed" at me, that may have been recorded 10, 20, yrs ago or whenever. It's just up to me to discover it, not just look at what's out there today and bemoan that stuff.

Happy Birthday!!