Aggie87

also in 08: Charles Lloyd - Rabo de Nube Bjornstad/Rydal - Live from Leipzig Wacilewski Trio - January Bennie Maupin - Jewel in the Lotus reissue Though I'm assuming this award is for 2007...

Which is controlled by the cost of a barrel of crude oil coming into this country moreso than anything else. NOT oil companies profit margins. Your whole argument about profits has been irrelevant. edit - cost per gallon of gas here was $3.94 this morning. Up from $3.89 the past few days. Your prices for EVERYTHING are higher in California. edit 2 - that 10 cents per gallon doesn't add up to THAT much. If you fill up weekly with 15 gallons of gas, that's $1.50. Multiplied by 52 weeks, that's $78. PER YEAR. Bank on that.

Oil companies are one instance right now. They're simply passing on their increased cost of raw material to you the consumer, while maintaining their same profit margin - not increasing it. GM or Ford can't do this because people would simply not buy new cars, but hang on to their old ones for alot longer. The demand would go down. The oil industry is different because the demand doesn't go down. They CAN pass along their increased cost (due to the increased cost of their raw material) of doing business to us and we pay it. They don't HAVE to lay off anyone or decrease their profit margin from 8.5% to 6% or something (note - a reduction from 8.5% to 6% profit on a 4.00 gallon of gas would only decrease the pump price by 10 cents, so you're still payin the exorbitant price as I mentioned earlier, regardless of profit margin). You're so far off base here it's silly. Take away ALL of their profit and you still pay $3.66 instead of $4.00. WITH NO PROFIT TO THE COMPANIES. Their profit is clearly not the biggest chunk of what you pay at the pump.

Speaking of pushing, how about Astros pitcher Sean Chacon throwing GM Ed Wade to the floor and threatening him? He was kicked off the team, though the Player's Union is filing a grievance for being improperly terminated. Here's a description from the Astro's website:

Your chart shows that prices for gasoline have gone up. Alert the press! The demand for gasoline hasn't gone down enough to hurt the oil companies. They keep producing gas because the demand is there. So they don't have to lay off people like GM or Ford.

If you can figure out the back door deals going on, more power to you. Aim your anger there, and at OPEC & speculators. It does *NOT* stand to reason that as the cost of doing business goes up, profits shrink, in this case. Manufacturers regularly pass along price increases to consumers. Are you saying by the same token that if the cost of steel goes up, the price of cars and buildings should remain constant??

Look at the chart again, Goodspeak. If you ELIMINATE the concept of profit altogether from the picture ( ), you would remove 8.5% of the cost of a gallon of gas. For a gallon that costs you $4.00, this would eliminate 34 cents from your cost at the pump. Your price is now "only" $3.66. You're still paying an exorbitant price, and yet NO company in the United States would be willing to produce that gallon of gas for you, since they can't make a penny and keep their business going.

Disagree. Show me how that's a fact. I think you mean shrink instead of sprink (?). If the cost of business goes up (i.e. the cost of a barrel of crude goes quadruples), the oil companies are simply passing those costs along to consumers. They're keeping the same profit margin. I agree the system is being manipulated. But it always has been.

I understand your simple arithmetic. I'm asking you as a business, are oil companies not entitled to make an 8.5% profit? You seem to be saying no. I say yes. It's not an unrealistic percentage for any business. Their desire to make a profit isn't driving the prices up (as I keep stating and you keep refuting, their profit margin has remained the same), it's the price of crude that's driving the gas prices up.

Some good recommendations (and warm remembrances) from Ron Thorne and others in this Jim Pepper thread.

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?