Price fixing among tire manufacturers

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')

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

<snip>

> If they were to decide they had a point to make to the west, they
> could, with present reserves, stop selling ANYTHING to the west for
> long enough to bring the west to their knees, while continuing to pay
> all idled chinese workers the same as they are being paid today, and
> still have money left over.( Hint - it wouldn't take long)

Even easier, stop buying US Treasuries, putting the US into deep yogurt
indeed. As of Oct, 2007, the Chinese held $388 billion in US Treasuries,
about 17% of the outstanding bonds, notes & bills. The Japanese held
$592 billion, about 25%.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "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.

What are you talking about here? The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading
Commission) is charged with providing oversight on markets where Enron
and other "energy trading" companies traded their contracts. However, in
1993 Ken Lay suggested to the Chair of the CFTC, Wendy Gramm, that he
thought they didn't need any oversight. Ms Gramm agreed and pushed thru
an exemption for Enron and its trading partners, so those trades had no
oversight at all. Shortly after this Ms Gramm resigned from the CFTC and
took a seat on Enron's board. Ms Gramm is (or was) married to former
Senator Phil Gramm, R.TX, who was a heavy hitter in those days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...2/enron/31.stm

Bill Putney wrote:
> 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.

You're admitting I won the argument? Thanks.

Bill Putney wrote:
> 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).

Sorry, I'd forgotten how humorless you rightwingnuts truly are. Would
you have felt better if I'd included a smiley?

> 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.

Setting standards is one aspect of the API (you guessed right, the
American Petroleum Institute). It's a major industry group which
represents the interests of petroleum & related companies. Here's a link
to their Media Contacts page:

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/contacts/

Setting API standards is hardly their primary function.

>> 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.

Dude, take it up with the AICPA. I don't make the rules here and neither
do the news media.

<repeated horse**** snipped>

Tony Harding wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You're admitting I won the argument? Thanks.

Yes - it's all about you. Grow up.

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

Tony Harding wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Dude, take it up with the AICPA. I don't make the rules here and neither
> do the news media.
>
> <repeated horse**** snipped>

CPA's don't recognize the significance of percentage profits vs. raw
dollars? You are delusional. You're still intentionally missing the
point. In your case, it appears to be more a case of dishonesty than
lack of intelligence, but probably some of both. I do find they often
go hand in hand.

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