Why do people get so upset when multinational corporations

[jnschwie]

involved in a high risk and competitive marketplace make so much money?


You live in a country where you are free to do the same. So, it certainly should not be jealousy, unless you are lazy, and jealous of their ambition.

You live in a country where you are free to invest in most of these companies, so it shouldn't be that you can't "get me some of that."

Lastly, you live in a country are NOT compelled to buy their products, if you so choose.


I simply don't understand the mindset. Someone who hates big oil or big pharma please explain this to me.

[al24]

:feedtroll:

[jnschwie]

Sincere question. :)

:beer:


Evaluate something on a smaller scale in regards to risk, and see what the payoff must be before one is willing to engage. Odds in Vegas perhaps. :)

[1BGDOG]

How many threads of the same variation must you start? ;)

[Leon Phelps]

I see the trolling motor has fuel again.

Carry on.

[scottycards]

:PostWhore: :ban:

Sirius.

[jnschwie]

How many threads of the same variation must you start? ;)

I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. :shrug:

[1BGDOG]

Define high risk/competitive.

[jnschwie]

Many players, high chances of failure.

[1BGDOG]

Many players, high chances of failure.

Oh..then you aren't talking about oil this time. Since there are only a few players and a low chance of failure. :D

[not so Quikjeep]

Because opinions are like A-holes. And people like to whine about what they don't have.

-Tom

[jnschwie]

Oh..then you aren't talking about oil this time. Since there are only a few players and a low chance of failure. :D

Are ya sure?

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industry/bigcharts-com/stocklist.asp?bcind_ind=0537&bcind_period=3mo

That's just the publicly traded ones....

I'm also curious about "low chance of failure." How much research is required to find the next source?

[jnschwie]

535 in Pharmaceuticals, and God-knows I get enough complaints on that...

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industry/bigcharts-com/stocklist.asp?bcind_ind=4570&bcind_period=3mo

[1BGDOG]

Are ya sure?

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industry/bigcharts-com/stocklist.asp?bcind_ind=0537&bcind_period=3mo

That's just the publicly traded ones....

I'm also curious about "low chance of failure." How much research is required to find the next source?


I mean REAL players. :flipoff2:

"low chance of failure" they have the resources to find it don't they?
I sure feel it when I pay 4.79 (come on I wouldn't pay that much for diesel...that was on a busy corner in SOBO.)

And it is all the commodity/future market that is fawking us.

[jnschwie]

I mean REAL players. :flipoff2:.

Are you serious? By the time you go public, you're playing with the big boys, that much is for real. And that goes twin-turbo since SOX, at least in the US.


"low chance of failure" they have the resources to find it don't they? :.

And why is it they have these resources again? :D

And it is all the commodity/future market that is fawking us.

If you are a speculator "hoarding" oil, and you bought lower than the current price...what do you think you're gonna do? You only recoup those costs when you cash out. The market ALWAYS equilibrates.



In terms of diesel- that is curious. I was called a "troll" when I said I drove all over town looking for the cheapest gas -but in truth, I drove nearly the entire length of Broadway from Downtown to HR recently and it was AMAZING the difference in price for Diesel. Easily a $0.30 swing on the range. :)

[Xtremjeepn-Cole Ford]

involved in a high risk and competitive marketplace make so much money?



Show me one person upset for this reason ONLY!



You live in a country where you are free to do the same. So, it certainly should not be jealousy, unless you are lazy, and jealous of their ambition.

While it may technically be legal for us to persue the same venture there are HUGE barriers to entry that prevent new entrants to the market.



You live in a country where you are free to invest in most of these companies, so it shouldn't be that you can't "get me some of that."



Yup!


Lastly, you live in a country are NOT compelled to buy their products, if you so choose.


Very false assuming you are still talking about oil companies. Oil runs EVERY machine that makes and delivers EVERY product and EVERY service. So unless you walk into the woods and live off the land (without fireams cause they need gun oil) you will always need what they have.

Sure you can reduce your personal exposure by living where you work, growing your own food, producing your own heat but at the end of the day you still need some of what they have.

Now the reality in this country is that we have built cities that require cars/buses to get around and trucks to bring us our stuff.

Many of the cities in Europe were built before the time of cars and have been built with GREAT public tranport. Not true in the US.


I simply don't understand the mindset. Someone who hates big oil or big pharma please explain this to me.



While not technically a Monopoly they are opperating monopolisticly. You can argue margins all day long. You would never run a small company on the margins they opperate at. But once you put in the scale of the opperation you need much less margin to be very proffitable.

People are upset because an increase in fuel/oil costs rises the cost of EVERY product and service someone buys, not just fuel in the car. To watch a company have record profits while you pay more for everything is upsetting to people. If prices rose and profits stayed reletively the same I don't think anyone would be so frustrated":shrug:

People don't seem to mind companies making a profit, people get upset at greed and price gouging.

[Loki]

Scotty, post your link to the pink pistols again. Maybe the mods will lock this thread then also. :thumbsup:

[1BGDOG]

Are ya sure?

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industry/bigcharts-com/stocklist.asp?bcind_ind=0537&bcind_period=3mo

That's just the publicly traded ones....

I'm also curious about "low chance of failure." How much research is required to find the next source?


I mean REAL players. :flipoff2:

"low chance of failure" they have the resources to find it don't they?
I sure feel it when I pay 4.79 (come on I wouldn't pay that much for diesel...that was on a busy corner in SOBO.)

And it is all the commodity/future market that is fawking us.

[SamFromCO]

This may be a bit of a hijack but do you really not believe that corporations have a responsibility to be good citizens of the country or countries that they operate in? Do you not believe that there is such a thing as price gouging? I don't begrudge a corporation making money but I don't believe in total laissez faire capitalism either. Should we get rid of the SEC, labor laws, FTC or any of the other regulations and regulatory agencies that have been put into place to restrict corporations from pinching the last penny of profits at the expense of the citizens of the country?
The word exploitation is a derogatory term used to describe the profit-at-any-cost mentality that I see defended a lot in these threads. As a Libertarian I would like to keep regulations to a minimum but as a realist I see where capitalism run amok (see Enron, WorldCom, etc.) isn't a particular wonderful thing either.
As far as the "if you don't like the price don't buy it" argument goes, that might work for hi-def big screen TV's but for gasoline, not so much.

[jnschwie]

Show me one person upset for this reason ONLY!

Surf here awhile. :D



While it may technically be legal for us to persue the same venture there are HUGE barriers to entry that prevent new entrants to the market.

An awful lot of biotechs started in one small lab on some college campus before a few scientists decided to go for it. The number one PC seller started in a dorm room. It isn't easy, but let's be honest, people do it.


Very false assuming you are still talking about oil companies. Oil runs EVERY machine that makes and delivers EVERY product and EVERY service. So unless you walk into the woods and live off the land (without fireams cause they need gun oil) you will always need what they have.

I'm just talking in generalities. I concede every point you make. If you actually analyze a supply chain (for anything) it goes back far beyond what pretty much anyone can imagine, even for the simplest things, but you are correct. That said, as you point out, we (humans) have survived an awfully long time. You can do without the end product of gasoline or medicine, but probably not completely avoid oil altogether.

While not technically a Monopoly they are opperating monopolisticly. You can argue margins all day long. You would never run a small company on the margins they opperate at. But once you put in the scale of the opperation you need much less margin to be very proffitable.

Evidence? Look at grocery margins. Commodities have small margins. Small companies can survive by selling commodities at small margins.

People are upset because an increase in fuel/oil costs rises the cost of EVERY product and service someone buys, not just fuel in the car. To watch a company have record profits while you pay more for everything is upsetting to people. If prices rose and profits stayed reletively the same I don't think anyone would be so frustrated":shrug:

This is that whole margin thing again. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but how much lower would you go from a 4% (or less) profit margin? Especially in an industry where you have governments trying to sue you and block every step of growth you take? Or levy further taxes on you (which you, of course, will simply pass on to a consumer, since corporations cannot be taxed)?

People don't seem to mind companies making a profit, people get upset at greed and price gouging.

I have trouble with "gouging" when the actual take on something is less than 4%....you do finance. You know this is far from any sort of working definition of profiteering.

[jnschwie]

This may be a bit of a hijack but do you really not believe that corporations have a responsibility to be good citizens of the country or countries that they operate in? ?

They have a responsibility to their owners to make money within the confines of the law. Period.

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Now, being "green" may help their bottom line in which case they need to do it, but I don't believe they should be "good" for goodness sake. (Whatever "good" may be to you)

Do you not believe that there is such a thing as price gouging? I don't begrudge a corporation making money but I don't believe in total laissez faire capitalism either. Should we get rid of the SEC, labor laws, FTC or any of the other regulations and regulatory agencies that have been put into place to restrict corporations from pinching the last penny of profits at the expense of the citizens of the country?

SEC? No.
Labor Laws? Some
Millions of other bureaucracies? Yeah, definitely we should eliminate some. Case by case.
SOX? Probably not...
Schumer's idea of government regulating airline delays? Yeah... :rolleyes:

The word exploitation is a derogatory term used to describe the profit-at-any-cost mentality that I see defended a lot in these threads. As a Libertarian I would like to keep regulations to a minimum but as a realist I see where capitalism run amok (see Enron, WorldCom, etc.) isn't a particular wonderful thing either.

Agreed, but they were breaking laws....

As far as the "if you don't like the price don't buy it" argument goes, that might work for hi-def big screen TV's but for gasoline, not so much.

It is certainly a spectrum, but I do NOT believe in anyone's inherent right to cheap commodities.

[jnschwie]

Scotty, post your link to the pink pistols again. Maybe the mods will lock this thread then also. :thumbsup:

:rolleyes: If you aren't interested in debate, you don't have to play.

If you don't agree with an opinion, is it really your first thought to have it outlawed? :shrug:

[Xtremjeepn-Cole Ford]

The problem is you are focused on "%" profit. I personally would rather have 4% of the oil company profits than 100% of the profits of the local doggie daycare.


I can see where it would be fairly easy to start a drug company in a dorm:rolleyes: What about an oil company? Think you can drill, refine and sell the fuel right out of your back yard?

[Loki]

:rolleyes: If you aren't interested in debate, you don't have to play.

If you don't agree with an opinion, is it really your first thought to have it outlawed? :shrug:


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e379/SewerDog/sgthulka.jpg

:flipoff2:

[Big Dave]

I can see where it would be fairly easy to start a drug company in a dorm:rolleyes: What about an oil company? Think you can drill, refine and sell the fuel right out of your back yard?


You can't tell me you've never heard of the Beverly Hillbillies . . . .


:flipoff2:
That's all I have to add to this thread. :D

[jnschwie]

The problem is you are focused on "%" profit. I personally would rather have 4% of the oil company profits than 100% of the profits of the local doggie daycare.


Anyone would. However, if you are to stay viable, you must take your profit off of each individual unit, right? It wouldn't be feasible to say, "oops, we made record profits, we're giving it back" in the form of some stimulus package (a la US government), right? So, you have to take some percent. How much lower would you go than single digits? -Again, in a hostile industry where really everyone is out to block you?

Edit: Sure, maybe the biggest couple of players could say we'll adjust our percent from 4% to 0.4%.....but what happens when the government changes the rules again?

I can see where it would be fairly easy to start a drug company in a dorm:rolleyes: What about an oil company? Think you can drill, refine and sell the fuel right out of your back yard?

It is certainly not easy. Pushing *anything* through clinical trials, let alone the FDA is nothing short of a massive, massive effort. How do they get their start? Maybe they sell a few compounds until they get the resources to go further, or find a VC to help them along.

Analogously, couldn't a group of scientists take on one small part of the whole process you put forth (in oil) and work their way up? Maybe they start JUST with exploration, much like a chemist starts with one molecule?

[jnschwie]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e379/SewerDog/sgthulka.jpg

:flipoff2:

Not so applicable. ;)

[Xtremjeepn-Cole Ford]

You can't tell me you've never heard of the Beverly Hillbillies . . . .


:


But all they did was sell off the land. They did not build it into a manufacturer/distributor. :flipoff2: So they had no control of fuel prices.

[scottycards]

I wonder why EM doesn't cite their profit margin when talking to stockholders? :shrug:

They only cite their profit margin when speaking to the press and congress. :cool:

Right here, in their 2006 Financial and Operating Review, they specifically lay out why they don't cite profit margin to shareholders:

The corporation?s total ROCE [return on capital employed] is net income excluding the after-tax cost of financing, divided by total corporate average capital employed. The corporation has consistently applied its ROCE definition for many years and views it as the best measure of historical capital productivity in our capital-intensive, long-term industry, both to evaluate management?s performance and to demonstrate to shareholders that capital has been used wisely over the long term.

Return on capital? Every internet economist should be familiar with that term.

So what was EM's return on capital last year?

27%?

Is that high, or low?

10% above above all other industries, on average?

So if industry is averaging 17% return on capital, and EM is at 27%, wouldn't it be accurate to say that their return on capital is 58.8% higher than other industries?

The mere fact that EM spends millions of dollars publicizing their profit margin to the media, and then turn around and promote return on capital to their investors and shareholders speaks volumes about how that company works.

I'm done here.

You can call a donkey whatever you want, but in the end, it's still a jackass.

[jnschwie]

Think EM is involved in commercial paper or other diversified investments at all?

[Gags]

I'd like to see an airline like Korean Air.

[Xtremjeepn-Cole Ford]

Think EM is involved in commercial paper or other diversified investments at all?



You lost all credibility with me here if you honestly think they made up 23% profit in commercial paper and other investments in this current world market.

Why would they not just drop out of the oil business and become a bank?

:shrug:


There is good debate and there is arguing just to argue. :tisk:

...and before you go down the road. I'm sure there was money to be made in other investments but not on the scale you are eluding to there.

Keep it coming with GOOD arguements, not just shots at every point. :D

[CannonBall]

Friday Ayn Rand quote:
From The Fountainhead

Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burnt at the stake he'd taught his brothers to light. But he left them a gift they had not conceived. And he lifted darkness off the earth. Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.
The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed, every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid, but they won. No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work was his only goal. His work - not those who used it. His creation - not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not. With his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself and only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.
The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks, the parasite copies. The creator produces, the parasite loots. The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of Man. The creator requires independence - he neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice. The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery.
He...He claims that Man is only a tool for the use of others. That he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own. Look at history - Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots; without personal rights, without personal ambition, without will, hope or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name - the individual against the collective.
Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism. The principle of Man's inalienable rights. It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness. To gain and produce, not to give up and renounce. To prosper, not to starve. To achieve, not to plunder. To hold as his highest possession, a sense of his personal value. And as his highest virtue, his self-respect. Look at the result. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy. As much of the earth has been destroyed.

-Nate

[jnschwie]

You lost all credibility with me here if you honestly think they made up 23% profit in commercial paper and other investments in this current world market.

Why would they not just drop out of the oil business and become a bank?

:shrug:

I knew someone would jump on that one. :D
:beer:

(Realistically, I'd be surprised if they made much of anything in CP over the past year.) That said, they clearly have diversified interests. It is absolutely not fair to look at two different numbers and say they are lying. Certainly Colorado4x4 did not catch what their auditors did not. ;)

There is good debate and there is arguing just to argue. :tisk:

...and before you go down the road. I'm sure there was money to be made in other investments but not on the scale you are eluding to there.

Keep it coming with GOOD arguements, not just shots at every point. :D

Also on point, I don't think it is fair to say that EM = the market as a whole. It is akin to saying that the Boston Red Sox had a kick ass year, therefore, every team in MLB had a kick-ass year.




Still, is it fair to say EM is = the entire industry?

Edit: Also, if we are going to talk about capital, should we talk about their leverage?

[Dave McDonald]

But all they did was sell off the land. They did not build it into a manufacturer/distributor. :flipoff2: So they had no control of fuel prices.

Sure they did. Jed got together with t'other property owners and they all agreed to double the price of the oil leases. That additional cost went straight through with the oil until it got pumped out the other end into my tank.

Damn that hillbilly.

[Dave McDonald]

You can call a donkey whatever you want, but in the end, it's still a jackass.

I call 'em compact fuel efficient hybrids... :)

[OrangeCrush]

Also on point, I don't think it is fair to say that EM = the market as a whole. It is akin to saying that the Boston Red Sox had a kick ass year, therefore, every team in MLB had a kick-ass year.




Most markets do not have revenue sharing between different entities like MLB :P

[SUPERGILDO43]

without reading anything, josh is mad he isnt getting his way with the presidential candidates :flipoff2:

[jnschwie]

without reading anything, josh is mad he isnt getting his way with the presidential candidates :flipoff2:

josh isn't mad. ;)

[jnschwie]

Most markets do not have revenue sharing between different entities like MLB :P

Let this be the official call for discussion of collusion between corporate entities. :D

[SUPERGILDO43]

josh isn't mad. ;)

ok, fooking pissed! :flipoff2:

[jnschwie]

Laughing is probably most accurate. ;)

[Dave McDonald]

Let this be the official call for discussion of collusion between corporate entities. :D

When playing Risk, My brother and I always got accused of collusion. Really what I was doing was waiting until I had enough strength to crush him so visciously and quickly that I'd cause the ultimate in humiliation. The others in the game were merely stepping stones.