Red Wave Radio

by **John M** » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:21:14

Quote:> > > Slim Jim and Mountain Dew at the Tiger Mart.

> > He's not talking about simply making a profit. He's talking about
gouging
> > the public.

> Oh, where did "gouging the public" show up in his posting? Try again,
> loser.

Why the need to insult me?
He wrote "Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last quarter!".
Where do you think that money came from? Do you think it came from vast
corporate improvements in efficiency or other internal methods? Again, I
assert it came from gouging the public.
You may apologize for calling me a loser.
Regards,
John

by **Lungsho** » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:51:04

Quote:> Again, I
>assert it came from gouging the public.

I know a chemical engineer who works for them and I asked about costs of
gasoline manufacture. When gas was selling at about $1.25 / gallon, he
explained that the cost of manufacturing the gasoline (oil, refinery costs)
worked out to about $1.00 / gal.

When you figure that the government, both federal, state and local may add
taxes on the sale of a gallon of gas, then I figure the government should be
blamed with the gouging as they did little to produce and distribute the
product.

Ed

by **T. Earl** » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:01:33

Quote:> > > > Slim Jim and Mountain Dew at the Tiger Mart.

> > > He's not talking about simply making a profit. He's talking
about
> gouging
> > > the public.

> > Oh, where did "gouging the public" show up in his posting? Try
again,
> > loser.

> Why the need to insult me?
> He wrote "Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last
quarter!".
> Where do you think that money came from? Do you think it came from
vast
> corporate improvements in efficiency or other internal methods?
Again, I
> assert it came from gouging the public.
> You may apologize for calling me a loser.
> Regards,
> John

Well, it's probably no comfort but I don't think you're a loser :)
However, I would question what appears to be your main point--that
posting an unprecedented profit equates to "gouging the public,"
whatever that means. See, there's these niggling little aspects of
capitalism involving supply, demand, competition, and the right to
charge what the market will bear (provided no laws are violated).
Since Exxon does not appear to have broken the law, I'd have to repeat
that, if you have a problem with a company making a lot of money, you
essentially have a problem with capitalism (which may be the case).
That's fine.

If you'd like to identify the point at which running a for-profit
company in the manner that shareholders expect turns into "gouging the
public," be my guest. It might also be good to consider whether it's
OK to "gouge" in one particular quarter or year to make up for other
quarters or years that were totally unprofitable, and to consider to
what extent the "gouging" has pass-thru effects that benefit the
entire economy in terms of higher salaries and job creation.

by CW » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:50:04

On the contrary, I will reinforce it. Loser.

Why the need to insult me?

Quote:> You may apologize for calling me a loser.
> Regards,
> John

by **nobod** » Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:54:56

Quote:> > > > Slim Jim and Mountain Dew at the Tiger Mart.

> > > He's not talking about simply making a profit. He's talking about
> gouging
> > > the public.

> > Oh, where did "gouging the public" show up in his posting? Try again,
> > loser.

> Why the need to insult me?

Because you deserve it.

Quote:> He wrote "Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last quarter!".
> Where do you think that money came from? Do you think it came from vast
> corporate improvements in efficiency or other internal methods? Again, I
> assert it came from gouging the public.

As others have pointed out, you're incredibly wrong.

Quote:> You may apologize for calling me a loser.

Consider it done, I'm sorry you're a loser. And you're stupid to boot.

by **Pa..** » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:27:45

Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
but "financial ***" is.

I can see why you bought their stock.

Boycott is a perfect program to get their attention, but it takes more
than a few, it takes millions of Americans to join. I understand that
there are over 300k already involved in just 3 days from an email I
received two days ago. As requested I sent the email I received out to
everyone on my email list.

> > >Good, I own stock. Why are you pissed at success? Loser.

> > Well, if that's your sense of corporate ethics, don't forget to buy stock in
> > Halliburton. But, wait, Bush is making them return some of the profits they
> > made for selling gas at $2.80 a gallon in Baghdad. So, even the mighty "Shrub"
> > recognizes that there is indeed a line where profits become gouging, right?

> $2.80? Better check your facts. Halliburton's KBR subsidiary charged the Army
> between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon. While the average price in the Middle East
> is/was around $.71 per gallon, Halliburton charged that price for 'guaranteed'
> delivery. Not to bad considering the logistics of doing so in a war zone.

> Could you do better? No? I thought not.

> Steve
> Holland, MI
> Drake R7, R8 and R8B

> http://www.redwaveradio.com/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

by **nobod** » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:48:43

> Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> but "financial ***" is.

Care to cite that law?

Quote:> I can see why you bought their stock.

> Boycott is a perfect program to get their attention, but it takes more
> than a few, it takes millions of Americans to join.

Ya could try pissing up a rope or shoveling shit against the tide too,
you'll have just as much luck. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

by **Brenda An** » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:39:53

> > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > but "financial ***" is.

> Care to cite that law?

There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when gas
stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79 cents/gallon).
At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons of
free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe the
lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being rationed,
as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those lines
were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil companies
to give away the free gasoline... )

by **nobod** » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:22:18

> > > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > > but "financial ***" is.

> > Care to cite that law?

> There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when gas
> stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79 cents/gallon).
> At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons of
> free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe the
> lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being rationed,
> as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those lines
> were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil companies
> to give away the free gasoline... )

Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

by **Brenda An** » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:32:12

Quote:> Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
> have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

Given... but (and not that I'm saying this is the case currently),
competitive doesn't necessarily mean legal. During the aformentioned
embargo, all the oil companys' stations were competitive, but were still
gouging. And all paid the price for it.

by **Pa..** » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:11:07

> There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when gas
> stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79 cents/gallon).
> At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons of
> free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe the
> lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being rationed,
> as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those lines
> were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil companies
> to give away the free gasoline... )

Brenda we are all aware that the Govt. work so slow it takes years to
get in gear.

You get two politicians together and all you get is "my side or their
side stuff". They like to play politics and what is best for them, not
us.

We need to lubricate Congress, and the only way I know how to do just
that is vote the old heads out and bring in new ***. I am a believer
that "TWO" terms are enough for ANY politician. The majority of
politicians in the U.S. Congress are out of work lawyers who could not
make in and ran for a political office. The voters just keep voting with
blinders on.

We American tax payers know how to get the attention of the oil
companies.

Now back to shortwave.

by **Pa..** » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:13:22

> > > > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > > > but "financial ***" is.

> > > Care to cite that law?

> > There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> > used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> > when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> > used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when gas
> > stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> > over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79 cents/gallon).
> > At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons of
> > free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe the
> > lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> > often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being rationed,
> > as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those lines
> > were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil companies
> > to give away the free gasoline... )

> Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
> have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

That depends on where you are in the country.

by **Pa..** » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:15:44

> > > > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > > > but "financial ***" is.

> > > Care to cite that law?

> > There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> > used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> > when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> > used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when gas
> > stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> > over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79 cents/gallon).
> > At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons of
> > free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe the
> > lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> > often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being rationed,
> > as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those lines
> > were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil companies
> > to give away the free gasoline... )

> Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
> have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

That depends on where you are in the country.

Regular (87 octane) gasoline in PA is running 1.65, in WV it's 1.70, in
VA it's 150, in SC it's 1.45.

I recently drove through those states and bought gasoline.

by **nobod** » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:55:08

> > > > > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > > > > but "financial ***" is.

> > > > Care to cite that law?

> > > There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> > > used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> > > when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> > > used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when
> > > gas
> > > stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> > > over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79
> > > cents/gallon).
> > > At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons
> > > of
> > > free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe
> > > the
> > > lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> > > often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being
> > > rationed,
> > > as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those
> > > lines
> > > were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil
> > > companies
> > > to give away the free gasoline... )

> > Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
> > have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

> That depends on where you are in the country.

Nonsense.

by **nobod** » Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:56:19

> > > > > Attention to "nobody": Success as you call it is not against the law,
> > > > > but "financial ***" is.

> > > > Care to cite that law?

> > > There are laws (federal and state) against price gouging. These laws were
> > > used to prosecute some vendors in the short term after the 9/11 attacks,
> > > when some stations were selling gasoline for $5 a gallon. They were also
> > > used (and well I remember) during the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's when
> > > gas
> > > stations everywhere raised prices from 30 cents a gallon to in some cases
> > > over $1 a gallon (our stations in Oregon averaged around 79
> > > cents/gallon).
> > > At that time, offenders were made to give out several millions of gallons
> > > of
> > > free gasoline (if you weren't around back then, you would never believe
> > > the
> > > lines... we could only buy gasoline on alternate days, and the lines were
> > > often 3 to 4 blocks long waiting to get in (and the gas was being
> > > rationed,
> > > as we later found, not by the govt., but by the oil companies.. those
> > > lines
> > > were nothing compared to the days when the feds required the oil
> > > companies
> > > to give away the free gasoline... )

> > Yeah, but how does that apply to Exxon-Mobil today. As other posters
> > have admitted, Exxon-Mobil prices are quite competitive.

> That depends on where you are in the country.

> Regular (87 octane) gasoline in PA is running 1.65, in WV it's 1.70, in
> VA it's 150, in SC it's 1.45.

> I recently drove through those states and bought gasoline.

Don't suppose it might have anything to do with state taxes on gasoline,
do you? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, what a maroon!

Red Wave Radio

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil

Boycott Exxon & Mobil