But they are NOT, taking advantage of us by over padding the price of it? M'kay

[Leapinglizardto 0]

Bullshit

It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Bullshit

Say it ain't so. And. They are not alone.>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_bp Gas prices did drop tho. RIGHT AFTER THE 4th OF JULY. Have no fear investors. Another holiday is right around the corner.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Leapinglizardto 0]

Well said! Sad but also all too true!

~ GREEDY ASSHOLES ~

It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Bullshit

Lousy earnings. Exxon is barely managing half the profit margin that Intel gets (1.6B/9.5B in revenue for the quarter) and their price (per share) to earnings ratio is lower too. If I were Exxon I'd be embarassed about my performance. If I had Exxon stock I'd want the board replaced.

If expensive gasoline pisses you off
1) Blame the governent. Foreign goods like oil cost over 50% more than when Bush 43 was elected. Printing money isn't good for the value of your currency.

2) Blame the price speculators. The commodities market means up to 20 times more oil is being "sold" than actually exists. The demand driving prices may be 95% artificial due to commodities traders.

3) Blame the government. Instability in the middle east drives the speculators.

4) Blame the two billion Chinese and Indians for being too damn American. Those people want to drive cars like us and are even having traffic jams! 2000 million of them will need a lot more oil than just 300 million of us as they approach similar rates of car ownership.

[shropshire 0]

4) Us - We need to shoulder some of that blame too (and there's plenty to share around) for our excessive demand for stupidly large cars (for exam ple).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

4) Us - We need to shoulder some of that blame too (and there's plenty to share around) for our excessive demand for stupidly large cars (for exam ple).

I get about 35 miles of bicycling per gallon of beer (which is mostly water).

[nanook 1]

I can agree with three and four, but two? Nobody seems to hate speculators when they drive prices down.

What's your definition of "printing money"?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SpeedRacer 1]

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[DougH 270]

Quote

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to enact a "windfall" profits tax on these earnings, or at the very least eliminate manufacturing tax exemption oil companies now enjoy. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel.

And who the hell do they think is going to end up paying this "windfall" tax?

You and I will!!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I get about 35 miles of bicycling per gallon of beer (which is mostly water).

You can ride the bike at all after drinking a gallon of beer?

I'd need a tricycle and a catheter.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I can agree with three and four, but two? Nobody seems to hate speculators when they drive prices down.

What's your definition of "printing money"?

Increasing the money supply by whatever means including buying treasury securities (they literally create new money to buy the securities), reducing the deposit reserve requirements (if a I deposit $X with a bank which is only required to have 10% of X on deposit, they can loan out .9X so the total money is now 1.9X. This gets multiplied as money gets re-deposited and re-lent),

Depending on what parts you measure, the money supply was about $5.2T or 8T including large time deposits in 2001. As of 2007 the money supply was 7T when you don't include large time deposits, and in 2005 M3 had exceeded 10T with a 9% annaulized rate of increase.

The Fed then stopped reporting M3 claiming "it wasn't useful".

Depending on whose estimates believe, our money supply may be increasing at 10% per year. Real GDP increases might be 4% annually. When they money goes up that much faster than what it represents you have inflation and a devalued currency.

[TheBachelor 5]

Some more facts before getting so pissed off:

1) Nearly 50% of Exxon's taxable income went to the government for taxes in the recent quarter.
2) As the article says, Exxon's profit margin is about 8%, which is BELOW AVERAGE for S&P 500 companies. Look at some other profit margins: Intel: 55%+, MicroSoft: 29%+, Proctor & Gamble: 13.9%, McDonalds: 19.2%. Where is all of the bitching about them?
3) Exxon doesn't set the price of oil. The world markets do.
4) Making a profit is not illegal or immoral. It's part of capitalism -- what American business is built on. If you want socialism, move to another country.

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Lousy earnings. Exxon is barely managing half the profit margin that Intel gets (1.6B/9.5B in revenue for the quarter) and their price (per share) to earnings ratio is lower too. If I were Exxon I'd be embarassed about my performance. If I had Exxon stock I'd want the board replaced.

True, Exxon has a lower P/E ratio than Microsoft. A low price per earnings ratio is more desirable than a high price per earnings ratio, all else equal. It means the shareholder sees greater earnings per dollar invested in stock.

Profit margins are also highly misleading. They don't offer any information about the amount of time required between the capital investment for direct costs and the realization of profit of that investment. How long does it take Exxon to pump a barrel of crude, refine it, and sell it to the retailer? One week? Ten days? Two weeks? It doesn't take Exxon long to make that 8% profit. On a two week cycle with constant quantity demanded, 8% net profit margin yields over 200% net profit annually on the capital required to keep production going.

Forgive me for not feeling sorry for Exxon because they only have an 8% profit margin.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

I can agree with three and four, but two? Nobody seems to hate speculators when they drive prices down.

What's your definition of "printing money"?

Increasing the money supply by whatever means including buying treasury securities (they literally create new money to buy the securities), reducing the deposit reserve requirements (if a I deposit $X with a bank which is only required to have 10% of X on deposit, they can loan out .9X so the total money is now 1.9X. This gets multiplied as money gets re-deposited and re-lent),

Depending on what parts you measure, the money supply was about $5.2T or 8T including large time deposits in 2001. As of 2007 the money supply was 7T when you don't include large time deposits, and in 2005 M3 had exceeded 10T with a 9% annaulized rate of increase.

The Fed then stopped reporting M3 claiming "it wasn't useful".

Depending on whose estimates believe, our money supply may be increasing at 10% per year. Real GDP increases might be 4% annually. When they money goes up that much faster than what it represents you have inflation and a devalued currency.

Okay, you got it. some people believe the term in a literal sense. Usually gold bugs and Ron Paul types. theoretically, printing money and decreasing supply of money is supposed to prevent crazy swings on the dollar valuation, vice steady increase/decrease in value.

Quote

The Fed then stopped reporting M3 claiming "it wasn't useful".

Problem with M3 is it's not liquid enough to make tangiable regular reports. As far as printing money, that is usually too short term a goal for M3 to fix what ever problem in the present economy. Hopefully they won't overfix and get the opposite problem. We'll see. You can't really call it a "Money supply". There isn't really any reason to waste man-hours creating these documents. and make their own reports.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

I get about 35 miles of bicycling per gallon of beer (which is mostly water).

You can ride the bike at all after drinking a gallon of beer?

I'd need a tricycle and a catheter.

And I got hit by a car and left dead by a hit and run. Fuck them bicycles

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Increasing the money supply by whatever means including buying treasury securities (they literally create new money to buy the securities), reducing the deposit reserve requirements (if a I deposit $X with a bank which is only required to have 10% of X on deposit, they can loan out .9X so the total money is now 1.9X. This gets multiplied as money gets re-deposited and re-lent),

Actually, depositing money effectively removes money from the economy. If the reserve deposit is 10%, depositing x dollars results in the bank only being able to loan out .9 x dollars with the funds, effectively removing .1 x dollars from circulation, not adding .9 x dollars. The person who deposited their x dollars cannot use the funds while the bank is investing the .9 x dollars. It's an either or proposition, not both and.

Increased savings without a corresponding increase in productivity is not good for the economy. It means people are spending less money. Spending money increases the GDP in an exponential manner. Increased savings (in a manner subject to federal reserve requirements) decreases GDP in an exponential manner.

Edit to add: Upon rereading your post, M2 and M3 can be increased in the manner in which you described. I was thinking in terms of M1 when I wrote my post.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

True, Exxon has a lower P/E ratio than Microsoft. A low price per earnings ratio is more desirable than a high price per earnings ratio, all else equal. It means the shareholder sees greater earnings per dollar invested in stock.

No, a lower P/E indicates a lower anticipation of earnings growth. But this metric should be used to compare equities in the same class.

It is interesting to note a similar dividend rate between the two (xom- 2%, msft 1.7)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

True, Exxon has a lower P/E ratio than Microsoft. A low price per earnings ratio is more desirable than a high price per earnings ratio, all else equal. It means the shareholder sees greater earnings per dollar invested in stock.

No, a lower P/E indicates a lower anticipation of earnings growth. But this metric should be used to compare equities in the same class.

It is interesting to note a similar dividend rate between the two (xom- 2%, msft 1.7)

Yes, a higher P/E might indicate higher anticipated growth. The stock is more valuable because people anticipate higher profits in the future. However, a lower P/E does represent higher profits per dollar invested in stock (at current price).

Not everyone would consider Exxon' >17.6% higher dividend rate (using your numbers, I didn't verify their accuracy) compared to Microsoft to be "similar."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!