No liberal conspiracy theories?

#27
#27
GAVol said:
Here we go again.
Click to expand...

again, I don't believe George W. Bush had anything to do with it, but I think that the oil companies could have given some relief a long time before they did. I also didn't like the fact that once the price of oil dropped, they were discussing a drop in production to help even it out, or in other words, screw the people.
 
#28
#28
emainvol said:
I also didn't like the fact that once the price of oil dropped, they were discussing a drop in production to help even it out, or in other words, screw the people.
Click to expand...

Just make sure when you say "they" that you differentiate between oil companies and the OPEC cartel. There's not much Exxon-Mobil can do when OPEC chokes supply.
 
#30
#30
emainvol said:
again, I don't believe George W. Bush had anything to do with it, but I think that the oil companies could have given some relief a long time before they did. I also didn't like the fact that once the price of oil dropped, they were discussing a drop in production to help even it out, or in other words, screw the people.
Click to expand...

Here's the dilemma - to "help the people out" would mean intentionally sacrificing profits. To do so with out ownership approval would be a violation of fiduciary duty to the owners of the company. Who owns it? Probably at least 1/2 of the american public. If you have a pension, 401K, mutual fund, etc. you are an owner. It could be done but would require approval from the Board - the Board looks out for stock holders.

As to dropping production? That's not the oil companies. That's OPEC. As stated previously, the oil companies don't really control enough oil to have material effect on crude prices.
 
#31
#31
i honestly believe a corporation should have some responsibility when it comes to protecting the consumer. unfortunately i cannot come up with anything as to how they should go about it in this situation. when i think of that, i suppose i will be able to find a real job. maybe for ralph nader
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Here's the dilemma - to "help the people out" would mean intentionally sacrificing profits. To do so with out ownership approval would be a violation of fiduciary duty to the owners of the company. Who owns it? Probably at least 1/2 of the american public. If you have a pension, 401K, mutual fund, etc. you are an owner. It could be done but would require approval from the Board - the Board looks out for stock holders.

As to dropping production? That's not the oil companies. That's OPEC. As stated previously, the oil companies don't really control enough oil to have material effect on crude prices.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that a business would not take a small short term hit to ultimately benefit them in the long run? You keep saying this is about profits. Businesses aren't always concerned about immediate profits as well. They always look to the long term to ensure that they will benefit then as well.

Businesses will exercise cuts in prices in certain periods if it means they can make greater gains in the future. This is the same concept with helping the GOP win in November. If the GOP wins, they get very sympathetic legislation that benefits them. With the Dems, they face tougher legislation to limit them and even hearings to damage them.
 
#35
#35
GAVol said:
What would be the long run benefit though?
Click to expand...
Repeating what I already posted: If the GOP wins, they get very sympathetic legislation that benefits them. With the Dems, they face tougher legislation to limit them and even hearings to damage them.

Would you think that they do not have a vested interest in ensuring a friendly party is in power?
 
#36
#36
emainvol said:
i honestly believe a corporation should have some responsibility when it comes to protecting the consumer. unfortunately i cannot come up with anything as to how they should go about it in this situation. when i think of that, i suppose i will be able to find a real job. maybe for ralph nader
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. Corp.s have multiple constituencies. First and foremost, they are obligated to their owners. If the corporate charter is to sacrifice profit in tough times then they need to disclose that to investors (owners). Anyone that wants to invest in such companies is free to do so. There are many mutual funds consisting of "socially responsible" (I use the term loosely) companies.

As stated earlier, most of this country has ownership in the corporations of this (and other) country(ies). I believe the number is well over 70%. Stock value is driven by profitability. Actions that adversely affect profitability lower the value of ownership holdings - our savings/pensions.

It's not all corporate greed as some would have you believe. The recent record profits for companies like Exxon have had a very positive effect for many retirees or near retirees whose 401K holdings took a big hit from the tech bubble.
 
#37
#37
CSpindizzy said:
Repeating what I already posted: If the GOP wins, they get very sympathetic legislation that benefits them. With the Dems, they face tougher legislation to limit them and even hearings to damage them.

Would you think that they do not have a vested interest in ensuring a friendly party is in power?
Click to expand...

It is not a closed system. The ultimate judge is the stock market. Such actions would have negative impacts on stock value. Companies (executives) are evaluated quarterly (monthly in many case).

Longterm investments are in more sure bets like R&D.

What business wants most is not lack of regulation but stability in regulation.
 
#38
#38
CSpindizzy said:
Repeating what I already posted: If the GOP wins, they get very sympathetic legislation that benefits them. With the Dems, they face tougher legislation to limit them and even hearings to damage them.

Would you think that they do not have a vested interest in ensuring a friendly party is in power?
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can throw a big blanket over the oil industry as if they act as one.
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
It is not a closed system. The ultimate judge is the stock market. Such actions would have negative impacts on stock value. Companies (executives) are evaluated quarterly (monthly in many case).

Longterm investments are in more sure bets like R&D.

What business wants most is not lack of regulation but stability in regulation.
Click to expand...

So no company does anything that hurts them in the short-term to benefit them in the long term?
 
#41
#41
GAVol said:
I see what you are saying, but I don't think you can throw a big blanket over the oil industry as if they act as one.
Click to expand...

If the big boys lead all follow. Take a look at airline ticket prices for a more mainstream example. Delta drops prices to win over business and what happens? Everyone else follows.
 
#42
#42
CSpindizzy said:
If the big boys lead all follow. Take a look at airline ticket prices for a more mainstream example. Delta drops prices to win over business and what happens? Everyone else follows.
Click to expand...

One problem though . . . Gasoline is a commodity.
 
#43
#43
Yes. And there is still price manipulation with commodities. What do you think OPEC is doing?
 
#44
#44
CSpindizzy said:
So no company does anything that hurts them in the short-term to benefit them in the long term?
Click to expand...

CSpindizzy said:
If the big boys lead all follow. Take a look at airline ticket prices for a more mainstream example. Delta drops prices to win over business and what happens? Everyone else follows.
Click to expand...

Let's look at this:

First it was suggested that the Oil Companies are dropping prices to help the GOP.

Problems - such a strategy would certainly be revealed through corporate memos, whistle blowing, audit, etc. With the increased attention of Sarbanes-Oxley and the criminal charges involved for any who sign off on the financial statements - this would require a complete sacrifice of profit margin that would certainly require explanation.

The airline industry is operating in an incredibly high fixed cost environment where the slightest advance in market share can yield short-term profit gains. Price drops are virtually the only strategy available and if you don't match a price drop - you are toast. For big oil, COGS (cost of goods sold) is a much bigger driver making market share gains less effective for profitability gains.

In short, the uncertain chain of events of lowering prices to help the GOP with the hope this will gain favorable legislation that ultimately results in profit gains in some future period is not worth the risk.
 
#45
#45
CSpindizzy said:
Yes. And there is still price manipulation with commodities. What do you think OPEC is doing?
Click to expand...

OPEC is manipulating the market. Absolutely.

If they were in the GOP pocket, they would have done so this summer by increasing the supply to lower the price.

Threatening to reduce the supply is an attempt to drive the price of oil up since MARKET factors have driven it down to a level they don't like.

So where does Big Oil fit in?
 
#46
#46
I think the real answer is rather than relying on corporate benevolence to alleviate high gas prices, demand that the federal governement stop robbing people blind with gas taxes. It's amazing that the same country that threw tea into Boston Harbor readily accepts that 30% of the price of gas is a tax.
 
#47
#47
GAVol said:
I think the real answer is rather than relying on corporate benevolence to alleviate high gas prices, demand that the federal governement stop robbing people blind with gas taxes. It's amazing that the same country that threw tea into Boston Harbor readily accepts that 30% of the price of gas is a tax.
Click to expand...

I agree but would still argue that Big Oil (I just love saying that - I feel so liberal) should have sacrificed profits is not corporate benevolence - more like wealth transfer with the majority of people feeling better at the pump feeling worse when they retire.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
I agree but would still argue that Big Oil (I just love saying that - I feel so liberal) should have sacrificed profits is not corporate benevolence - more like wealth transfer with the majority of people feeling better at the pump feeling worse when they retire.
Click to expand...

Nobody seems to get that. The few cents saved at the pump would cost some a lot more down the road.
 
#49
#49
GAVol said:
Nobody seems to get that. The few cents saved at the pump would cost some a lot more down the road.
Click to expand...

Just to go off the philosophical deep-end --- the irony is that many of those who preach corporate greed and extol the virtues of the "little man" are actually advocating policies which might alleviate their pain but in reality would spread the pain to a much larger group.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top