HELP STOP Summer Price Gouging..

[Richard L]

It's pretty hard to prove price gouging by Big Oil. Most of the price gouging comes from the owner/operators of the gas stations.



Just the other day, Texas has some of it's investigators go out and check the calibration and accuracy of a lot of the gas pump in the Waco area. The State standard says that the pumps must be accurate to the equivelant of being within 12 tablespoons of gas for every 5 gallons pumped.



Yes, a lot of gas stations were found to be out of tolerance and the fine has been raised from $25 per occurance to $100.



...Rich

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

You want to drop gas prices? Get the .gov out. As it was previously stated, you will pay anywhere from $.30/gal to nearly $1/gal to the state/local/federal goberments just for the privledge of buying gas. So on a 20 gal fill-er-up @ $3.25/gal it breaksdown like this:



Gallons: 20

Cost Per: $3.249

Total Cost: $64.98

Exxon Total Profit @6%: $3.8988

Taxes Total @ $.55/Gal: $11



So exactly who's rapeing who?



All this talk about "excessive profits tax". I guess capitalism is not very well understoof by Socialists.... duh.



Exxon/Mobil reports largest profit in history. However, I bet their margins were not nearly as good as say Microsoft, McDonalds, Yum Foods (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC), Pepsi, Coke-Cola, etc.



Exxon-Mobil posted a $10.7 BILLION profit. This is on sales at approximately $100 BILLION. That's 10%. Piddles. I know most companies would be demanding leadership changes if total profit was 10%. Shareholders would be up in arms if Microsoft only took a 10% profit.



Microsoft posted a $4.9 BILLION profit on $14.4 BILLION in revenue for 3Q. That's just a mere 34% profit.



People really need to put things into perspective:



Exxon-Mobil:

Revenue: $336,870,000,000 (FY2006)

Profit: $40,391,000,000

Percentage: 11.99%



Microsoft:

Revenue: $49,560,000,000 (FY 2006)

Profit: $13,860,000,000

Percentage: 27.97%



McDonalds:

Revenue: $22,140,000,000 (FY2006)

Profit: $6,980,000,000

Percentage: 31.73%



Ford Motors:

Revenue: $162,000,000,000 (FY2006)

Profit: ($11,453,400,000)

Percentage: -7.07%



Yum Foods:

Revenue: $9,700,000,000 (FY2006)

Profit: $847,780,000

Percentage: 8.74%



Google:

Revenue: $12,200,000,000 (FY2006)

Profit: $3,488,204,000

Percentage: 29.02%



Dow Jones Companies:

3M: 18.57%

Alcoa: 7.38%

Altria: 15.76%

American Express: 13.91%

American International: 12.85%

AT&T: 11.48%

Boeing: 3.83%

Caterpillar: 8.34%

Citigroup: 24.65%

Coca-Cola: 20.97%

DuPont: 11.26%

Exxon: 11.99%

GE: 12.82%

GM: (1.27%)

HP: 6.2%

Home Depot: 5.85%

Honeywell: 6.76%

Intel: 9.8%

IBM: 10.38%

Johnson&Johnson: 18.64%

JP Morgan Chase: 26.14%

McDonalds: 31.73%

Merck: 20.08%

Microsoft: 27.97%

Pfizer: 37.92%

P&G: 13.29%

United Technology: N/A

Verizon: 5.51%

Wal-Mart: 3.24%

Disney: 12.89%



Average: 14.308%





All of this is easily found under Yahoo Finance. So, as you can see, Exxon-Mobil's profit percentage is at or under many of the other major companies in the US.

 

[Jimmodifier999 Boyles]

The only way to lower gas prices is for more competition, not by creating new oil companies, but by a non petroleum based fuel, such as hydrogen, electric, etc. however people also want hp and torque and gas/diesel is the only game in town. As soon as there is an alternative that is cheap and efficient to produce, can make the same power, and is readily available then watch the gas prices fall. As it is now you have really two choices horsepower or footpower. One requires gas the other doesn't. The first person or group that can solve what the alternative is, how to deliver/infrastructure, and how to make it work in vehicles will be "in the money!"

 

[Tom Schindler]

That will only work if each vehicle on the road will be able to use two different fuels.



If my vehicle could be plugged in or run off 100% hydrogen, then the competition theory would work. Unfortunatly, that will not happen. If we switch to a different type of energy, such as hydrogen, gas prices will not lower since there are millions and millions of cars still on the road that will continue to burn gasoline.



Heck, there are cars on the road that are 100 years old. Imagine 100 years from now. We will still have Sport Trac's on the road.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

If you want to reduce your expenses, quit buying it!



Boycotts won't work-- China Russia, Brazil, and other deveoping countries will just buy the gas you didn't buy.



Price is high because there is a limited supply for virtually unlimited demand.



Consumers are still in control-- they just haven't decided to give up their SUVs, move from the suburbs back to the city, etc.

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

No so easy when your hobby is car racing. Race Fuel runs 7.50 a gallon.

 

[Johnny O]

If my vehicle could be plugged in or run off 100% hydrogen, then the competition theory would work. Unfortunatly, that will not happen.

The last time something used hydrogen, it was called the Hindenburg. :blink:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Have you seen Mythbusters and the Hindenburg?



The Hydrogen was not the cause of the fire.



More people are killed by gas station fires than those that were killed by the Hindenburg.





Tom

 

[Johnny O]

I realize that intent can sometimes be lost with the typed word, but you don't have much of a sense of humor, do you? :lol:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Actually, I get rather defensive when it comes to stuff like that.



I work with Radiation on a daily basis. The stupid questions I get from people that think they know what they are talking about simply amazes me.



"What does Radiation taste like?"

"What does it smell like?"

"Arent you afraid of blowing up?"

"Do you wear a yellow suit? I would." I then ask them why? They would say "To protect you from radiation." I would then ask them what is the yellow suit made of? "I don't know, but I would wear one just to be safe." Then they go on about how radiation is bad, but X-Rays is safe then argue with we about them being the same thing except X-Rays are man made and Gamma rays are natural.



The best are those that tell me I am dangerous and I will cause another Chernobyl.



I I truly believe that this country would be better off if we went to Nuclear Power plants.



More people are killed in the mining of coal than those that are killed in the production of fuel rods. More polution is produced by coal power plants than nuclear energy.



Still, people that know nothing about nuclear energy think they know everything about it because of the Chernobyl power plant.



Nevermind that the plant was essentially built out of popsicle sticks and duct tape because the steel the used was nothing but garbage.



Nobody truly understands the danger of a coal burning plant and what could happen if it were to blow up.



The same goes with the Hindenburg, Three Mile Island, and any other disasters you can think of.



You are right, things do get lost in "translation" when it comes to the internet and typing.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

Tom, I am with you 100%.



We need more nuclear power in this country. Time to start building now-- for in the 8-10 years from now that it takes to build them, when the new ones go online, we will be in a world of hurt.



Coal mining killed a hell of a lot more folks than nuclear ever did.

 

[Johnny O]

Fire up the nukes. In PA they're going to remove the price caps on electricity in three years and our bills are estimated to go up 70%. I already have the third-highest electric rates in the nation.

I live near Shippingport, PA, home of the first nuclear reactor in the U.S.

The other thing with power is you need the ability to transfer it from one market to another. Around here nobody wants more powerlines, so we're stuck with high electric rates to pay off our overcapacity. Local powerplants were built when the steel industry was big, it's now evaporated, so now we have way more generating capacity than we need.

Oh, and drill for our own oil wherever it's found.