I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Feb 11th, 2007 07:02 PM

Preechr

I've been traveling a lot lately, so I haven't been able to post as much. Same thing this week for the first part.

Feb 11th, 2007 07:00 PM

Preechr

Really?!

Feb 11th, 2007 05:02 PM

Emu

Geggy was assassinated for knowing too much.

Feb 11th, 2007 02:31 PM

kahljorn

So what the fuck's up with this forum lately? Nobody's talking. Are you guys trying to pretend like you have friends? LIVES? WHAT THE FUCK. POST SOME STUFF SO WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feb 9th, 2007 01:17 PM

kahljorn

yea it does. it's probably still exagerated quite a bit. I haven't seen the movie, though, just heard people's feelings about it.

Feb 9th, 2007 10:14 AM

Emu

That's still a more believable conspiracy than Jews Did WTC

Feb 8th, 2007 07:02 PM

kahljorn

Well diesel engines are usually more expensive.

The electric car might make a come back. There's a documentary called, "Who killed the electric car" supposedly about how the government bought the rights to a new type of electric car and once they got it they burned all the documents regarding it and it never got produced.

Feb 8th, 2007 04:29 PM

adept_ninja

On regaurds to the other energy sources whatever happened to products like bio-diesel which they could apparently make out of trash, saw grass and corn?

As for oil conservation they are trying different chemicals to mix in but so far they just use ethonal which after a certain percent (I think around 20% not sure) it starts ripping your engine apart.

Feb 7th, 2007 01:30 AM

kahljorn

where's all the chat, chatterboxington?

Feb 6th, 2007 06:52 PM

kahljorn

Quote:

If there was anything even close to a case against them on that sort of grounds, they'd already be in court."

lol :O I don't know, I see all sorts of things going on that I consider unethical but they manage to slip by unpunished/unregulated. What about political lobbying with your personal interests in mind? Hasn't exxon, and the oil industry in general, aided in proving that global warming is made up by hippy-liberals? If politics favoring one religion should be regarded as wrong, what about politics favoring one industry -- and disregarding scientific facts, and not just disregarding, but misrepresenting (although I admit it's not just the oil industry who did that). Didn't Atlas shrugged contain similar acts, which were painted as "Evil"?

Quote:

BUT petroleum technology is where we are currently invested, and that's what Asia is using to build it's new industrial economic structure upon. Asia's energy needs over the next ten years far outstrip our own, and if the middle east and northern South America/ Meso-America has any hope for success, oil production is the single most important factor for that region.

That was actually my point by saying that we live in a .. meta-industrial age. Most of those countries need oil for their emerging industries, but shouldn't america, the technological prowessness, be beyond relying on oil? How much more investment into oil can there really be? How efficient is oil, despite technological "Advances" (which, I'm sure, the "Oil industry" "Invested" in begrudgingly). Can you really argue that the oil industry has done anything other than restrain emerging energy markets?
So, what would happen to other people's industries if we weren't as reliant on oil? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have more oil so they could propagate their industry? The problem with that is that other countries don't necessarily have environmental ordinances and other industrial "rules" that we find necessary.

Quote:

where's the plan for seizing their profits?

In my asshole

Seriously, I hate those jerks.

"Do you believe Exxon, an energy company, is planning on it's own extinction?"

No. Not at all, I think they are planning their own profit, but i think that sometimes corporations are more interested in short-term profit than long-term gains.

Again, I don't really think their profits should be seized. but at the same time I would like to see some type of push into a new type of energy, rather than pushing the old type of energy.

Feb 6th, 2007 01:54 PM

Preechr

Well, given the average American's near total lack of knowlege regarding anything economic, it basically is.

Feb 6th, 2007 01:50 PM

kahljorn

i liked the book, he's very smart. The stuff he talked about made sense. I just felt like I was reading a children's book.

Feb 6th, 2007 01:00 PM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Did you like that article I sent you?

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I will tonight.

I also found some video of the presentation highlighted in the fourth book I sent you. It rocks. I'll send it on tonight. Barnett actually calls the Lexus and the Olive Tree an essential foundation for his work, so I'm glad I sent it to you, even though you found it annoying.

Feb 6th, 2007 12:58 PM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Isn't oil a finite resource, aren't they "Running low"?

To a point, though oil is generally misrepresented. We call it a "fossil fuel," and the general understanding is that the dinosaurs died and rotted and that's where we get oil... That's not at all the whole story. We still don't know how much oil is out there, and we don't know how fast the Earth is producing it, so there's no way to say whether our demand is keeping up with the natural supply. Personally, I agree that it's not the preferred method of energy for our future, and I'd love to see it replaced by cleaner methods (and it eventually will be,) BUT petroleum technology is where we are currently invested, and that's what Asia is using to build it's new industrial economic structure upon. Asia's energy needs over the next ten years far outstrip our own, and if the middle east and northern South America/ Meso-America has any hope for success, oil production is the single most important factor for that region. Over the short term, oil is key to global security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Also, i thought they made something like billions in profits?

They paid 2.5 times the amount of their profit in taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Anyway, when you start running low on profits due to a shortage of resources it stands that you have to invest to gain more resources, in this case another type of energy.

And, as they have been, cleaner methods for using this type, as well as exploration and other forms of resource... Do you really believe they aren't researching other forms of energy? Do you believe Exxon, an energy company, is planning on it's own extinction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I just thought the point of increasing the cost of product was because it's in higher demand, which means they can get more money to make more products. How can you do that with such a limited supply of resources? Without any more resources, no future industry really, it's just a waste -- and their punching us in the gut before running away with a bag of shit.

I kind of already addressed this part...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

And why act like 3% isn't alot when you're dealing in billions upon billions? If somebody or something killed 3% of the world's population, it'd be a pretty big deal. I don't even know if 3% is right, but regardless, their profits have increased a lot more recently.

Their profit has increased while their profit margin has remained stable. It's similar to the difference between a 3% raise in your salary versus a $3000 increase annually... Which is better? Doesn't that depend on how much you're making now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Didn't the Ceo walk away with a few hundred million when he retired? How much of a percent of the company profits was that?

That was contractual based on his performance. He met his end of those terms, and he received the compensation agreed upon in his contract. Obviously, Exxon believed the achievement of the goals set out for him was worth the money they paid, right? There's a lot more professional athletes, movie stars and gangter rappers making that kind of money while providing much less for our economy... where's the plan for seizing their profits?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I guess taking away their money forcefully would be wrong. Oh, unless they're immoral/gained it immorally. What do you think on that?

If there was anything even close to a case against them on that sort of grounds, they'd already be in court.

I just don't see why there's no other type of energy available, that is as widely used. I mean, who killed the electrical car? Doesn't us living in a post-industrial age mean we should be focusing on using more and more efficient forms of energy?
I know you want to say something about freemarket here, and I would agree; but aren't they kind of breaking the bounds of "Freemarket" with some of the practices they use? Or does freemarket mean you can do anything whatsoever it doesn't matter because eventually your product will disappear? because i think that's gay. There's always some things you can do to maintain a sordid existence, the difference between it and a "healthy" existence is it comes crashing down in the end. Isn't it bad to have one of our primary resources in that process of "Crashing down"?

I just wish there was another energy industry. I've seen alot of tracthousing built lately that uses solar energy to partially power the house. That's not really an "Energy Industry" though.[/quote]

Feb 5th, 2007 11:55 PM

kahljorn

Did you like that article I sent you?

Feb 5th, 2007 11:44 PM

kahljorn

I don't really like the way she said it either.

Isn't oil a finite resource, aren't they "Running low"? Also, i thought they made something like billions in profits? Anyway, when you start running low on profits due to a shortage of resources it stands that you have to invest to gain more resources, in this case another type of energy. I just thought the point of increasing the cost of product was because it's in higher demand, which means they can get more money to make more products. How can you do that with such a limited supply of resources? Without any more resources, no future industry really, it's just a waste -- and their punching us in the gut before running away with a bag of shit.

And why act like 3% isn't alot when you're dealing in billions upon billions? If somebody or something killed 3% of the world's population, it'd be a pretty big deal. I don't even know if 3% is right, but regardless, their profits have increased a lot more recently. Didn't the Ceo walk away with a few hundred million when he retired? How much of a percent of the company profits was that?

I guess taking away their money forcefully would be wrong. Oh, unless they're immoral/gained it immorally. What do you think on that?

I just don't see why there's no other type of energy available, that is as widely used. I mean, who killed the electrical car? Doesn't us living in a post-industrial age mean we should be focusing on using more and more efficient forms of energy?
I know you want to say something about freemarket here, and I would agree; but aren't they kind of breaking the bounds of "Freemarket" with some of the practices they use? Or does freemarket mean you can do anything whatsoever it doesn't matter because eventually your product will disappear? because i think that's gay. There's always some things you can do to maintain a sordid existence, the difference between it and a "healthy" existence is it comes crashing down in the end. Isn't it bad to have one of our primary resources in that process of "Crashing down"?

I just wish there was another energy industry. I've seen alot of tracthousing built lately that uses solar energy to partially power the house. That's not really an "Energy Industry" though.

Feb 5th, 2007 09:47 PM

Preechr

As for having "no future," nobody threatened to seize the profits of RJ Reynolds. They were sued and received a judgment against them. Seizure of assets is something totally different, and government has the ability to do just that. That Hillary, a woman who has so far not really said anything that wasn't meticulously triangulated, would threaten just that is fairly scary to me. What lurks beneath the surface if this kind of stuff is so easily tossed around as something she doesn't consider to be controversial?

Feb 5th, 2007 09:43 PM

Preechr

Exxon is a publically traded company, meaning it is owned by it's investors. While it's profits are huge in dollars, the profit margin is low. You won't make a killing trading in Exxon, but your money's safe. That's what makes it attractive to mutual and pension funds. What right does the government have to seize the profit of this or any other business? Banks and advertising companies see much higher profit margins, as do most businesses... like 100% more. Exxon's pulling in about a 3% margin on it's overhead and expenses. You go run a business on 3%.

Feb 5th, 2007 09:36 PM

Preechr

For "the guy with the answers," you sure do ask a lot of questions...

Feb 5th, 2007 09:06 PM

kahljorn

do you think it's bad that they should take money from an industry that has no future? What will them having alot of profits do? Isn't there basically no point?

Feb 5th, 2007 08:58 PM

Preechr

Let's chat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Is this what you guys voted for?

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off