Anyway, your money isn't really yours to begin with. Its a note on the value of the currency of this country, of which you get to share right along with the rest of us. You keep the lion's share, of which you are allowed to spend on just about anything you want. The rest is used for overhead.
"Overhead"??? Hehe...come on now. I'll happily pay for the "overhead" of producing money. That would account for roughly $700M of the federal budget. How is the remaining $999,999,300,000,000 classified as "overhead"?
To put that into perspective, if you make $50,000 a year (gross) and you donate 0.3% of that, you will be donating $150.00.... keep in mind after taxes and expenses your profit will be nowhere near $50,000.
Well, that's a pretty impressive amount, but at the same time a pathetic percentage.
Then again, I think charity is a matter of personal choice that should not be mandated.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"Overhead"??? Hehe...come on now. I'll happily pay for the "overhead" of producing money. That would account for roughly $40M of the federal budget. How is the remaining $999,999,960,000,000 classified as "overhead"?
It's more than just the printing of money. The rest can be considered "overhead" because it's necessary for the health and prosperity of the "company" and it's "employees."
It's more than just the printing of money. The rest can be considered "overhead" because it's necessary for the health and prosperity of the "company" and it's "employees."
That seems odd since the "health and prosperity" of those "employees" predates the "company". Furthermore, I am not your "employee", nor are you mine. Finally, we do not work for the same "company".
I second that. We should vote on it. Wouldn't it be great to have a democracy that would allow us to vote on how to spend other peoples' money and then feel good about performing a charitable act?
Horrible idea. I don't want anyone but me deciding how to spend the money i earn. I don't understand. Why should people be people be punished for being good at what they do. Whats the point of doing better and more business if someone else if gonna spend they money you make?
"Be what you want to be, see what you came to see"
To all those who speak of "we" and "company", I'm curious -- why don't you support tax breaks to Exxon? The primary purpose of those tax breaks is to subsidize exploration. How come it's "we" and "company" when you talk about profits, but it's not "we" and "company" when we talk about funding exploration????? In other words, shouldn't your own moral code demand that you shoulder part of Exxon's costs of doing business?
That seems odd since the "health and prosperity" of those "employees" predates the "company". Furthermore, I am not your "employee", nor are you mine. Finally, we do not work for the same "company".
Of course it predates this company - but not all companies. We quit our last job in favor of this one. Overall, I'd say we made a pretty good choice. So good, in fact, that we surpassed the profit margins of our last company - and, to an extent, that last company has emulated ours.
Of course it predates this company - but not all companies. We quit our last job in favor of this one. Overall, I'd say we made a pretty good choice. So good, in fact, that we surpassed the profit margins of our last company - and, to an extent, that last company has emulated ours.
Yet what you're proposing is enforcing many of the very same rules that made you quit in the first place.
Good companies learn from their mistakes. You seem to be in the business of forgetting them.
To all those who speak of "we" and "company", I'm curious -- why don't you support tax breaks to Exxon? The primary purpose of those tax breaks is to subsidize exploration. How come it's "we" and "company" when you talk about profits, but it's not "we" and "company" when we talk about funding exploration????? In other words, shouldn't your own moral code demand that you shoulder part of Exxon's costs of doing business?
There's a general downturn among employees' opinions regarding oil exploration. Perhaps incentive to ween Exxon off of oil would be a better use of our overhead dollars.
Yet what you're proposing is enforcing many of the very same rules that made you quit in the first place.
Good companies learn from their mistakes. You seem to be in the business of forgetting them.
The previous company didn't allow for employee input and generally sucked at profit sharing. This one manages the business quite a bit better than that one did at the time. But it's still the same business.
There's a general downturn among employees' opinions regarding oil exploration.
No there isn't. These numbers prove that the employees' opinions of oil have only gotten better.
Perhaps incentive to ween Exxon off of oil would be a better use of our overhead dollars.
Really? Perhaps not buying their products would be a better use of our overhead dollars. The reason you won't propose that, however, is because you realize how inappopriate the word "our" is in your own analogy.
Really? Perhaps not buying their products would be a better use of our overhead dollars. The reason you won't propose that, however, is because you realize how inappopriate the word "our" is in your own analogy.
Yes it is. It's a business that has failed time and time again throughout history. Even the Catholics can outlast you.
Despite what many people think, the Catholic portfolio is quite adaptable. And so are we. You can say they "can" outlast us, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, it's a different market. One that's not shown much success recently in cross promotion.
Yeah. One problem with alot of people in this country is that they are always looking down upon people making money. I don't understand, i always viewed making money as a good thing.
I'm pretty impressed that made much. Congrats to them.
And, no i don't own any oil stock or anything but i'm always impressed by good business.
I agree completely.
America is a capitalist, free-enterpirse nation that gives individuals the opportunity to make as much money as they want. This is a business where there is a high demand and the profit margins are excellent.
If I had the opportunity, I would be in the oil industry. What an opportunity.
Then stop accepting the benefits. There are other companies looking for employees, you know. I hear Dubai's nice this time of year.
Land is not a benefit. You didn't make it. You didn't give it value. You didn't exchange for it. You don't own it.
When I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. However, I think our business is properly diversified.
Properly diversified??? Your business is based on two things: violence and faithful submission. Perhaps at one point you had respect, but not anymore.
We're likely in it for the long haul.
I'm quite sure that's correct.
Despite what many people think, the Catholic portfolio is quite adaptable. And so are we. You can say they "can" outlast us, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, it's a different market. One that's not shown much success recently in cross promotion.
You compete for the same market using the same tools. The Catholics, however, have a much better fear machine than you do.
Hehe...why not??? Is the principle not exactly what you're founding your stance on? Namely, that men have a fundamental right to the products of the labor of others?
I haven't simplified it at all. The system has. It has declared itself the arbiter on ownership, thereby pitting men against each other to protect their wealth from each others' whims. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. Can you tell me how what you're proposing is different?
Cool. Since I don't believe in it, I can choose not to then? Or are you going to force me to? And, following that logic, would you support a system wherein I could force you not to?
i'm not gonna force u to do anything - i'm not the gov't nor lawmaker ... again - what you define as 'force' has many components ... they are not black and white ... while u may see all laws and taxes put forth by gov't as an act of force - i do not ...
Me neither. Nowhere am I defending Exxon's tax breaks. I'm simply defending their right, my right, and your right, to own the products of their labor.
but they aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else ... they are given preferential treatment ... and to somewhat interject - i do not see the concept of social programs to be the same thing ...
Properly diversified??? Your business is based on two things: violence and faithful submission. Perhaps at one point you had respect, but not anymore.
Yeah, the current CEO has been a bit of a clod. However, there's a lot more involved here than violence and faithful submission. Plenty of incentives, and vast opportunity for upward mobility. Sure, there's cronyism and the board is lousy with people you have no idea how they got where they are - but that goes for most companies.
Then, please, show me how my simplification doesn't account for aspects of your system.
i'm not gonna force u to do anything - i'm not the gov't nor lawmaker ...
So you're not responsible for your hired goons?
again - what you define as 'force' has many components ... they are not black and white ... while u may see all laws and taxes put forth by gov't as an act of force - i do not ...
Ok. What happens if I don't follow them?
but they aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else ... they are given preferential treatment ...
How so?? The "poor people" you mentioned earlier also pay very little in taxes. As a matter of fact, Exxon alone pays more taxes than everyone in poverty in America combined. Are they not getting "preferential treatment". In 2005, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron paid roughly $44B in income taxes. That's almost exactly equal to the total amount of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all American wage earners.
and to somewhat interject - i do not see the concept of social programs to be the same thing ...
No. Land is not free. Land is either discovered, purchased from an owner or taken by force.
I'm sure you have no problem with people squatting on your property.
Depends on the squatter. But in most cases, I do have a problem with it. However, I own my land. I purchased it from those who occupied it before me.
Yeah, the current CEO has been a bit of a clod. However, there's a lot more involved here than violence and faithful submission. Plenty of incentives, and vast opportunity for upward mobility.
Incentives for what? Upward mobility in what?
Sure, there's cronyism and the board is lousy with people you have no idea how they got where they are - but that goes for most companies.
Hehe...
Again, that remains to be seen. However, I still believe these markets split a while back.
Nope. For the most part they just learned to work together. One competes for the body, the other for the mind.
No. Land is not free. Land is either discovered, purchased from an owner or taken by force.
Then the benefit is, no one's likely to take it from you by force. Except for upper management, of course. But, then, you're likely to get a pretty decent severence package. Not so under other circumstances.
yippy skippy....39.5 BILLION...nicely done...I guess when you have friends in high places, and you can write the Gov't's energy policy, it's pretty easy to make money....
I wonder, with all that sweet profit, why the hell are my tax dollars going to exploration...? The way I see it, a business should use the same bootstaps the poor need to use...
Comments
"Overhead"??? Hehe...come on now. I'll happily pay for the "overhead" of producing money. That would account for roughly $700M of the federal budget. How is the remaining $999,999,300,000,000 classified as "overhead"?
Well, that's a pretty impressive amount, but at the same time a pathetic percentage.
Then again, I think charity is a matter of personal choice that should not be mandated.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That seems odd since the "health and prosperity" of those "employees" predates the "company". Furthermore, I am not your "employee", nor are you mine. Finally, we do not work for the same "company".
Horrible idea. I don't want anyone but me deciding how to spend the money i earn. I don't understand. Why should people be people be punished for being good at what they do. Whats the point of doing better and more business if someone else if gonna spend they money you make?
Yet what you're proposing is enforcing many of the very same rules that made you quit in the first place.
Good companies learn from their mistakes. You seem to be in the business of forgetting them.
No there isn't. These numbers prove that the employees' opinions of oil have only gotten better.
Really? Perhaps not buying their products would be a better use of our overhead dollars. The reason you won't propose that, however, is because you realize how inappopriate the word "our" is in your own analogy.
Here's some input: I don't want to work for you and I don't want your profits. Do you "allow" that input?
I wouldn't be so sure of that, if I were you.
Yes it is. It's a business that has failed time and time again throughout history. Even the Catholics can outlast you.
Had I something better to buy, I would.
There's nothing "necessary" about oil. If it were "necessary", we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we wouldn't be here.
http://www.schwinn.com/
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SiteMap
http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/hobikit.html
When I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. However, I think our business is properly diversified. We're likely in it for the long haul.
Despite what many people think, the Catholic portfolio is quite adaptable. And so are we. You can say they "can" outlast us, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, it's a different market. One that's not shown much success recently in cross promotion.
I agree completely.
America is a capitalist, free-enterpirse nation that gives individuals the opportunity to make as much money as they want. This is a business where there is a high demand and the profit margins are excellent.
If I had the opportunity, I would be in the oil industry. What an opportunity.
I've got a bike. As for the rest, I'll buy 'em when I can afford 'em.
Land is not a benefit. You didn't make it. You didn't give it value. You didn't exchange for it. You don't own it.
Properly diversified??? Your business is based on two things: violence and faithful submission. Perhaps at one point you had respect, but not anymore.
I'm quite sure that's correct.
You compete for the same market using the same tools. The Catholics, however, have a much better fear machine than you do.
Age of civilization: roughly 10,000 years
Age of oil consumption: roughly 1,600 years
There's nothing "necessary" about oil.
Did you steal that bike?
nope ... not at all ...
according to your simplification ...
i'm not gonna force u to do anything - i'm not the gov't nor lawmaker ... again - what you define as 'force' has many components ... they are not black and white ... while u may see all laws and taxes put forth by gov't as an act of force - i do not ...
but they aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else ... they are given preferential treatment ... and to somewhat interject - i do not see the concept of social programs to be the same thing ...
Yeah, the current CEO has been a bit of a clod. However, there's a lot more involved here than violence and faithful submission. Plenty of incentives, and vast opportunity for upward mobility. Sure, there's cronyism and the board is lousy with people you have no idea how they got where they are - but that goes for most companies.
Again, that remains to be seen. However, I still believe these markets split a while back.
Actually, I picked it out of the trash. I did have to buy new tires, though.
Hehe....how???
Then, please, show me how my simplification doesn't account for aspects of your system.
So you're not responsible for your hired goons?
Ok. What happens if I don't follow them?
How so?? The "poor people" you mentioned earlier also pay very little in taxes. As a matter of fact, Exxon alone pays more taxes than everyone in poverty in America combined. Are they not getting "preferential treatment". In 2005, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron paid roughly $44B in income taxes. That's almost exactly equal to the total amount of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all American wage earners.
Why not?
No. Land is not free. Land is either discovered, purchased from an owner or taken by force.
Depends on the squatter. But in most cases, I do have a problem with it. However, I own my land. I purchased it from those who occupied it before me.
Incentives for what? Upward mobility in what?
Hehe...
Nope. For the most part they just learned to work together. One competes for the body, the other for the mind.
Class.
Fair enough; though there's definitely some competition between the two.
I wonder, with all that sweet profit, why the hell are my tax dollars going to exploration...? The way I see it, a business should use the same bootstaps the poor need to use...
Because "we" are "employees" of the same "company". Because of "cooperation". Because of "compassion".
Exactly. Welfare.
Imagine that. :(
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader