UMD Libertarians

Exxon Mobil 2Q profit sets US record

So is that one year’s taxes vs. one quarter’s profit?

no both are q2 2008

No you idiot.

According to CNN:

Congressional Democrats said they are having a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms.

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.

Most plans would either use this newfound tax money to fund investments in renewable energy, or give it to low income Americans struggling with high energy prices.

But so far those efforts have been blocked - mainly by Republicans - who say raising taxes on oil companies will only discourage investments in finding new oil and raise the price of crude.
What a misleading chart. I bet that profit is post-tax.
For those interested, here’s a bit of a history lesson about the oil industry:

In the 70’s there was an oil embargo on against any country supporting Israel, this drove the barrel up significantly, which helped American oil companies grow. Houston had previously been THE center of the oil and gas world, but with action happening all over the gulf now, cities like New Orleans grew exponentially. By ‘79 there were dozens of skyscrapers either under construction, or being prepared. In ‘80 the price of oil PLUMMETED, and forced all those oil companies to consolidate back to Houston, leaving New Orleans in ruin.

But that didn’t save Houston either. The oil bust of 1980 put hundreds of small service companies out of business, and many of the oldest oil companies in Houston either declared bankruptcy or just folded up completely. The effects were still being felt in the mid 90’s, when oil finally started to rebound. That was a 15 year span where oil wasn’t very profitable and American energy companies were constantly in trouble, yet no one in the government lifted a finger to help.

Add to that fact, that taxes on oil have OUTPACED profits for nearly the last 30 years.

As well, the 1980 windfall profit tax did nothing but hurt our own oil companies and infrastructure, it never met its goals, it’s a stupid idea bourn purely out of jealousy and politicking.

Now that oil prices are high again and oil is profitable, there most certainly IS a lot of money being put back into the infrastructure.

But the oil companies also realize this is a bubble, just like the bubble in the late 70’s. When the bubble bursts it will do so suddenly and the march toward $70 per barrel or lower will be unforgiving to those companies who don’t maximize profits and savings now.

A new “windfall profits” tax would do so much more damage than good, because you’re basically killing the company now, even though it won’t die for 4-5 years since you remove the companies ability to weather harder times in the future.

Not to mention it would ultimately slow the flow of gasoline, driving prices back up faster, which would hurt the consumer.

Eventually, the barrel will fall below $80 (2004 Dollars).

Look! His retirement is destroyed. He’s crying!

Of course it’s net profit you moron. It would be next to impossible for that to be gross profit. There’s nothing misleading about it. You’re just mentally retarded.

So if you had to suck a specific butthole, would it be Exxon’s or Shell’s?
^^^ Dayuuuuum

hypeman.jpg

Yeah! Instead we should punish the most successful and most productive members of society merely because of their success and production!
Exxon posts record tax payment in the same quarter that Exxon posts record quarterly profit.

In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
10% of revenue net profit! THEY’RE MAKING TOO MANY MONIES!!

30% of revenue in taxes! THEY’RE NOT GIVING ME ENOUGH MONIES!!

8% profit margins across the entire oil industry …. LACK OF COMPETITIVE PRICING

A record-shattering profit despite their taxes….
I really want to know Dumpy’s level of education and what he does for a living. I always have.

Assumed he was in the law profession…
Maybe a B.S. in poli sci or something, and working on his M.S.

[/pure speculation]

Do you really think any company should pay more in taxes than it can bring home? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Those poor, oppressed (government subsidized) corporations and their record profits, amirite

I wonder why there’s a lack of competitive pricing!

Also 5-10% is not abnormal for super duper duper mega-sized corporations.

It strikes me as odd that for the past several years Exxon has been paying close to $30 billion in taxes per year and then all of a sudden they pay $32billion in one quarter. Something doesn’t quite add up here.

OR….!

there’s even proof about it happening in the industry now:

You were only looking at corporate income tax for previous years. They pay more in taxes than just corporate income tax.

Wal-Mart Income Statement

—– Jan 08 Jan 07 Jan 06
Net Profit Margin 3.4% 3.2% 3.6%

It is by revenue, according to the 2008 .
For Baker…

ExxonMobil 2007
Revenue $404.6 Billion
Profit $40.6 Billion (10.0%)
Taxes $102.5 Billion (25.3%)
–Sales-Based taxes $31.728B
–Other taxes and duties $40.953B
–Income taxes $29.864B
2007 Financial & Operating Review
- Page 16

- - - - - - - - -
ConocoPhillips 2007
Revenue $194.5 Billion
Profit $11.9 Billion (6.1%)
Taxes $30.4 Billion (15.6%)
–Taxes other than income taxes $18.990B
–Income taxes $11.891B
2007 Annual Report
- Page 60

- - - - - - - - -
Chevron 2007
Revenue $220.9 Billion
Profit $18.7 Billion (8.5%)
Taxes $35.7 Billion (16.2%)
–Taxes other than income taxes $22.266B
–Income taxes $13.479B
2007 Annual Report Supplement
- Page 3

- - - - - - - - -
Marathon 2007
Revenue $62.8 Billion
Profit $4.0 Billion (6.3%)
Taxes $8.5 Billion (13.5%)
–Consumer excise taxes $5.163B
–Other taxes $0.394B
–Income taxes $2.901B
2007 Annual Report
- Page F-4

lulz

so funny

What constitutes a sales based tax and all other taxes?

Damn Waltons. Who’d've thunk THEY’RE DOING IT WRONG.
Thanks for sharing.

What are we supposed to be discussing here?

read the thread
huh i heard walmart makes more money per dollar than oil and gas industrys… guess not

I read it, righties crying about overtaxation and lefties crying about big oil.

We already have plenty of threads with the same discussion going on.
Time to open the drilling off the coast

Let’s review some facts:

1. Profit margins among some large companies in the U.S.

Oil company profits: A perspective
Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies, recent quarter, 2005
Source: Bloomberg News,
Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin
Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33%
Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32%
Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21%
Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14%
General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11%
ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11%
ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8%
IBM $1.5 $21.5 7%
Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7%
Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4%

Where are the congressional hearings about windows, coca-cola, batteries, baby shampoo, lotions, medicine, ect? Those industries are charging you 3-4 times more per dollar invested than even the top energy companies.

Here is what it looked like in 2005. Above is from 2006.

2. Demand is up. Sales therefore are up. For Exxon in the U.S, $115 billion in sales = $9 billion in profits. How is that excessive?

3. Banks own 70% of all future crude contracts from May-2008 to Dec-2012. Banks, not energy companies. This is a dramatic chamnge in the market since 1990 when the NYMEX took off for CL and NG. If there is manipulation, it’s most likely from the Bank Of Scotland, Middle Eastern Banks, or Goldman Sachs.

4. The largest "energy company" in the world is the Government of Saudi Arabia. Between mid-2003 and mid-2006, Saudi Arabia showed strong economic performance due to high oil prices, increasing oil production and export earnings, paired with structural reforms, economic diversification, and stable macroeconomic policymaking. Saudi Arabia remains heavily dependent on oil and petroleum-related industries, including petrochemicals and petroleum refining. The IMF reported that in 2005, oil export revenues accounted for around 90 percent of total Saudi export earnings, 70-80 percent of state revenues, and 44 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). In order to defend their most significant source of economic growth, Saudi Arabia is increasing its oil production capacity to 12 million barrels per day (bbl/d), by 2009. Exxon, BP, Shell, ect don’t have 10% of the power Saudi Arabia does to manipulate profits and drive prices up.

5. The price for gas in the U.S is still relatively cheap when compared against the World.

((Prices are quoted in US dollars per gallon for regular unleaded, as you can see, it isn’t remote places paying high gas prices, it’s developed nations.))
Oslo, Norway
$6.82
Hong Kong
$6.25
Brussels, Belgium
$6.16
London, UK
$5.96
Rome, Italy
$5.80
Tokyo, Japan
$5.25
Sao Paulo, Brazil
$4.42
New Delhi, India
$3.71
Sidney, Australia
$3.42
Johannesburg, South Africa
$3.39
Mexico City
$2.22
Buenos Aires, Argentina
$2.09
Riyadh , Saudi Arabia
$0.91
Kuwait
$0.78
Caracas, Venezuela
$0.12

Again, it’s obvious that Saudia Arabia and Venezuela are manipulating the market, not energy companies.

6. Why are prices going up? (This is part fact part opinion).

a. China and India are burning more Co2 than ever before…demand is up. When demand goes up, prices go up.

b. The countries who own the oil are corrupt.

c. Environmental standards are making oil harder and more expensive to refine in the US, and the liberal state governments of the east and west coasts wont build a refinery. Ever find it strange that the East and West Coast states account for 40% of demand for gasoline, yet won’t build a refinery off their shores, instead forcing Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and a few other states to ship them their gasoline long-haul, raising the price on everyone, and wasting billions of dollars in fuel along the way?

Rather than turn this into a pissing match, I will ask anyone of you to refute any of these assertions, and better yet, provide any proof that energy companies are driving prices up.
^ That was aimed at Karnejj for his "LULZ LOOK @ WALMURT" post.

"Hey … let’s ignore Exxon for being the biggest turd by far, just because there are smaller, yet smellier ones out there — like these other companies that have few competitors."

Before you get too deep into this little line, it’s really not so much about the individual corporate profits. IT’S THE FACT THAT THE IS AVERAGING THESE PROFIT MARGINS.

10% of revenue is too many profits!!

The nix king!
The company continued to spend more on buying back shares than capital investments, committing $8.8bn to share repurchases while putting $7bn into capital and exploration spending.

The company beat back a shareholder revolt earlier this year, launched by the Rockefeller family, to force it into alternative energies.

Of course, people who’ve never run a multi-billion dollar company (or any company) should decide how much profit they should make.

If you want to complain about companies making large margins in comparison to their size you should look at pharmaceuticals.

10% of revenue IN AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY is too few competitors!

Nice try though …

You think I’m not aware of the profit margins of banks and pharmaceuticals?

Yarrr, they got plenty of booty plunder.
It would also be a good thing to point out that not all of the taxes paid by Exxon go to the US. Taxes are paid to governments all over the world. In 07 only $5.5billion out of $29.9billion in income taxes were paid to the US.

Its a bigger problem than oil companies, and isn’t it weird that the more regulation there is in an industry the larger the margins are compared to their size? Banking, Pharmaceuticals, and Oil all have massive government barriers to entry in the market. This reduces competition and makes these companies more profitable.

Perhaps …. but that’s not really germaine to this thread.

Or … it "proves" that non-competitive industries end up getting hit by more regulation. Seeing as regulations are levied reactively, which of those two "conclusions" would you think is more plausible….?

OIL COMPANIES DONT SET THE PRICE. THE MARKET SETS THE PRICE. BIG PRIVATE OIL COMPANIES CONTROL ONLY ~3% OF TOTAL SUPPLY. YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID.

How is that relevant, Baker?

going cruise control on him isn’t helping. However, I agree with you, they can take 30% profits for all I care.
Oh, and the majority of taxes paid are not on income but on sales and other taxes which I asked Dumpy about earlier but never got an answer.

Sales taxes are pretty straight forward. Exxon spends over $40billion per year in operating costs it is going to pay a shitload of sales tax. Other taxes are property taxes, excise taxes, etc… which make up the bulk of the taxes paid.

I’m just providing information jackass.

Ahh… kinda like how "the market" set these prices and they weren’t set by the companies?

For the first time in Canadian history, gas companies were found guilty of fixing prices…

Very good argument you have there, chief.

THAT’S NOT TO MENTION THAT EXXONMOBIL IS GETTING RID OF ALL THEIR GAS STATIONS YOU FUCKING DOLT.

Wow … yeah. Just like the "capitalism" of the Enron execs….

Yes… it is very good.

Proven price fixing = you wrong

I’m saving this one for the next time you say, "So the free market is just going to LET PEOPLE DIE before litigation can act as an effective deterrent???"

Except that the regulations mostly have nothing to do with the industries being non-competitive, and have more to do with environmental, safety, and financial stability concerns.

Of course it is post-tax. How is that misleading? Did anyone think otherwise? if so, they should be at crayola.com.
CAPSLOCK MAKES YOUR POINT LESS CRAPPY AND MORE RELEVANT

Ummm … ok. Not sure how it’ll be relevant. Go for it.

How does that make me wrong? We’re discussing ExxonMobil here, and they’re getting rid of their gas stations because their gas stations ARE NOT MAKING ANY MONEY.

If they were price fixing at the pump, then why do they have a vested interest in selling the pumps?

Fucking shit you’re being a god damned idiot today.
Apparently Russia and a few other countries charge the oil companies up to 90% of revenue made from oil extracted from their nation. Compare that to the US income tax rate of 35% and they still get to deduct 70% of drilling costs in the US and 15% of US sales revenue. The US is very kind to the oil companies, it is other nations that make the costs so high.

That doesn’t surprise me.

Mainstream believes in externalities.

Which can be accounted for without regulation. Plus that doesn’t change the fact that the regulation is what makes them non-competitive.

Because you’re blinded by your idealism.

And society "can" function without money ….
Obviously, the alternative has proven better.

My spidey senses are picking up on some special pleading in the distance.

If you say so …. brb, gotta check how ballin’ those airlines are.

I see your point here but it is just nitpicking. I hope that you are not so blind that you cannot see what he was saying.

That is how you find out there is a problem. Something happens and regulations are put in place to prevent it from happening again. It is a learning process. At some point we didn’t know what pollution was or that it was harmful. We also didn’t know that asbestos was harmful at one point. As we learn we create regulation to protect others from the harm it caused to people in the past.

He is making no important point with his "let people die" silliness.

Your system of regulation is causing the problems that you are complaining about.

He took it way too literally instead of bothering to think about what it meant which is why I said that.

And a Capitalist would say:

That is how you find out there is a problem. Something happens and judiciary doctrines are put in place to prevent it from happening again. It is a learning process. At some point we didn’t know what pollution was or that it was harmful. We also didn’t know that asbestos was harmful at one point. As we learn we create judiciary doctrines to protect others from the harm it caused to people in the past.

No. The point was just over your head, or you just didn’t see because you’re blinded by your idealism.

Sweeping, generalized, baseless assertions are kewl.

Do you ever have anything to add to discussions besides commentary on the discussion itself?

So then you support the supreme court in it’s numerous decisions that have expanded "the general welfare" in the constitution to include more than just the enumerated powers.

It’s hard to not get that you were taking it completely literally. There was really no point except to be an ass.

Nope … understood it completely. Doesn’t change that your threat of using this rebuttal was just silly and will prove useless when you do. But, hey …. I guess it’ll be fun to see you try it.

Yes

No. Judiciary doctrine and judicial review are two different things. Idiot.

Gratuitous with the weak insults recently….

Gratuitous with the losing arguments recently….

Don’t think you’ll find any of those from me.

Im 99% sure you are a near broke delusional loser

What does Judicial doctrine have to do with what you said?

Did you even read the post?

Me:

That is how you find out there is a problem. Something happens and judiciary doctrines are put in place to prevent it from happening again. It is a learning process. At some point we didn’t know what pollution was or that it was harmful. We also didn’t know that asbestos was harmful at one point. As we learn we create judiciary doctrines to protect others from the harm it caused to people in the past.

You: LOL TEHN UR AGREE WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW!! LOL MAMORUROU

Me: No. Judiciary doctrine and judicial review are two different things. Idiot.

You: WAT DOEZ JUDUDCAIAL DOCTRINIE HAF 2 DO WITH NE THING????

So you don’t know what judicial doctrine has to do with what you said? Don’t avoid the question, just answer it and make me look stupid.

Judicial review is setting precedence in the interpretation of statutory law.

Judiciary doctrine (in contrast to, say, legislative doctrine) is setting precedence in non-statutory law.

Do you need me to spell out how the latter is relevant to a system without statutory regulation?

ok so the burn isnt as good as i thought it was but it sounded cleaver at the time…

I am having a very hard time understanding why juidicial doctrine would be binding and prevent something from happening again.

That’s because you’re mentally retarded.

Explain it to my mentally retarded ass.

in before more insults and dodged questions

combining two large companies tends to do that. Not to mention the retail price is very very very high.

you can’t compare a grocery/retail store to an energy company. They make only a few pennies per item.

Compare them to other industries. Banking is 25% or higher phramcutical is way up there. Electronics is fairly high. Trucking was before this latest fuel crisis.

Riiiiight. Because SIZE OF THE COMPANY wasn’t the topic of the discussion.

Oh… only compare them to other non-competitive industries. Sure…..

cliffs: you can only compare oil company profit margins with companies who have a higher profit margin.

If you would have read karnejj and my previous statements you would see how we regressed to this level.

… even though ALL of them have Industry-wide margins higher than average.

or to any company that isn’t RETAIL ?

and what makes retail the qualifier?

Because that’s pretty much accepted as being a competitive industry. Can’t be comparing oil to actual FREE MARKETS, ya know.

You were commenting on the dollar value of their profit. Two very large companies merging, tend to make a lot of profit.

If we combined Walmart and Target, their dollar value of profit would be very high. But percentage wise? not much change.

Banks and insruance companies are highly competitive. And they have 25%+ profit rates.

Trucking companies are even more. We have had customers switch shippers 4 times in a year. Every little cent and performance percentage was huge in the determination if we kept them or not.

Isn’t walmart labeled noncompetitive by the hate groups ? yet their profit is low.

Or perhaps it’s intellectually dishonest to compare the industry of a global commodity to that of a low-cost-to-enter industry with famously razor thin profit margins.

"It’s unfair to compare oligopolies to competitive markets!"

Because retail by nature is a very low profit market. Grocery stores tend to make 1-3 cents on many items. It’s the same as the gas station owners, very low profit on the main item.

it’s the extras that have huge profit. Gazebos at a grocery store = but if they sell one, they could easily get a huge profit for very little work.

It’s like a 5′8" tall guy saying he’s tall compared to midgets. Well duh. Midgets are by nature short. But compare him to the total range and he’s in the middle.

walmart is competitive now ?

so why all the hate on them ?

Are either of you even keeping up with the conversation? I’m thinking you’re not.

Here are a couple of examples I used for someone the other day:

Is it criminally illegal to not have a "caution wet floor" sign in your business? No. Can you be sued if one of your invitees slips and falls? Yes. Why? Because of an absence of warning.

Is it criminally illegal to not have a gate around your pool? No. Can you be sued if an individual trespasses onto your property to use your pool, and subsequently hurts (or kills) himself? Yes. Why? Because the pool is considered an attractive nuisance.

What’s more is that he took one of the lowest profit-yielding conglomerates and cited that as a typical example. Such a dishonest little shit.

Karnejj, get back to me when you’re ready to stop being a fag. I’d actually like to have this debate with you, but not when you’re being intentionally ignorant.
Quite the clusterfuck in here… why don’t we stick to one issue at a time folks. Karnejj, you are partly right and partly wrong… the profit margins in an industry are a result of the ability for acceptable substitutes or competing firms to enter that industry and actually be competitive. To compare the oil industry which takes trememndous barriers to entry (including high initial capital, extensive distributor relationships, along with political obstacles) to the retail industry which has infamously low barriers to entry is slightly disingenuous. This has nothing to say of the possibilities of cutting into those profit margins by lowering some of the industry’s barriers to entry. May I suggest the political obstacles first?

YOU brought company size [mega super duper] into the matter. I simply voided that theory.

To try to act as if my example was not prompted by YOUR baseless contention would be somewhat ….. dishonest.

Define "intentional ignorance."

Walmart != market

This constant choice of you two to make an argument and then apply it to the wrong point that I’ve made is tiresome.

YOU were to explain why the RETAILING INDUSTRY is some nebulous exception to the profit margin issue. (AKA: )

I responded about markets, and now you post this silly implication that Wal-Mart itself is an entire "market"?

That’s cool and all but in no way explains how judicial doctrine will prevent something from happening again as you stated in your rebuttal to my post.

Judicial doctrine protects noone from anything. It gives judges a basis on which to make rulings but does not have to be adhered to.

then why did you use that SPECIFIC company instead of the retail industry’s average profit ?

You did the same thing by picking the lowest profit industry and compare it against oil. Why not one of the other many industries ?

Are you retarded?
How the fuck can you sit here and try to harp on a single post that I made and miss that I was directly responding to THIS SPECIFIC CLAIM.

…by posting THE MOST SUPER DUPER SUPER MEGA-SIZED COMPANY IN THE WORLD.

I did no such thing. Either get your shit together in this thread or expect that I will not respond further to you.

There are MUCH lower profit industries I could have cited, if that was the under-handed approach I wanted to take.

I said that it was common for conglomerates to yield a net profit that is 5-10% of revenue. So you cited one that was, what, 4.8% or some shit? And you’re going to act like you’ve somehow falsified the point I was conveying?

Yes, let’s continue weighing our respective degrees of dishonesty.

Walmart is NOT the largest company in the world. I’m posting from my cell phone, and from memory I can say with confidence that CitiGroup, Bank Of America, JPMorgan-Chase, Wells Fargo, General Electric, NewsCorp, and Disney are all larger than Walmart.

Your memory > 2008 Forbes 500 list?

You can laugh all you want but you still have not explained how it will prevent things from happening again. It is you that people are laughing at right now.

Because changing to a court-based retroactive-deterrence system automatically eliminates stupid people from society and then everyone learns from other people’s mistake forever … just like we learned from the oil crisis of the 1970’s and refrained from driving gas guzzlers.

Oh wait.

My best guess is that your idea of "the largest" is wrong. I’m going by market cap. I suspect you’re going by revenue. The largest by revenue is not THE LARGEST company in the world. The largest conglomerate in the US markets is, I think, Bank Of America. It was General Electric for a number of years and then CitiGroup, but with recent bank acquisitions, I’m pretty sure the top 5 would be B of A, then Chase, then Citi, then Wells, then GE.

More like … business always neglect to put on warning labels on hair dryers because of legislated regulation. McDonald’s warns about its coffee being hot - not because of a lawsuit, but rather - because legislators told them they have to.

"Oh wait. Karnejj is a dizzy bitch."

Putting warning labels on products protects the company from litigation. It in no way protects the people.

You still haven’t answered me.

HSBC is the largest if you count them, followed up by Citigroup.

"The largest company in the world by revenue has no claims to being the largest company in the world." — Dumpy

OHHH! O. K.

Preemptive action to reduce future litigative costs has the same effect as reactionary measures to follow the statutory law… without the nasty unintended consequences.

Prove it.

lol …. only if you don’t count needless destruction/dismemberment/death as an "unintended consequence."

Do they both not create an incentive for a company to avoid infringing upon another person’s life, liberty, or property?

…. and this exemplifies the absurdity of the philosophy.

"Let people do whatever the hell they want, and the courts will replace anything."
All fine and dandy, except I’ve never seen a court in the land that has ever ordered anyone to resurrect a victim killed by someone taking advantage of their UNIMPEACHABLE LIBERTY to do things like: decide that 100 mph was a decent speed in a neighborhood, or pass a stopped bus since that couldn’t hurt, or to sell a 12-year old child a little heroin to shoot up since it’s a decision between those two alone.

Yeah. It’s just OBVIOUS how vastly superior this society is (or perhaps that’s only if you continue to selectively ignore reality ).

All of those things are still possible now with regulations, what’s the incentive that people don’t do those things now?

BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN’T TOLD THAT IT’S OKAY FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND TRY WHATEVER THE HELL THEY PLEASE, AND THERE IS THE CHANCE OF ZERO REPURCUSSIONS (not even, for example, if they were in front of a building full of police officers).

wtf…?
Why ask when you know this??

What are they told? Why aren’t they told this by resulting case law?

I’m talking about civil libertarians. You may not be one of them. I think you actually did post something to make me think you weren’t.

edit: wait …. I might be thinking of a statement from Dumpy

I would generally consider myself a civil libertarian. But my personal philosophy is strictly my own.

Then the answer to your question "what are they told" is

INSTEAD of the libertarian way of telling people they are free to do whatever in the world they like (just shy of causing damage)….
They are told that exceeding 30 mph in a neighborhood is NOT acceptable.
They are told that passing a stopped school bus is NOT acceptable.
They are told that selling heroin to a child is NOT acceptable.

The acceptability is not left in doubt or in question.

Why are you asking me questions that you clearly must already know the answer to?

Is there no possibility that case law could tell people the same things?

edit- and I know MY answers to these questions, but we need to establish a base to move from if we are to discuss the issues. I’m just feeling out your views

Ummm … no.
Case law only tells them the consequences of their stupidity. Your philosophy tells them to go ahead and feel free to be stupid anyways, if they like.

NOT THE SAME THING AS LEGISLATION. Pretending it is the same is silly.

So … what are your answers to these same questions that you’ve asked?

Like I mentioned before, my philosophy is strictly my own… please leave blanket statements describing your general view of civil libertarians out of the discussion, because you don’t know my philosophy.

That being said…

I would say that case law establishing jail time/fines for selling heroin to minors would establish that this activity is not acceptable, do you disagree? Does case law establsihing this heroin/minor precedent not create an incentive to avoid participating in this type of activity?
karnejj, you are wrong here (AS ALWAYS LOILOLOELAOSDLAOERLEASORLSADOELR_ ) , case law decisions and legislation send exactly the same signal.

Seems like a poor example, since such an exchange (child choosing to buy heroin from a willing seller) is the type of mutual agreement that an extreme libertarian society is based upon. It’s not like we are to assume that the drug dealer has entered into some "don’t sell to my child" contract with the parents.

You’ll have to explain how minors are excepted from the contractual/mutal agreement mechanism. I’m at a loss on how the anarch-capitalist system works on this issue.

Errr … obviously they do not.

I will gladly get into that discussion after you agree/disagree with my prior statements/questions.

I have no answer until I understand the mechanism.

You’ll have to either explain the mechanism or choose another example not involving minors .

oh. convinced me

…. why do you disagree?

Will explain that mechanism after we resolve this issue (or at least come to a head)…

I would say that case law establishing jail time/fines for shooting people would establish that this activity is not acceptable, do you disagree? Does case law establsihing this shooting/people precedent not create an incentive to avoid participating in this type of activity?
judge: you did x, therefore you face consequence y

congress: if you do x, you will face consequence y

whats the difference?

I’ll post up something between tomorrow and Monday.
It’s distracting having to shift gears between the debate with you and the one with roth…
Exxon earned over $128 million a day, or nearly $1,500 a
second during the quarter. The company said that was after it
paid $4,100 a second in taxes and $14,700 a second in expenses
to run the business.

they were obviously lying, oil companies are all liars out to screw the american people

Take your time, but I think we are debating a similar issue

idk…. it seems you might be trying to develop that point or something. Answering asdfska could actually be a little fun, so I’ll hold off on that for a bit, probably till Monday to kick the workweek off.

So… I guess we hit a minor roadblock at…

(and I might be afk for a while in a little bit)

"The largest company in the world by combined employee weight has no claims to being the largest company in the world."

"The largest company in the world by use of the color brown has no claims to being the largest company in the world."

I don’t know why people focus on the percentages, oil is a very unique market with very high sales volumes. Comparing their profit margin percentages to other industries and rationalizing them making more in a quarter then any corporation in history is ridiculous. Exxon’s profits are abnormally extremely high…

On top of it, oil companies manipulate the oil commodity markets..they have every reason to see the price of oil higher (until a point where demand drops off). If you really think its okay for a company to be making $1500 a second PROFIT while the rest of us pay out the ass for gas and other products that rely on petroleum/transportation then

The free market works when it is not being manipulated by a shit ton of sources..and massive hedge funds.

Their profit margins are not high. They’re quite reasonable considering their industry. Of course it’s OK for a company to make $1,500 in profit. During that same second, they were also paying $4,000 in taxes so go fuck yourself.

Holy fucking shit

Nice deflection.

I doubt you’ll find a Forbes 500 list for fat-assed-ness or ranked by color usage, *I* never disputed employee weight nor brown usage. You, on the other hand, have moronically tried to deny the title for Wal-Mart.

Congress creates law that applies to everyone.

Judges rule on cases that apply to an individual.

They had over $138 billion in revenue, hence them paying 32 billion in taxes. The 11.7B earning is pure profit after taxes. When you pay taxes personally you pay on what you earned, not what you have left over after expenses. And that exactly is what I am saying..you can’t focus on profit margin percentages because of how unique a industry oil is. Our entire economy relies on petroleum and the enormous sales volume makes sure that even with a "small" profit margin their profits are enormous.

I have no problem with the company making more then any company in history if it WASN’T coming at the expense of the well being of the rest of the country and the economy (not to mention inflation from prices going up due to high oil prices). The oil markets are being manipulated partly by the oil companies…they have every incentive to keep oil prices high.

$1500 a second profit is fucking absurd

Precedent, my friend

Precedent- (per wikipedia)In , a precedent or authority is a establishing a principle or rule that a or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Can you explain how it does?

precedent, do you know what it is

That’s fine and all but does not have to be adhered to, especially by horizontal or higher courts.

neither does a statutory law…

It is adhered to 99% of the time in ‘horizontal’ courts and higher courts are ‘higher’ because they review established precedent and decide whether such precedent is appropriate. Then, if necessary, they can reverse a ‘bad’ precedent. What doesn’t jive with you?

good point…

One interesting way is through…

too bad too, since it was the entire point of having a jury

You guys are promoting this litigous circle of death. By putting total burden on the courts to decide on everything you do not protect people from anything. A court sets precedent, that in no way means the company that did something wrong will change it’s ways to prevent future accidents or deaths. If 10 or even 100 other people die from this companies neglect to fix the problem all of the families will have to go through the court process to find the company liable. With no regulations in place to say what the responsibility of the company was and judges only relying on the decisions of other judges who based their rulings on their own personal judgement. Judges in various parts of the country can see the same case completely different just as we see very differently on many matters. There is nothing solid to base your case against the company on since there is no regulation.

Not completely dead, but decisions that affirmed the court’s right to deny the defense the ability to instruct the jury of this right has virtually killed it.

completely false try again

I’m sure you’ve already gotten the hint that they cannot explain this imagined equivalence in the deterrence provided by the established rules of legislative law as opposed to the threat of punishment provided by case law. (Although, you may have strayed a bit with this "circularity" complaint.)

But, don’t let the ad hominems deter you. We all know that it doesn’t even make sense intuitively, much less for those slinging insults to imply their claim is so OBVIOUS.

So I just gave you an example of how jury nullification (not the only way) can eliminate the consequences of statutory law on a case by case bases. So then, what is the difference between using statutory law to create an incentive to avoid an activity and using case law?

I never stated equivalence, I stated they had the same effect (deterrence). It is impossible for me or you to claim which would have a greater deterrent effect, standing alone. Can you answer those questions I asked of you last night now?

And I have steered clear of ad hominems since I have arrived here, so please don’t group me with any other members..

I’m confused what’s completely false and what is the correct way to describe a situation where people hold someone fiscally liable in lieu of criminal negligence?

It is law, precedent is not. It has no bearing on higher courts because statutory law is generally created for states and localities.

If you have a county court overseeing a case about a county level statutory law it has solid law to go on and any other judge in that county court must go by that law when making a ruling on a similar case. With only precedent, other county judges could make different rulings on similar cases because nothing is solid.

Please explain why.

So …. you find it OK to ignore equivalence, just because they vaguely have some effect?

Hell, a $1 fine and a $1,000,000 fine (vaguely) have the "same" effect which is to deter, but you can damn well bet that they are not equivalent in the degree of deterrence, and that equivalence (or lack thereof) is certainly an important factor.

Oil is a commodity, whether you like it or not.

I’m not refusing to ignore equivalence, I’m correcting your assertion that I had said they were equivalent. Before we move on, Can you admit now that case law has a deterrent effect?

Not a relevant example, in my opinion. Even libertarians have a rule (law) against shooting people. So, it’s not really a point worth debating … let’s stick to the areas that are different.

Now that I see you are just pointing to ANY amount of disincentive, then the answer is "yes." But, such an isolated question is exactly about as useful as asking me whether a $0.01 parking fine would create incentive to avoid parking in a handicapped spot.

So you’re stating that precedent plays no major role in the judicial process?

So people can recognize consequences of an activity by way of establsihed precedent. So now we only differ on the perceived degree of difference between the deterrence. Are we at this point, no?

edit- and libertarians have this rule/law established in precedent

I didn’t say that. I said that it is not solid like law. A judge can review a precedent to help determine a ruling but unlike a law it has nothing difinitive that he must abide by in making his ruling.

Think of castle laws. They are designed to protect the homeowner in cases where he may have to shoot an intruder. Without a law like that the homeowner no matter how justified he may have been could still be found guilty of murder even if the intruder weilded a gun against him and it was clearly self defense. He did kill someone.

So, if a precedent was, let’s say, binding… would you agree that statutory law and precedent would have the same deterrent effect and roughly equivalent?

I never disagreed with this. In fact, I already said:

It’s always been the point we were at….

…..while given very special exception to the necessary "contract violation" that libertarians would otherwise rely upon for legal recourse. But … meh.

Precedent is not law so people do not recognize consequences from it. It is not distributed to the public in a clear form that allows people to understand exactly what is and isn’t ok. It is a judges ruling on a case which may contain a reason but even that leaves some questions and grey areas which is why judges are not required to follow precedent.

Obviously not, when coupled with the civil libertarian philosophy.

Precedent is not binding because judges do not make law. But if the constitution were amended to allow judges to make law through rulings then sure. It would be pretty fucked up though and cause some serious problems and confusion for everyone.

Well I had not heard whether you thought it deterred them at all, had to get that out of the way…

Well, it would either be enforcement of a contract or a violation of that person’s life, liberty, or property (which are the natural rights)

Anyways, back to the discussion. If a criminal knows that the consequences of committing an act would cause him to face jail time/fines(damages), what difference does it make if that consequence is levied by statutory law or case law?

Glad we could come to a consensus

"Natural rights" … sounds like an awfully colorful euphemism for LAW. But, this is a minor point.

Makes a HUGE difference. It might be a fun enough discussion to warrant it’s own thread.

Sounds interesting, but i can only join the discussion this afternoon/evening… I need to get at least SOMETHING done today.

lol …. I’ll probably be absent a good bit myself

Have a productive day.

Oh .. feel free to kick off that thread
…..although burglary might not be the best example either since that’s one of those natural rights, which is pretty much equivalent to the alternate systems.

That only applies to precedent set by higher courts which is why I mentioned horizontal and lower courts in my earlier posts. You are not telling me anything I do not already know and have said.

It doesn’t apply in cases where say an Arizona state court makes a ruling and sets precedent, then a regional court in Nevada has a similar case. The Arizona state court precedent has no bearing on the regional Nevada courts decision.

The cases must be almost exactly the same with no additional significant facts. Also if a significant fact is missing from a case that can be justification to not follow precedent as well.

You’re such a stupid shit.

Statutes do the exact same thing. What’s the punishment for violating regulations? Fines. So why do companies adhere to statutory regulations when clearly their only incentive is a possible monetary loss? According to you, such a threat isn’t enough of a deterrent for any company.

Common law is used throughout the entire nation. Judiciary doctrine is also more thorough than legislative doctrine because it covers a much broader spectrum. It’s also better because of its dramatic elasticity for meting proper compensation for plaintiffs.

Fines are designed to be a deterrent. Money awarded to a victim is awarded based on the victims losses and therefore could not always be counted on to be significant enough to be a deterrent.

all prosecutions are successful

I don’t get your meaning.

you act as if once a regulation is enacted, that punishment is automatic, and that they are therefore more of a deterrent than an unfavorable judgement.

this is completely absurd.

Right, that’s why there’s no such thing as non-statutory tort law. And that’s why Louisiana’s inadherence to the UCC has led to total fucking commercial chaos.

Seriously, you’re both talking out of your peeholes.

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh no… they are more of a deterrent because the amount of the fine is designed to be a deterrent thus more likely to give pause before violating xyz reg. Whereas an unfavorable judgement only seeks to compensate the victim and couldn’t be counted on to be as much of a deterrent if any at all because the amount a victim is compensated depends on provable loss.

What the hell are you talking about?

You continuously fail to answer any of my questions and post replies that I have already shown the flaws in. You are either arguing for the sake of arguement or just can’t accept that you are wrong. I’m going with the latter.

I’m sorry were you arguing for an end to all government regualtion?

Regulation can prevent punishment by reducing public harm.

how exactly?

A product is unsafe and causes harm to many people. Regulations are put in place to make that product safer. Since the product is now safer there are less people being harmed by it.

You’re such a stupid piece of shit.

"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as ) is an that advocates the elimination of the …….. Nonintrusive personal and activities would not be regulated, because the of the - rather than - would order society."

Stuff like this….?

In my experience, bringing up small things like reality doesn’t help get any explanations … usually it gets completely ignored, and might draw some insults. Good luck, if you choose to continue.

How does that in any way defeat any arguments made by Capitalists?

Perhaps shit like that gets ignored because it’s irrelevant.

are you talking about? You can’t be serious.

"The primary difference between my ‘ideal’ system and The Real World is IRRELEVANT, I say! " — Dumpy

I believe we have established this time and time again.

You obviously feel that you are superior to me in intelligence and in that case one would think you could explain why the statements that make me a stupid piece of shit are incorrect instead of just resorting to calling me a piece of shit.

I have provided arguements that have gone without valid rebuttal and explained why. I guess that’s trolling.

YEah, the FDA does such a good job at regulating our food that it took them what, 4 months to find the source of a salmonella outbreak…

rockon…they have done a stand up job.

Take this low-brow shit to the main forum, where it might actually fly.

you realize that your critiques of the market are also perfect solution fallacies… right?

It shows how regulation can help to prevent dangerous products or practices from reaching the market. It saves lives.

Regulations only succeed if they are implemented properly….

This government is basically incapable of regulating because everything gets lost in the enormous beaurocracy (sp?) that makes up the US government.

I see it in federal procurement every single day. They would rather spend 10x as much so that they can check off procurement boxes, that look at it with a little bit of common sense and say, hey, I can go to Home Depot and pay $25 for a good hammer, why am I buying it from ACME Hammer Company, a small, disadvantaged, women and monitority owned business for $250….

by the exact same mechanism as common law except at a greater cost

No one claimed perfection. Only SUPERIORITY.

There is no feasable way to inspect every piece of food that makes it to the US market.

ok…so in that case, no amount of regulation will ever work. So what you posted above,

Is actually, not true.

It shows how regulation, not litigation can save people from harm. If the drug had not been witheld from the US market thousands of children could have been born with severe deformities. Litigation after the fact would have gotten the drug pulled but there would still be thousands of severely deformed children.

That’s not what I said. I said in the case of trying to inspect every piece of food that makes it to the US market. I was specific about the target of the regulation. Don’t jump in here and try to put word in my mouth.

No, and I am tired of explaining why.

Yeah…. those who have simply pointed out the difference in the effectiveness of legislated law and regulation versus case law have phrased it so as to ridicule.

A wholly inaccurate

Continuing the

even if you were right, which you aren’t:

why does the government get to tell me what i can and cannot buy to put in my own body? if i want to take a random pill that hasn’t been tested by anyone, that’s my choice.

It doesn’t matter. He’s arguing from an emotional level anyways, instead of addressing the facts.

A solution doesn’t have to be perfect.
From wikipedia…

Person A:Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car wrecks.

Rebuttal- While seat belts could never save 100% of people involved in car accidents, the number of lives that would be saved is enough to far outweigh any negative consequences of wearing a seat belt.

from this it does not follow that there should be a law requiring you to wear a seatbelt

How does it show that illustrate that "litigation" cannot "save people from harm"?

The ONLY thing it shows is that the FDA successfully prevented harm in that case.

That regulation was put in place after she demonstrated that it had already harmed people across the pond. It was just as reactive as a threat of litigation would be. In a free market, there would still be watchdog groups that would effectively do the same thing as the FDA, and would most definitely able to point to a violation of contract if the company were to release a product that is known to cause harm to the public. That’s not to mention that the threat of litigation by the public itself would also act as an effective deterrent.

I love that you want to superimpose a free market scenario on situation that is inherently unfree. Jesus Christ.

you and 10 people in a room, 10-1 they vote to kill you. its cool cause its democracy?

Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.

I didn’t say it did follow that the rebuttal implies a NEED for the law. But, arguing against the law because it’s not perfectly effective is fallacious, and you know it.

a republic gives a well armed sheep a right to dispute that vote

You can put whatever you want in your body, the government isn’t going to stop you.

Go eat one of these, the government won’t stop you.

We’re not arguing against the law just because it’s not perfectly effective. We’re arguing against the law because it’s immoral AND because it’s less effective than the free market.

.

Neither of which have you proven. You defer to ad hominems when pressed by Sgt. Baker, and you haven’t even addressed morality.

That’s why there’s no such thing as the DEA.

Owait.

don’t know what kind of mushroom that is, but if its the kind i like, they’ll probably put me in jail… what the fuck are you talking about

SUPERIOR to me being voted to death, if the vote were 1-10.

Deferring to posting absurdities, now? That’ll surely prove convincing for your case….

DEA isn’t going to stop you from ingesting anything. It just trys to prevent regulated drugs from making it into your hands.

huh?

That post looks like a concession of defeat….

That’s why law enforcement doesn’t care if you’re under the influence of mind-altering substances.

Owait.

Please show me your defeating argument.
so its ok to kill unpopular minorities, if the majority agrees, because its better than killing unpopular minorities if the majority doesn’t agree?

Exactly which part of this post does NOT similarly apply to anarcho-capitalism?

respond to my post

asdfska: why does the government get to tell me what i can and can’t put in my body
karnejj: democracy!
asdfska: so if a democratic vote decides that you should be killed, that’s cool?
karnejj: ????

Neither of those posts are directed at me, so I’m not sure how you’re defeating my argument.

The first post there I just addressed.

The second post there isn’t even an argument.

…. implying that Courts don’t resurrect people is a fallacy, now….?

Priceless absurdity.

I figured you’d like that.
All fine and dandy, except I’ve never seen a statute in the land that has ever ordered anyone to resurrect a victim killed by someone taking advantage of their UNIMPEACHABLE LIBERTY to do things like: decide that 100 mph was a decent speed in a neighborhood, or pass a stopped bus since that couldn’t hurt, or to sell a 12-year old child a little heroin to shoot up since it’s a decision between those two alone.
^That’s my winning argument. I guess that means you lose now.

Nice story …. except that those statutes specifically inform people that such actions are not acceptable so problems like this are far rarer than if such questions were left in doubt as you propose to have.

Guess which version is a better deterrent?

Nice story …. except that those judiciary doctrines specifically inform people that such actions are not acceptable, instead of leaving such questions in doubt.

Guess which version is a better deterrent?

They do No Such Thing, in a hypothetical civil libertarian society. Not even close. Nice try, though.

Analogy fails => Argument fails => Philosophy fails

yes they do.

.

Statutes only tell them the consequences of their stupidity. Your philosophy tells them to go ahead and feel free to be stupid anyways, if they like.

I’m pretty sure that statutes are a philosophy SPECIFICALLY telling people they are NOT free to be that stupid.

Another failed paraphrase.
I’m pretty sure that judiciary doctrines are a philosophy SPECIFICALLY telling people they are NOT free to be that stupid.

….not according to civil libertarians, but you can keep trying your false paraphrases. Thus far, you’ve fooled no one but yourself.

"Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority"
so wait, who is fucking who? the republicans getting the one up on big oil or is big oil still coming out ahead of uncle sam?

fixed it for ya.

Since you have come back to judicial doctrine maybe you could go back a few pages and finally answer my question. Maybe I pose another asking how judicial doctrine SPECIFICALLY tells people they are not free to be stupid. Or maybe you could just read through some of my past posts and find the one where I explain why it doesn’t SPECIFICALLY tell people.

I know you can read but do you actually comprehend anything people say to you?

Foreign countries are fucking big oil on taxes. As I said way back in this thread when it was actually on topic, Exxon paid only $5 billion out of the total $30 billion in income taxes to the US in 2007. It also gets to deduct 15% of revenue generated in the US and 70% of drilling costs in the US. Nations like Russia and Libya collect 90% of all revenue generated from the oil extracted in their nation. Oil companies are taxed at 35% in the US. Additional taxes come from sales taxes from spending $40 billion per year in operating costs and the most is paid in the form of excise and property taxes.

I thought your only argument against common law was that it wasn’t unequivocally binding? (not to say anything anything about the same characteristic applying to statutory law)

edit- this is an ugly thread

maybe so but they do get 70% of their revenue from overseas so makes sense non US taxes are higher than US taxes

or toys that are not to contain lead…..yet they do.

I am reading what you said and responding to it.

I was trying to point out that US taxes are in terms of percentage far lower than many nations the oil companies do business in.

And they are pulled from the shelves and refunds given for any that may have been sold. Again you have selected a market that would be near impossible to inspect every item that makes it onto US shelves. Lead paint in toys is a situation where litigation is not the concern of the company but where the regulations in place will force the product to be removed from shelves resulting in huge losses so it is in the companies best interest to manufacture and ship safe products.

Just post this….

…assumes that a … solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

I find it much easier.

So because of volume, existing regulations shouldn’t be enforced that are in place to protect the consumer?

next example, EPA regulation of Underground Storage Tanks….

Regulations worked awesome there…

How many examples need to be posted before you realize that regulations are USELESS unless they can be enforced?

The US Government is to inefficient to regulate virtually anything at this point…The beaurocracy (sp?) has become so large and layered that no amount of regulations can be enforced….

You keep saying that regulations protect the consumer, when in fact, there are so many regulations in place that they provide absolutely no protection to the consumer.

So, you’re saying that there is absolutely no enforcement of the regulations for lead….?

Since you want to compare examples, let’s bring up seatbelt laws or
airbag regulations for auto-makers or restrictions on leaded gasoline. Man, since I have 3 examples, that must mean that everything has been a stellar success!

Again, that is not what I said and do not appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth.

It would help if you explained how regulations of underground storage tanks have failed.

Regulations are enforced. Some, like the examples you have given cannot be done beforehand because of the sheer volume of product unless you want the government to spend an insane amount of money. I also explained why it is in the interest of the manufacturer in these cases to distribute products in compliance with the government regulations in place.

Maybe you would like to provide some proof that regulations "provide absolutely no protection to the consumer".

Related posts:

1. New York threatens fraud charges against Citigroup NEW YORK (Reuters) - The office New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said on Friday it planned to bring legal...
2. Iraq oil bonanza flows to tune of $80 billion The oil boom will give Iraq a surplus of nearly $80 billion (42 billion) by the end of this year,...
3. Obama’s tax plan at it’s core is about "Neighborliness" "If I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can...
4. Death Tax/Estate Tax - If either canidate made a stance to abolish they’d win. but nooo, no one does. It would solidify that mess. Hell I'd even vote Obama if he said he could...
5. BREAKING NEWS - $17.4 billion bailout package approved for GM & Chrysler NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush announced a rescue plan for General Motors and Chrysler LLC Friday morning that...