Are oil companies swindlers? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Are oil companies swindlers?

Gagsquet
08-13-2011, 10:51 PM
Are oil companies honest?

In 1979, Thomas Ogle invented a new carburetor system working with steam power. He succeeded to make 200 miles with 8 liter of fuel. His system had a little celebrity and a lot of oil companies afraided for their profits tried to buy Ogle's invention. Ogle refused to sell it and tried to develop his invention by himself. At last, he sold his car system to an oil company. He had confidence in this company but they said his invention didn't work.
Two years later, Ogle was killed (because he built another car with steam power).

Oil companies are money-hungry and make all their possible to maximize their profits. Intern note in mid-80 highlighted that oil companies reduced their refining capacities to create a shortage situation and increase profits.

Oil companies seem to try their best to:
prevent from technological progresses to keep a high-level profit.
reduce refining capacities to create shortage situation and keep an expensive fuel price.

To sum up, are oil companies the biggest swindlers of twentieth century?

Kat_YYZ
08-13-2011, 11:38 PM
yes

BigJohn
08-13-2011, 11:41 PM
Big Oil is evil, much like Tobacco and Monsanto.

I am pretty sure the big wigs of all those companies are going straight to hell.

Pirata.
08-13-2011, 11:48 PM
Yes.

Next.

Gagsquet
08-13-2011, 11:57 PM
It's really disturbing if these companies had really prevent technological progresses from appearing.
They are money-hungry Ok but I wonder if green and clean energy would have been yet dominant without them.
I have difficulties to believe they prevent green/clean energy from developing: it's a crime.

Chip_s_m
08-14-2011, 12:21 AM
Are oil companies honest?

In 1979, Thomas Ogle invented a new carburetor system working with steam power. He succeeded to make 200 miles with 8 liter of fuel. His system had a little celebrity and a lot of oil companies afraided for their profits tried to buy Ogle's invention. Ogle refused to sell it and tried to develop his invention by himself. At last, he sold his car system to an oil company. He had confidence in this company but they said his invention didn't work.
Two years later, Ogle was killed (because he built another car with steam power).

Oil companies are money-hungry and make all their possible to maximize their profits. Intern note in mid-80 highlighted that oil companies reduced their refining capacities to create a shortage situation and increase profits.

Oil companies seem to try their best to:
prevent from technological progresses to keep a high-level profit.
reduce refining capacities to create shortage situation and keep an expensive fuel price.

To sum up, are oil companies the biggest swindlers of twentieth century?

There are a ton of large energy companies. All it takes is one to come up with a viable alternative energy source. The one that does will make an absolute killing, more than significantly offsetting their loss of profits from the decline of oil. They all know this, which is why they all invest in R&D. The technology will get there one day and a high price of oil will make this day come sooner.

Your story about the steam-powered engine is likely bogus, or at the very least the technology wasn't anywhere near profitable. If it was you can bet there would be a company out there, not necessarily big oil, that would be selling it. If a large company is aware of a superior technology relevant to their business, there is simply no reason for it not to adopt it.

Big oil does attempt to limit competition and artificially raise the price of oil. However, this mostly revolves around using political connections to increase regulations that make it difficult for competitors, almost always smaller ones, to compete on a level playing field. They also use their clout to gain access to oil fields, or to get around regulations that their (smaller) competitors are subject to. They may even push for a foreign policy that causes instability in oil-producing regions, thereby driving up the price of oil.

BigJohn
08-14-2011, 12:29 AM
Big oil does attempt to limit competition and artificially raise the price of oil. However, this mostly revolves around using political connections to increase regulations that make it difficult for competitors, almost always smaller ones, to compete on a level playing field. They also use their clout to gain access to oil fields, or to get around regulations that their (smaller) competitors are subject to. They may even push for a foreign policy that causes instability in oil-producing regions, thereby driving up the price of oil.

They also shut down refineries in order to create false scarcity.

Snowwy
08-14-2011, 12:31 AM
They prevent the advancement of technology and it is very disappointing.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 04:14 AM
Are oil companies honest?

In 1979, Thomas Ogle invented a new carburetor system working with steam power. He succeeded to make 200 miles with 8 liter of fuel. His system had a little celebrity and a lot of oil companies afraided for their profits tried to buy Ogle's invention. Ogle refused to sell it and tried to develop his invention by himself. At last, he sold his car system to an oil company. He had confidence in this company but they said his invention didn't work.
Two years later, Ogle was killed (because he built another car with steam power).

Oil companies are money-hungry and make all their possible to maximize their profits. Intern note in mid-80 highlighted that oil companies reduced their refining capacities to create a shortage situation and increase profits.

Oil companies seem to try their best to:
prevent from technological progresses to keep a high-level profit.
reduce refining capacities to create shortage situation and keep an expensive fuel price.

To sum up, are oil companies the biggest swindlers of twentieth century?

If this reads like Urban Legend crap, that is because it is. Any sensible person reading what you have written would realise it is all unsubstantiated nonsense. Even the part about his death - from a drug and alcohol overdose.

So the question in your thread title is totally unrelated to the nonsense in your post.

But of course a lot of MTF stooges will read it and it is what they would like to be true, so they will go with it without even checking what they are approving. More conspiracy theory for the bored and aimless. And of course all his blueprints have mysteriously disappeared and his invention can no longer be built - another essential ingredient of conspiracy theories. Evidence always just gets in the way of a good hoax.

Sad that people will just swallow such nonsense off a post in MTF without question. None of them is likely to be hired by an oil company. They would probably want to explore with a divining rod to save money on drilling.

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 09:38 AM
Well Buddyholly, just tell us the true story of Thomas Ogle and his invention so.
The 200 miles with 8 liters is not a hoax, you know.
I was perhaps biased concerning his death but circumstances are really disconcerting.

I would be pleased if you prove me that I'm wrong.

Nb: the story about ogle is just an anecdote. Don't whine because you think it's not related with the thread title.
If you want to support Big Oil companies with sensible arguments, go ahead. I'm sure, it will be interesting.

Kat_YYZ
08-14-2011, 11:46 AM
If this reads like Urban Legend crap, that is because it is. Any sensible person reading what you have written would realise it is all unsubstantiated nonsense. Even the part about his death - from a drug and alcohol overdose.

So the question in your thread title is totally unrelated to the nonsense in your post.

But of course a lot of MTF stooges will read it and it is what they would like to be true, so they will go with it without even checking what they are approving. More conspiracy theory for the bored and aimless. And of course all his blueprints have mysteriously disappeared and his invention can no longer be built - another essential ingredient of conspiracy theories. Evidence always just gets in the way of a good hoax.

Sad that people will just swallow such nonsense off a post in MTF without question. None of them is likely to be hired by an oil company. They would probably want to explore with a divining rod to save money on drilling.
I didn't really need the story in the first post to answer the question. :wavey:

Dmitry Verdasco
08-14-2011, 11:50 AM
Y'all are just hating. It's okay for McDonalds to make squillions of $$$ by pumping salt through our arteries but not okay for oil companies to maximise profits? I say make as much as you can and if someone has a problem then they don't have to give you their money. Walk to work if you're so concerned about them making money. Jealous bitches are jealous :shrug:

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 03:11 PM
Well Buddyholly, just tell us the true story of Thomas Ogle and his invention so.
The 200 miles with 8 liters is not a hoax, you know.
I was perhaps biased concerning his death but circumstances are really disconcerting.

I would be pleased if you prove me that I'm wrong.

Nb: the story about ogle is just an anecdote. Don't whine because you think it's not related with the thread title.
If you want to support Big Oil companies with sensible arguments, go ahead. I'm sure, it will be interesting.

How do you know it was not a hoax? You are repeating the mantra of the conspiracy theorists - ''prove that I am wrong.'' You have to present some credible evidence that you are right first - oh I forgot, all the evidence you might present has now disappeared.
People can do their own internet search on Thomas Ogle - although they will have to filter out all the crankpot websites in the process.

If you want to go against big oil companies, try using some sensible arguments. When you start a thread and then say the entire first post is just an anecdote, then isn't it clear you have presented no argument at all, never mind a sensible one? I wasn't whining. I was laughing at you and pointing out that you can not expect anyone to counter your argument when you have yet to present one

PS Usually when I do a websearch, first up is the Wikipedia link. In the case of Thomas Ogle there is not even a Wikipedia entry. How can that be? Is Wikipedia really just a big oil-owned propaganda site?

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 03:15 PM
Y'all are just hating. It's okay for McDonalds to make squillions of $$$ by pumping salt through our arteries but not okay for oil companies to maximise profits? I say make as much as you can and if someone has a problem then they don't have to give you their money. Walk to work if you're so concerned about them making money. Jealous bitches are jealous :shrug:

We came from the ocean and salt is part of our chemistry, but that is another thread.

Do you ever wonder why nobody starts a thread complaining why movie and basketball tickets are so expensive, while all the big movie stars and basketball players live in Hollywood mansions, drink champagne and party all night in expensive clubs?
And if you go to a movie or basketball game that turns out to be an absolute dud, do you get your money back? No way. Those people just buy another private jet with what they stole from us. Somebody should do something about it.

However, when a gallon of gas costs a lot less than a gallon of water, it makes you laugh that people first fret about the price of gas. Why not go after Nestle and Perrier (those damn French thieves) instead?

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 03:33 PM
The test was made in the presence of journalists and a lot of articles described this test.
But yes, we could say there are no proofs but a lot of events did not happen in that case in human history.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 03:47 PM
The test was made in the presence of journalists and a lot of articles described this test.
But yes, we could say there are no proofs but a lot of events did not happen in that case in human history.

Exactly!

You ask me to present sensible arguments and now say your original argument has no proof.

So what events did not happen in the case of human history?

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 03:50 PM
Jesus for instance.

But you pretend that articles are not proofs in your opinion. Ok...

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 03:53 PM
I was hoping you would say that. Another conspiracy theory!

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 03:56 PM
Jesus did not exist for you?

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 04:01 PM
Jesus did. Was he the son of God and rose from the dead? Certainly not.

But enough fooling around. In your opening post you asked us to accept that someone could invent a remarkably simple change to the internal combustion engine and big oil for 40 years has kept the entire world from doing anything about this remarkably simple invention. Please!!!!!!!!!

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 04:05 PM
Jesus did. Was he the son of God and rose from the dead? Certainly not.

But enough fooling around. In your opening post you asked us to accept that someone could invent a remarkably simple change to the internal combustion engine and big oil for 40 years has kept the entire world from doing anything about this remarkably simple invention. Please!!!!!!!!!

I am not sure of that because there are no proof but I think it's possible Big oil companies prevented from great technological progresses in the energy field.
The case of the Ogle invention is secondary, just an anecdote. (perhaps not true)
And the thread is not all about this story but the fact oil companies have been acting as swindlers or not.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 04:14 PM
I am not sure of that because there are no proof but I think it's possible Big oil companies prevent great technological progresses in the energy field.
The case of the Ogle invention is secondary, just an anecdote.
And the thread is not all about this story but the fact oil companies have been acting as swindlers or not.

But you are still making statements without presenting a single factual argument - although now you are just thinking ''it's possible''. So does that mean you are undecided?
How do they prevent these great technological progresses? Is every single scientist in the world under the control of big oil?

My argument is that a gallon of gas is actually very cheap considering what it takes to produce it. The profit percentage is low compared to most other produced goods, such as water, clothes, entertainment, cell phones etc. So I ask again, why pick on big oil?

And now I must be off to see Serena. I am using public transport to get there, so the price of oil does not bother me.

Gagsquet
08-14-2011, 04:31 PM
Price of gas is cheap. :confused:
I couldn't prove Big oil slow down technological progresses so it never happens :rolleyes:
I have not material proof of the Ogle's invention so it never happens :rolleyes:

Weird way of thinking.

Anyway, the fact oil companies reduced their refining capacities to increase their profits is a fact.
If they are able to do that, I think it's really possible they made worse.

abraxas21
08-14-2011, 05:00 PM
There are a ton of large energy companies. All it takes is one to come up with a viable alternative energy source. The one that does will make an absolute killing, more than significantly offsetting their loss of profits from the decline of oil. They all know this, which is why they all invest in R&D. The technology will get there one day and a high price of oil will make this day come sooner.

Your story about the steam-powered engine is likely bogus, or at the very least the technology wasn't anywhere near profitable. If it was you can bet there would be a company out there, not necessarily big oil, that would be selling it. If a large company is aware of a superior technology relevant to their business, there is simply no reason for it not to adopt it.

only libertarians have this foolish faith in the competitiveness of the markets...

BigJohn
08-14-2011, 05:41 PM
Grassquet, meet buddyholly, a NT resident who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Seingeist
08-14-2011, 07:17 PM
Grassquet, meet buddyholly, a NT resident who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Grassquet, meet BigJohn, who is incapable of a substantial contribution.

Conceding for the sake of argument that Big Oil tycoons do indeed kick puppies and eat babies, if one wants to make a convincing argument in support of their Diabolical Evil, one needs to offer more than a highly implausible and unsubstantiated anecdote.

What's particularly amusing here is that there are enough intelligent Big Oil haters in the world that it should not be difficult at all to make a reasonably compelling case against Big Oil with some cursory internet research (that is to say, these intelligent Big Oil haters have probably already done most of your work for you and gone to the trouble of making a case against it in various articles, newspapers, and journals).

It would be akin to making some anti George W. Bush thread, but instead of focusing on the wealth of well-documented complaints and issues that might have any merit (related to specific elements of domestic or foreign policy, for example), you base your entire case on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Then again, judging by the popularity of these absurd theories around MTF, perhaps unsubstantiated and implausible BS is the best way to support any given position. :lol:

BigJohn
08-14-2011, 07:51 PM
Grassquet, meet BigJohn, who is incapable of a substantial contribution.



And yet, in this very thread...

They also shut down refineries in order to create false scarcity.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 09:21 PM
I forgot Starbucks and Tim Hortons. What they charge for a gallon of coffee is astronomical compared to the price of a gallon of gas. And I would bet that the cost of production is way, way less.

I am beginning to believe fervently in my own arguments. Gasoline is way too cheap when one takes into consideration the risk of exploration and the complex production costs. Maybe big oil should buy out Starbucks and all the beer companies. Prices would drop sharply and the consumer would be much better off.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 09:48 PM
only libertarians have this foolish faith in the competitiveness of the markets...

I'm guessing your ideal solution would be to build a society where nobody can afford to own a car - thus slaying the dragon that is big oil in one single stroke of genius.

buddyholly
08-14-2011, 09:52 PM
Grassquet, meet buddyholly, a NT resident who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing.

More like ''likes to shoot down outrageous posts by people who have no clue of the legitimacy of what they write.''

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 12:34 AM
Buddyholly, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." - Michael Crichton

And you keep ignoring Big John and mine argument that they reduced intentionally their refining capacities to create shortage situation and increase profits.

By the way, you weakened your credibility when you treat us as crazy conspiracy believers.
We raise questions because their practice are condemnable, it makes sense in my opinion.

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 01:29 AM
And you keep ignoring Big John and mine argument that they reduced intentionally their refining capacities to create shortage situation and increase profits.

By the way, you weakened your credibility when you treat us as crazy conspiracy believers.
We raise questions because their practice are condemnable, it makes sense in my opinion.

Well, if your opening post is all about the Thomas Ogle nonsense, I think it legitimate that I introduce conspiracy theory to the discussion. Having that as your lead in to the practices of oil companies indicates to me you are not really interested in facts, just in any old nonsense that is out there on the internets..

And you have completely ignored my argument that drop for drop and ounce for ounce, oil and its products is one of the cheapest commodities on the market, despite the fiancial risk involved in finding it.

So I find this thread superfluous, when the real swindlers out there are Perrier and Starbucks.

Chip_s_m
08-15-2011, 05:05 AM
It should be noted that most governments make more profit per unit of fuel via gas taxes than the oil companies. Perhaps then it is they who are responsible for suppressing this technology, fearful that it will lose its valuable revenue stream.

Exxon apparently makes about 2 cents per gallon, whereas the state of California makes 66!

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

Dmitry Verdasco
08-15-2011, 08:58 AM
We came from the ocean and salt is part of our chemistry, but that is another thread.

Do you ever wonder why nobody starts a thread complaining why movie and basketball tickets are so expensive, while all the big movie stars and basketball players live in Hollywood mansions, drink champagne and party all night in expensive clubs?
And if you go to a movie or basketball game that turns out to be an absolute dud, do you get your money back? No way. Those people just buy another private jet with what they stole from us. Somebody should do something about it.

However, when a gallon of gas costs a lot less than a gallon of water, it makes you laugh that people first fret about the price of gas. Why not go after Nestle and Perrier (those damn French thieves) instead?

IKR? Some of my family used to run a service station and for 12 months straight they were making $0.00 out of petrol and diesel sales. AT A SERVICE STATION! NO MARK UP! The were selling at cost. FOR 12 months! I'm not even kidding. And the media (and customers) complain about the prices and the service stations? Meanwhile fruit and veg has gone up like 100% in the same time. :rolleyes:

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 01:39 PM
It should be noted that most governments make more profit per unit of fuel via gas taxes than the oil companies. Perhaps then it is they who are responsible for suppressing this technology, fearful that it will lose its valuable revenue stream.

Exxon apparently makes about 2 cents per gallon, whereas the state of California makes 66!

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

I didn't think it was even necessary to mention that part of the equation.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 06:23 PM
Buddyholly, you are really boring.
Nobody force you to go in Starbucks or to buy Nestlé yogurts.
But a lot of people are forced to buy gasoline and Big oil companies know it.

BigJohn
08-15-2011, 07:04 PM
More like ''likes to shoot down outrageous posts by people who have no clue of the legitimacy of what they write.''

That sounds like something Start da Coin would say.

Just ....... needs ......... more .......... periods ..........

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 07:34 PM
Buddyholly, you are really boring.
Nobody force you to go in Starbucks or to buy Nestlé yogurts.
But a lot of people are forced to buy gasoline and Big oil companies know it.

Boring??? Aren't you just pissed that you started a thread and based your opening argument on a piece of fruitcake fiction?

I am not aware of anyone who is actually forced to buy gasoline. I use public transport, myself.

But anyway, I contend that oil company profit margins are less than most other commodities, and I am forced to buy clothes and food, right? Whether or not it is from Nestle or Starbucks, the odds are that the producer of it will have a much bigger profit margin than any oil company.

So no, I do not see any swindle in a commodity that is remarkably cheap compared to almost everything else. That is my answer to your question, then.

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 07:36 PM
That sounds like something Start da Coin would say.

Just ....... needs ......... more .......... periods ..........

If he reads the opening post of this thread, I am sure he would indeed say something similar.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 07:41 PM
My anecdote isn't a fruitcake fiction first. You can't prove it didn't happen. I have articles which report this story.
And I'm glad you gave your final answer so you will stop to post here.
:wavey:

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 07:49 PM
My anecdote isn't a fruitcake fiction first. You can't prove it didn't happen. I have articles which report this story.
And I'm glad you gave your final answer so you will stop to post here.
:wavey:

What is the Wikipedia link then? It is almost impossible for a story as big as this not to have a Wikipedia page.

What articles do you have from a legitimate source?

If I don't post here, nobody else will. Just about everyone is bored by yet another of this kind of thread. Usually started by someone who thinks it makes him morally superior to say ''Oh, aren't the oil companies bad?''.
Then he pulls on his $100 Nikes, made by some kid in Asia for a cost of about $5 to Nike and doesn't give it a moment's thought.

The only thing that pulled me in here was the comical opening post. Conspiracy theorists always say, ''you can't prove it didn't happen'' by the way. It is their trademark.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 07:56 PM
Discussion is impossible with you.
Have a good laugh reading my opening post but stop posting here please, don't demean yourself posting in a "conspiracy thread" as you said.
If you are so upset that you can't see this thread without posting in it, just ask to modz to delete it.
:wavey:

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 08:21 PM
But I would like to discuss it. And discussion is very possible. Just give the source of the information in your opening post and I will read it and come back to discuss it.

I am so interested I did an internet search and the most serious site I could find maintained that what Ogle claimed to have achieved is impossible under the laws of physics. It is just impossible to move such a mass such a distance on the energy obtained by burning one gallon of gasoline, even at 100% efficiency. So why do you insist Ogle was not a hoax? Evidence please?

You also say that his invention was bought by an oil company. Which oil company? My internet search has been unable to find the answer, but you must have it.

And I did not even notice that in your opening post you claim that Ogle next invented a car that ran on water. Oh please, surely you must realise by now that you are basing a thread on the most ridiculous web stories out there. Is that why you are so steadfast in refusing to disclose your sources?

I won't even bother to discuss your claim that he was murdered. This is pure fiction, so clearly I can't prove he wasn't. It is just that there is absolutely no reason to ever suggest that he was - unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
You might want to research how he descended into drugs and alcohol after a car he was working on fell off its jack and killed his buddy, though.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 08:33 PM
I don't care of this story, it's an anecdote.
You wander from the subject.
I could easily erase this story as well.
It's not the core of the thread.

If my thread was The Story of the Ogle invention, my thread would be a conspiracy thread but it's just an anecdote in the opening post.

RafterFanatic
08-15-2011, 08:43 PM
All companies want profit, there's no exception.

They'll all do everything, legal or illegal, to get as much money as they can.

Without effective vigilance, capitalism is just a jungle.

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 10:11 PM
If my thread was The Story of the Ogle invention, my thread would be a conspiracy thread

Thank you, that is all I wanted.
An admission that you chose a conspiracy legend as the big hook to lead off your anti-oil company thread and then continued to insist it was a genuine story until you were asked for source information. At which point, the game was up.

This thread can die now.

Seingeist
08-15-2011, 10:26 PM
My anecdote isn't a fruitcake fiction first. You can't prove it didn't happen. I have articles which report this story.
And I'm glad you gave your final answer so you will stop to post here.
:wavey:

Every "rules-of-logic"-related bone in my body bristles violently every time you say this. It is the peak of absurdity.

The burden of proof for any given piece of evidence given in support of an argument rests squarely on the individual presenting the evidence. That means both that it's up to you to provide links to the articles, and that these articles in turn must be sufficiently credible and sourced. Since you say you "have the articles," then you should be so kind as to link to them or give their publication information.

You know what Grassquet? I met Richard Gasquet earlier this year on an ice float near the North Pole, beat him in an informal tennis match in front of some curious polar bears, and then he confessed to me that he had been doping for the past year and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. I then wrote an article about it, which I will use as the source of this anecdote.

The preceding is unassailably true and not to be questioned because you cannot possibly prove that the above events did not happen, no matter how silly or unlikely they might sound.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 10:28 PM
@Buddyholly
So let us die in peace please :lol:

This story is an anecdote, not more. True or not, I don't know.
The point of this thread is the unacceptable practices of Big oil companies not the Ogle's story.
If you think that putting the Ogle's story in the first post discredited this thread so leave this thread boy, I don't force you to post in.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Every "rules-of-logic"-related bone in my body bristles violently every time you say this. It is the peak of absurdity.

The burden of proof for any given piece of evidence given in support of an argument rests squarely on the individual presenting the evidence. That means both that it's up to you to provide links to the articles, and that these articles in turn must be sufficiently credible and sourced. Since you say you "have the articles," then you should be so kind as to link to them or give their publication information.

You know what Grassquet? I met Richard Gasquet earlier this year on an ice float near the North Pole, beat him in an informal tennis match in front of some curious polar bears, and then he confessed to me that he had been doping for the past year and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. I then wrote an article about it, which I will use as the source of this anecdote.

The preceding is unassailably true and not to be questioned because you cannot possibly prove that the above events did not happen, no matter how silly or unlikely they might sound.

I don't say this story is true, I just say it's possible and I accept you said it's an hoax.
I put this story as an anecdote, that's all.

Congrats for beating Richard Gasquet, it's impressive. :yeah:

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 11:02 PM
If you think that putting the Ogle's story in the first post discredited this thread so leave this thread boy, I don't force you to post in.

Yes, I am content to leave, but for that one highlighted word above. Maybe it is because English is not your mother tongue, but if not, you are just plain clueless. Only a foolish person would think to write that word today in that context..

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 11:03 PM
??? What's wrong with the word boy. Are you a girl :p ?

(English is obviously not my mother tongue as you could have noticed)

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 11:10 PM
You know what Grassquet? I met Richard Gasquet earlier this year on an ice float near the North Pole, beat him in an informal tennis match in front of some curious polar bears, and then he confessed to me that he had been doping for the past year and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. I then wrote an article about it, which I will use as the source of this anecdote.

The preceding is unassailably true and not to be questioned because you cannot possibly prove that the above events did not happen, no matter how silly or unlikely they might sound.

Just be thankful he didn't kiss you.

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 11:14 PM
??? What's wrong with the word boy. Are you a girl :p ?

(English is obviously not my mother tongue as you could have noticed)

Apart from the fact that I am your senior, it is how white Americans spoke down to blacks.
Using the term says more about the character of the speaker than it does about the person spoken to.

Incidentally, in relating your anecdote in post #1, you got totally confused by starting out saying that he invented a new carburetor working on steam power. Not so, in the conspiracy webpages it is clear that it was gasoline fumes. The incredible car that he invented later and for which he got murdered was the one that run on boiling water.
I guess you didn't even read the conspiracy pages with a minimum of understanding. It is beginning to seem as if you actually thought Ogle started out with a water fuel invention.

RafterFanatic
08-15-2011, 11:15 PM
??? What's wrong with the word boy. Are you a girl :p ?

(English is obviously not my mother tongue as you could have noticed)

Considering his posts, he's probably old enough to be your grandparent, so it may sound offensive to him.

buddyholly
08-15-2011, 11:21 PM
Considering his posts, he's probably old enough to be your grandparent, so it may sound offensive to him.

Considering his posts, I am definitely old enough to be his grandparent.

Gagsquet
08-15-2011, 11:22 PM
I didn't know that indeed. Thanks, I wouldn't make this mistake again from now.
As for your age, I really don't know how I could have known it.

You don't have to be offensive. "Considering his posts" :facepalm: it's childish.

RafterFanatic
08-16-2011, 05:16 AM
I didn't know that indeed. Thanks, I wouldn't make this mistake again from now.
As for your age, I really don't know how I could have known it.

You don't have to be offensive. "Considering his posts" :facepalm: it's childish.

Considering his post history, however, he's not only old enough to be your grandparent but reactionary enough to send you to prison for disagreeing with him. :lol:

Gagsquet
08-16-2011, 10:33 AM
Considering his post history, however, he's not only old enough to be your grandparent but reactionary enough to send you to prison for disagreeing with him. :lol:

So true :)
That's why I said discussion is impossible with him. He doesn't care of your answers. He just keeps repeating that Ogle's story is an hoax even if I said him many times we don't care about this story, it's just an anecdote.

I truly believe he is a conspiracy addict, half of his posts are conspiracy related. It's disturbing. He sees conspiracy everywhere :lol:

buddyholly
08-16-2011, 01:53 PM
That's why I said discussion is impossible with him. He doesn't care of your answers. He just keeps repeating that Ogle's story is an hoax even if I said him many times we don't care about this story, it's just an anecdote.



Now you are just embarrassing yourself even more. Nobody goes to the trouble of starting a thread with a post and then later claims that the information in the post is something he doesn't care about.
Unless he is ashamed of what a sucker he is, of course.

Keep it up.

Mjau!
08-16-2011, 07:39 PM
Banks and Big Energy :no:

abraxas21
08-16-2011, 08:22 PM
I'm guessing your ideal solution would be to build a society where nobody can afford to own a car - thus slaying the dragon that is big oil in one single stroke of genius.

wrong.

next.

abraxas21
08-16-2011, 08:25 PM
I forgot Starbucks and Tim Hortons. What they charge for a gallon of coffee is astronomical compared to the price of a gallon of gas. And I would bet that the cost of production is way, way less.

I am beginning to believe fervently in my own arguments. Gasoline is way too cheap when one takes into consideration the risk of exploration and the complex production costs. Maybe big oil should buy out Starbucks and all the beer companies. Prices would drop sharply and the consumer would be much better off.

this post fails on so many levels...

abraxas21
08-16-2011, 08:29 PM
Johann Hari: Big Oil's vendetta against the electric car

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-big-oils-vendetta-against-the-electric-car-443388.html

buddyholly
08-16-2011, 09:08 PM
this post fails on so many levels...

Which you won't enumerate.

buddyholly
08-16-2011, 09:26 PM
Johann Hari: Big Oil's vendetta against the electric car

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-big-oils-vendetta-against-the-electric-car-443388.html

Now that makes much more sense than the Ogle legend. But the problem I always have is not understanding why these potential earth-saving devices are not being produced in somewhere like China or Russia.

Gagsquet
08-16-2011, 09:46 PM
Buddyholly
Are you trying to say us big oil companies didn't slow down technological progresses (for a world with clean energy)?

Don't fail in your answer please.

Seingeist
08-16-2011, 10:51 PM
Banks and Big Energy :no:

:lol:

You always make me laugh, Mjau. In a good way, of course. Something about your style and timing here... je ne se quoi.

BigJohn
08-16-2011, 10:59 PM
:lol:

You always make me laugh, Mjau. In a good way, of course. Something about your style and timing here... je ne se quoi.

*je ne sais quoi

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 12:44 AM
Buddyholly
Are you trying to say us big oil companies didn't slow down technological progresses (for a world with clean energy)?

Don't fail in your answer please.

I don't think I ''tried'' to tell you that at all. Maybe you could point out the specific post.

My interest in this thread was purely in the first post and then in the ensuing posts where you tried to tell us the Ogle legend is real.

Seingeist
08-17-2011, 01:09 AM
*je ne sais quoi

Of course, my bad.

Problem with 4 years of high school Spanish and a few college semesters of mostly-forgotten French means that they often run together a bit in my mind. (Spanish, "I don't know" = "No se," which really sticks in your head. :))

BigJohn
08-17-2011, 01:40 AM
Of course, my bad.

Problem with 4 years of high school Spanish and a few college semesters of mostly-forgotten French means that they often run together a bit in my mind. (Spanish, "I don't know" = "No se," which really sticks in your head. :))

Que no se pegue en la mía porque nunca tomé clases de español. No puedo hablar español en todas las.

RafterFanatic
08-17-2011, 02:16 AM
So true :)
That's why I said discussion is impossible with him. He doesn't care of your answers. He just keeps repeating that Ogle's story is an hoax even if I said him many times we don't care about this story, it's just an anecdote.

I truly believe he is a conspiracy addict, half of his posts are conspiracy related. It's disturbing. He sees conspiracy everywhere :lol:

No, his posts indicate a rabid neoliberal who hates wealth distribution.

Of course, my bad.

Problem with 4 years of high school Spanish and a few college semesters of mostly-forgotten French means that they often run together a bit in my mind. (Spanish, "I don't know" = "No se," which really sticks in your head. :))

No lo sé.

Seingeist
08-17-2011, 03:14 AM
No lo sé.

= "I don't know it," not "I don't know." I was not giving the exact Spanish counterpart to the French, I was merely demonstrating that the homophonic Spanish word "se" was muddying up my French spelling in my overhasty post.

Oh, and I can't be buggered with the Alt + keyboard shortcuts for proper accents on the letters. ;)

Now, are we done attempting to score cheap points by taking shots at my (admittedly poor) grasp of other languages? They bespeak a certain desperation on your part to "take whatever you can get." :shrug:

Seingeist
08-17-2011, 03:16 AM
Which you won't enumerate.

That would require a modicum of thought and sustained attention.

You demand too much.

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 03:32 AM
No, his posts indicate a rabid neoliberal who hates wealth distribution.





Well, I admit that I think wealth should be earned. ''Wealth distribution'' sounds too much like everyone standing round with their hand out waiting for their equal share. It seems to ignore the fact that wealth must be created first.
Of course I have never stood around waiting for my share, so I don't know what it feels like.

And I just went to WIKIPEDIA to find out what neoliberalism really is. And you are right. That is me. It seems all good.

Haha, I just saw that you joined this month. And here I was smugly thinking you actually had some knowledge of my posts beyond a couple of jabs at Grassquet for his believing in a hoax, no questions asked.

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 03:41 AM
Now, are we done attempting to score cheap points by taking shots at my (admittedly poor) grasp of other languages? They bespeak a certain desperation on your part to "take whatever you can get." :shrug:

You do realise he's a newbie, still wet behind the ears? He joined yesterday, but I suppose that is not entirely equivalent to being born yesterday. He will soon learn that commenting on supposed grammatical errors in a foreign language does not cut the MTF mustard. Quizas.

But where he really showed his impetuosity is in that you were translating the English "I don't know'' into Spanish and you were perfectly correct in your translation to ''No se''. (Ignoring the accent over the ''e'', but that is not where he naively thought he had caught you out, anyway.)

Hoisted on his own petard, excuse my French. Maybe he will think before he tries to be smartypants next time. Says he's a teacher. Clearly not of languages.

What really amuses me though, is that a few posts back he referred to my ''posting history.'' But who knows, maybe he has been studying my posts as a visitor for 7 years and only got the courage to join up yesterday. I'm flattered.

Or even more exciting, I think maybe he let his guard down by referring to my posting history after just one day here. I think it's really glennmirnyi under an alias!!!!!!!

Gagsquet
08-17-2011, 11:14 AM
Rafter fanatic=GlennMirnyi :lol: You are a conspiracy believer buddyholly. :lol:
(as I always believed)

And by the way, your obsession with the Ogle's story really weakened your credibility in this thread in my opinion. Your rare posts not mentioning Ogle's invention are pure bullshits ( Starbucks is the real swindler etc :help:) and you never tried to discuss about unacceptable practices of Big Oils (voluntary drop of refining capacities, slow down of technological progresses. You just keep ignoring the main problem)

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 01:39 PM
Rafter fanatic=GlennMirnyi :lol: You are a conspiracy believer buddyholly. :lol:
(as I always believed)



That line was a hoax. I knew you'd swallow it. (Note: insert laughing smiley here to show the world how clever I am.)

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 01:41 PM
Oil Companies do what any other company does which is to maximize profit quite often at the expense of something else.

In this, they are as much swindlers as pretty much any big company and/or industry.

Gagsquet
08-17-2011, 01:56 PM
That line was a hoax. I knew you'd swallow it. (Note: insert laughing smiley here to show the world how clever I am.)


Note: buy a sense of humor for Buddyholly. And an ironymeter too :)

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 05:59 PM
Do they sell those in France? I don't think business has been very good.

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 02:45 AM
= "I don't know it," not "I don't know." I was not giving the exact Spanish counterpart to the French, I was merely demonstrating that the homophonic Spanish word "se" was muddying up my French spelling in my overhasty post.

Oh, and I can't be buggered with the Alt + keyboard shortcuts for proper accents on the letters. ;)

Now, are we done attempting to score cheap points by taking shots at my (admittedly poor) grasp of other languages? They bespeak a certain desperation on your part to "take whatever you can get." :shrug:

Sorry about that, kind sir. I just pointed out the small mistake, don't take it as a jab or any attempt to take a shot at you. :)

Well, I admit that I think wealth should be earned. ''Wealth distribution'' sounds too much like everyone standing round with their hand out waiting for their equal share. It seems to ignore the fact that wealth must be created first.
Of course I have never stood around waiting for my share, so I don't know what it feels like.

And I just went to WIKIPEDIA to find out what neoliberalism really is. And you are right. That is me. It seems all good.

Haha, I just saw that you joined this month. And here I was smugly thinking you actually had some knowledge of my posts beyond a couple of jabs at Grassquet for his believing in a hoax, no questions asked.

Funny that you don't know what neoliberalism is, I thought most semi-educated people in the world knew about it. Sorry about that.

Have you ever heard of the search function? I find it awesome. It's always better to learn a bit about what the person posting really thinks before any answers...

I don't even see any point in refuting your concepts, they're being proven wrong by this very crisis we're going through...

Mjau!
08-18-2011, 02:45 AM
the problem I always have is not understanding why these potential earth-saving devices are not being produced in somewhere like... Russia.

Yeah, or Saudi Arabia! Very peculiar indeed... :scratch:


You could have picked a better example than Russia. :rolleyes:

Mjau!
08-18-2011, 03:04 AM
The crisis was caused by:

1) The institutionalized scam that is fractional reserve banking.
2) The Federal Reserve proping up the housing bubble and the sub-prime lending avalanche actively supported by the gov'ment.
3) The inane system of money creation in which governments borrow money from a central bank (that creates said money) at debt and interest and the fiscal irresponsibility of certain governments.
4) The EMU.

The root of the problem lies in the banking system.

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 03:16 AM
I respectfully think the root of the problem lies in the de-regulation of the financial system first. Second, considering we're in a liquidity trap in the US, unless the government there starts spending to give the economy a restart (pure keynesianism), this crisis will only get worse.

Banks may have started it, but now the responsibility lies elsewhere. Austerity programs will only further deepen this crisis... it's 1929 all over again.

Mjau!
08-18-2011, 03:58 AM
I respectfully think the root of the problem lies in the de-regulation of the financial system first.

Hello my name is vague.

Second, considering we're in a liquidity trap in the US, unless the government there starts spending to give the economy a restart (pure keynesianism), this crisis will only get worse.

Because massively increasing national debt is just what the US needs right now? Not like it's a problem or anything. And haven't Barack already done that a few times?

Banks may have started it, but now the responsibility lies elsewhere. Austerity programs will only further deepen this crisis... it's 1929 all over again.

That crisis was created or at least worsened by the banks too.

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 04:28 AM
Because massively increasing national debt is just what the US needs right now? Not like it's a problem or anything. And haven't Barack already done that a few times?

Respectfully, if you don't understand keynesianism, then there's nothing I can do about it. I won't explain it to you. Macroeconomics isn't like your personal budget.

First things first, you should learn about the 1929 crack and the New Deal. Then about Sir John Maynard Keynes and his brilliant observations in macroeconomics.

Austerity and cuts in government spending is just the contrary of what should be done.

Maybe you should start reading Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times, should be a good start...

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 04:58 AM
Funny that you don't know what neoliberalism is, I thought most semi-educated people in the world knew about it. Sorry about that.



I don't consider myself semi-educated. Probably have more degrees than anyone else on MTF. Although I would agree that is not a measure of education.
And politics never interested me much anyway. I never lived in a country where it was a threat to my freedom.
I had to check to see if I had missed something bad about it. But no, it is all good still. Neoliberals rock!

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 05:01 AM
Respectfully, if you don't understand keynesianism, then there's nothing I can do about it. I won't explain it to you. Macroeconomics isn't like your personal budget.

First things first, you should learn about the 1929 crack and the New Deal. Then about Sir John Maynard Keynes and his brilliant observations in macroeconomics.

Austerity and cuts in government spending is just the contrary of what should be done.

Maybe you should start reading Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times, should be a good start...

Maybe you should give some formal lectures here. You must be at least a professor of economics.

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 05:03 AM
I don't even see any point in refuting your concepts, they're being proven wrong by this very crisis we're going through...

One man's crisis is another's buying opportunity.

Gagsquet
08-18-2011, 11:33 AM
I don't consider myself semi-educated. Probably have more degrees than anyone else on MTF. Although I would agree that is not a measure of education.
And politics never interested me much anyway. I never lived in a country where it was a threat to my freedom.
I had to check to see if I had missed something bad about it. But no, it is all good still. Neoliberals rock!

For sure, the most arrogant on MTF.

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 02:10 PM
Just the facts. Wouldn't even have considered offering them without goading from your rafting buddy.

Oh wait, you don't like facts.

But I think your new buddy Rafter will give me a good run for the title. There is nothing more arrogant than someone who says his political ideas are the only correct ones and everyone who does not learn from him is less than perfect. But those are the errors of youth.

Gagsquet
08-18-2011, 02:53 PM
You are senile granpa

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeNZ1HpzTXe7vVcsI5UGktQX1xlHz8g mamwL4OuEZdH6CC0cro

Mjau!
08-18-2011, 03:36 PM
Respectfully, if you don't understand keynesianism, then there's nothing I can do about it. I won't explain it to you. Macroeconomics isn't like your personal budget.

First things first, you should learn about the 1929 crack and the New Deal. Then about Sir John Maynard Keynes and his brilliant observations in macroeconomics.

Austerity and cuts in government spending is just the contrary of what should be done.

Maybe you should start reading Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times, should be a good start...

What about questioning the awesomeness of further increasing an already huge national debt indicates a failure to understand the principles of keynesianism, professor?

How well did Sir JMK's brilliant ideas work for Japan? How well did a non-keynesianist approach work for South Korea? Reality suggests keynesianism can fail and other methods can work.

A monstrous national debt is completely harmless is it? Tell that to the PIIGS. You're supposed to manage it (debt) when the economy is growing so it's not gargantuan when you hit a recession. Letting it increase whether the economy is boom or bust (the US model) is hardly sustainable. It's ridiculous that the system even allows for (and requires) national debt.

New Deal worked so well because the Fed had worsened the crisis severly by dramatically contracting the money supply.

Krugman? Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical of someone who thinks inflation is totally benign and that we should help the economy by simulating WW3, i.e spending trillions and trillions on building stuff no one needs. Hey, maybe you should save the economy by ramping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and invading Iran? Think of all the borrowed money you could waste on meaningless wars! Just what the economy needs! Looks like Bush had it right all along. :worship:

It's :silly: to make this crisis into a Neo-liberalism vs Keynesianism thing. Some of the sternest critics of the financial system are textbook neo-liberals and financial reform advocacy is common among neo-liberals. Suggesting that the current system is their brainchild is ignorant or dishonest.

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 07:18 PM
You are senile granpa



Every molecule in our bodies has only one goal in life - senility.

So if I have made it, whoopee:aparty:

But no doubt you have already read on the internet of a pill for everlasting youth - so good luck with that. Too bad that Glaxo-SmithKline controls the patent and won't put the pill on the market.

Seingeist
08-18-2011, 09:08 PM
What about questioning the awesomeness of further increasing an already huge national debt indicates a failure to understand the principles of keynesianism, professor?

How well did Sir JMK's brilliant ideas work for Japan? How well did a non-keynesianist approach work for South Korea? Reality suggests keynesianism can fail and other methods can work.

A monstrous national debt is completely harmless is it? Tell that to the PIIGS. You're supposed to manage it (debt) when the economy is growing so it's not gargantuan when you hit a recession. Letting it increase whether the economy is boom or bust (the US model) is hardly sustainable. It's ridiculous that the system even allows for (and requires) national debt.

New Deal worked so well because the Fed had worsened the crisis severly by dramatically contracting the money supply.

Krugman? Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical of someone who thinks inflation is totally benign and that we should help the economy by simulating WW3, i.e spending trillions and trillions on building stuff no one needs. Hey, maybe you should save the economy by ramping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and invading Iran? Think of all the borrowed money you could waste on meaningless wars! Just what the economy needs! Looks like Bush had it right all along. :worship:

It's :silly: to make this crisis into a Neo-liberalism vs Keynesianism thing. Some of the sternest critics of the financial system are textbook neo-liberals and financial reform advocacy is common among neo-liberals. Suggesting that the current system is their brainchild is ignorant or dishonest.

MJAU!! :worship:

Where has this side of you been hiding? Schooling arrogant snots... more please!

This is more refreshing than Dodig's recent win over Nadal.

@Grassquet - Give me a break. You can't have an adult conversation, so you resort to calling BH senile?

If he really is the Simpson-esque senile old fart that you suggest, then you should have no trouble whatsoever running roughshod over him with your own youthfully vital, staggering intellect. I'll look forward to that.

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 10:16 PM
If he really is the Simpson-esque senile old fart that you suggest, then you should have no trouble whatsoever running roughshod over him with your own youthfully vital, staggering intellect. I'll look forward to that.

Who is Simpson? Not OJ, I hope.

Probably won't happen. Once they are reduced to what they perceive are personal insults (against a nameless, faceless internet alias, no less) then it is time to move on. And as you know, metaphysics and economics don't thrill me at all. So this otherwise amusing thread has lost it's glow for me.

I will check in now and again to see if the professor has posted any new gems.

Gagsquet
08-18-2011, 10:30 PM
It's just useless to discuss with him.
He keeps repeating I am an idiotic conspiracy believer...
That's why I said he is senile.
He doesn't want to discuss about this topic. He is just obsessed with Ogle's story. :shrug:

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 11:54 PM
Out of respect for the thread starter it is good manners to stick to his thesis, as laid out in the opening post, I think.

Seingeist
08-19-2011, 06:48 AM
Who is Simpson? Not OJ, I hope.

No no, certainly not. That cartoon picture that Grassquet posted above was of a character ("Grandpa") from the enormously popular American animated television show "The Simpsons." Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that you have not heard of it. As far as I know, it enjoys a rather large amount of international success.

Probably won't happen. Once they are reduced to what they perceive are personal insults (against a nameless, faceless internet alias, no less) then it is time to move on. And as you know, metaphysics and economics don't thrill me at all. So this otherwise amusing thread has lost it's glow for me.

Has this thread become metaphysical? :)

As I have maintained elsewhere, I think that you are much more into metaphysics than you might think, if not completely consciously so. Our "metaphysical" presuppositions inform (in some way) literally everything that we think or posit. But lest the "Book of Seingeist" (;)) become even more tedious that it doubtless already is, I will not elaborate further.

buddyholly
08-19-2011, 03:33 PM
I quite like reading from the book of Seingeist.

I had heard of Bart, but even with that it is a San Francisco subway that comes to mind first.

abraxas21
08-19-2011, 10:27 PM
I don't consider myself semi-educated. Probably have more degrees than anyone else on MTF.

in that case you're living proof that educational degrees don't always imply the existance of good judgement :yeah:

buddyholly
08-19-2011, 10:32 PM
in that case you're living proof that educational degrees don't always imply the existance of good judgement :yeah:

I noted your post in the wealth thread.

But really, how long is the left going to insist that everybody else is wrong, instead of just different? Talk about a blinkered existence? Jeeez.

Seingeist
08-20-2011, 04:15 AM
in that case you're living proof that educational degrees don't always imply the existance of good judgement :yeah:

Correct principle, faulty illustration. :wavey:

Regarding the principle, I would actually take it a step further and say that educational degrees prove more often than not to be a hindrance to good judgment.

Why exactly that this is the case is difficult to say. My best hypothesis is that it is related to hubris. As people become more educated, they tend to become more "full of themselves," and they begin to turn their noses down at others (the "uneducated masses"). Along with this comes a kind of blindness that always accompanies inordinate pride. One's sense of self in relation to others and to reality grows out of joint, and in turn breeds folly and error.

Mjau!
08-20-2011, 09:01 PM
MJAU!! :worship:

Where has this side of you been hiding? Schooling arrogant snots... more please!

This is more refreshing than Dodig's recent win over Nadal.

@Grassquet - Give me a break. You can't have an adult conversation, so you resort to calling BH senile?

If he really is the Simpson-esque senile old fart that you suggest, then you should have no trouble whatsoever running roughshod over him with your own youthfully vital, staggering intellect. I'll look forward to that.

I watched a documentary on youtube last week and now I know everything there is to know about economics and finance and what not.

Blackbriar
08-23-2011, 07:41 PM
swindlers no, that's a bit excessive.

More like Demonic Entities, Anti-Ecological, Anti-Human, Blood-Lusty Vampires who should be physically destroyed along with their families.

buddyholly
08-23-2011, 09:11 PM
Baaaa-aaaaa!!!!!!!!! People who bleat like sheep never know what they are bleating about. They just follow the sheep nearby.

If you want to call the oil companies bad, OK, but then you would have to say that just about every other company in the world is worse when it comes to making profits.

Eg: Tobacco 25-50%
Railroads 15%
Clothing 40%
Software 80%
Al Gore - probably 10,000%

Oil companies 5-10%

When it comes to giving the public a good deal, the oil companies are practically unbeatable. So call them whatever you like, but in answer to the thread title, they give value to the public that is superior to any other industry. Of course you can just ignore facts and continue bleating for no good reason if you wish.

Blackbriar
08-24-2011, 12:55 PM
Baaaa-aaaaa!!!!!!!!! People who bleat like sheep never know what they are bleating about. They just follow the sheep nearby.

If you want to call the oil companies bad, OK, but then you would have to say that just about every other company in the world is worse when it comes to making profits.

Eg: Tobacco 25-50%
Railroads 15%
Clothing 40%
Software 80%
Al Gore - probably 10,000%

Oil companies 5-10%

When it comes to giving the public a good deal, the oil companies are practically unbeatable. So call them whatever you like, but in answer to the thread title, they give value to the public that is superior to any other industry. Of course you can just ignore facts and continue bleating for no good reason if you wish.

What you say is true, all of them should be exterminated. neo-liberalism is a plague that should be eradicated from earth. Things are going in the good way now. Capitalism is losing on every part of the world. You will witness the end of your system with your own eyes.

buddyholly
08-24-2011, 12:58 PM
What you say is true, all of them should be exterminated. neo-liberalism is a plague that should be eradicated from earth. Things are going in the good way now. Capitalism is losing on every part of the world. You will witness the end of your system with your own eyes.

Can't wait. Sounds almost biblical.

sexybeast
08-24-2011, 02:27 PM
Baaaa-aaaaa!!!!!!!!! People who bleat like sheep never know what they are bleating about. They just follow the sheep nearby.

If you want to call the oil companies bad, OK, but then you would have to say that just about every other company in the world is worse when it comes to making profits.

Eg: Tobacco 25-50%
Railroads 15%
Clothing 40%
Software 80%
Al Gore - probably 10,000%

Oil companies 5-10%

When it comes to giving the public a good deal, the oil companies are practically unbeatable. So call them whatever you like, but in answer to the thread title, they give value to the public that is superior to any other industry. Of course you can just ignore facts and continue bleating for no good reason if you wish.

You forgot to mention the bankers who control the world and create money through debt, money that didnt exist before.

Capitalism isnt the problem, free markets is just something natural that comes from our need to trade services with each other. Collective ownership of everything is a great failure and wont solve the problem, big goverment is unnatural and create bad habits like lazyness and too much bureocracy in society.

We need to go away from this debtculture and leave keynesian economics, we need to decentralise goverments and big institutions and start to have direct democracy in small communities. Ofcourse land belongs to the people and there should be limitations on how much profit you can get from individual ownership over valuable resources, however individuals with great ideas is the core of the evolution of civilization and we should not claim to own collectively the ideas and hardwork of other human beeings or else we will stagnate like every communist country.