Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ontheway]

Those graphs actually show very little stock price growth over 4 years, and slowly growing profits. The oil company profits are not high. People who think they are need to study math. Go compare these companies to the high tech, internet industries etc. during a growth phase in those industries. To get more investment in energy we need higher profits in energy. And why would someone risk his money to invest in an alternative energy source to save the future of mankind when you have shown him that when his time finally comes to make a profit from his investment you'll screw him and steal his profits. Socialists are the greediest people on earth.

The alternative is for people to learn to manage their own consumption. The people, by investing in energy savings could save more oil than we import. This can only happen if each person acts in his own self interest, individually, and cuts his or her own consumption. (Insulate, insulate, insulate, drive less, buy smaller cars, walk, ride a bike, carpool, move closer to work or school, dress for the weather, shower with a friend )

Unfortunately, political hacks lead them in the wrong direction. Instead of acting themselves, they wait for the government to fix the problem. The government only makes problems worse, so the situation gets worse. This is great for the hacks. They get more government power and money and get to "solve" another problem that they created in the first place. Their solution makes things worse, and off we go again.

[igotthisguitar]

Welcome to Willie Nelson's Biodiesel


Home of Farm Fresh Biodiesel
Put a B20 biodiesel blend in your tank and hit the road again
with a clean burning, renewable fuel that is grown right here in America ...

http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/

[khyber]

[ontheway]

Yes khyber, 50% growth in 4 years is not impressive for a stock price, especially when it corresponds to a growth period which will likely come in for a downward adustment. It's a 9% compounded growth rate at best. You can still get 6% at some banks. Not much for the risk.

Looking at big numbers, like $3 billion might seem to impress you, but it's not relevant. The key factor is ROI, return on investment. The growth in the stock price is the important factor. More importantly, to get investment in new industries, you need new money. The profits you are looking at are the return to the investors in the old industry. New investors in the new technologies will need to earn new profits. When they see the socialists stealing their earnings, why would they invest new money in a very high risk new industry.

New industries need the potential of 25%, 50% and 100% or more in annual income growth to entice the financial gamblers to bankroll these high risk ventures. Most of these new businesses and technologies fail. They need enough profits on the successful ventures to recoup all their losses and all their lost profits. Then, just when the profits finally come in, some greedy socialists take all the money.

In a free market, INVESTMENT drives the market and growth, not consumption. It's the semi-socialist model that you are looking at. It's true that in today's government controlled, socialistic economies consumption is rampant. That's precisely the problem. A free market requires unfettered investment. With businesses and investors being harassed as they are today, we are suffering greatly. People consume instead of investing. Gross overconsumption is a result of socialistic policies. The fact that we do not have alternative energy systems in place is the result of massive government programs that have encouraged consumption of energy, oil in particular, and have discouraged conservation (conservation is a characteristic of free markets - it saves money), and the government has destroyed whole industries in alternative energy fields.

It was the administration of FDR that destroyed the wind energy industry, as an example. The Rural Electrification Program destroyed wind power for generations, encouraged decades of subsidized suburban sprawl, economic and environmental damage from the excessive construction of subsidized oil based transportation systems.

Socialistic zoning and property taxes have continued and exacerbated this problem, driving people out of cities, chasing them from walkable urban developments into suburban auto wastelands.

The free roads and highways built by socialists, for decades, have been the coup de grace to the sensible free market transportation system which could have been built by a market free from the foolish foibles and folly of government.

If the government had stayed out of the transportation and energy markets, the western economies would be far richer, transportation would be better, more convenient and less crowded, there would be no pollution to speak of, AND the US would consume oil at a rate far below domestic production levels.

People managing their own consumption, investment, and production is what free markets are all about. Please note the word free. It means free from government.

Remember: everything done by government IS socialism.

We should abolish the government and let the people be free.

[khyber]

it appears you obviously have a greater grasp on this issue than I ever will, but i still feel obliged to say a few things: please correct me if i'm wrong.

1) You are talking about NEW industries while the oil industry has been around for decades. I can fully understand new developments need a bit of an incubation period etc.... but come on now, oil companies are far beyond the need for that as i see it. There will ONLY be success for that industry so long as people continue to consume their product. AS SOON as they produce additive, catalysts or whatever the consumption rates will go down and THAT doesn't help them.
To SOME extent, the more research and investment they do at the CONSUMPTION end, the more money they lose; while the more research they do in the PRODUCTION end, the larger their profit margin can be.

I've heard folks (can't say whoo :wink: ) say that the consumption (or, what we see in our day to day purchases) can be considered an "investment" into a company. You CHOSE to buy that product over another product: Do you view that as a kind of investment?