Money "IS" everything... - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/12/2008 08:55:33 PM · #29

This post is not a rant. My voice isn't raised. Just read this as if I spoke the following words in a calm and reasonable way ... okay?

I'd like you all to think about money in a different way.

Money is a way to store the value of your time, the value of your intellect, the value of the work you do. Work hard, use your maximum potential, defer instant and unnecessary gratification and convert those to money. Invest your money, even in a bank, or a mutual fund and it will grow. and here's the neat thing, if you're lucky and smart, you can convert money back into time (retirement), intellect (aditional education), and work (hire folks to do what you don't choose to do).

I am not saying so in this case, because I don't know the facts or anything about the OPoster, but often people who complain they have no money aren't willing to convert hard work and their intellect into money. They are unwilling to resist instant gratification. They squander their work and intellect on "stuff" which often doesn't make them happy.

I saw a stat recently that horifies me. People earning less than $13,000 per year, spend on average $675 on lottery tickets. Imagine if they saved, invested it.

I believe that there are people who are undeservedly rich, often through inheritance and family largesse. And I believe there are good people who have had bad things happen to them, financially.

But most people I know who are well off worked hard, traded their work and intellignece for money, let it grow. I am sick and tired when these smart hard working regular folks are ridiculed and belittled and criticized because they have money. It sickens me when I hear people say they don't "deserve" the money and we should tax it away from them and give it to the undeserving poor.

Sorry, it probably sounds like I'm ranting. I don't mean to, but I do feel strongly about it.

Money isn't everything, or even the only thing. But for many folks, this is an area where they can choose their own future. And some need help. And for those who are well off, I consider it an obligation to help.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/12/2008 09:12:07 PM · #30

They don't call you Dr. Confuser for nuthin! ;-) I am totally in agreement. Rich and Poor are states of mind.

shamrock

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/12/2008 09:36:08 PM · #31

Originally posted by RonB:

ExxonMobil's profit margin for the last year was 10.37%
Chevron/Texaco's profit margin was 8.49%

By comparison, consider that

Proctor & Gamble's profit margin was 13.76%
International Paper's profit margin was 13.77%
Colgate/Palmolive's profit margin was 12.91%
HealthSouth's profit margin was 11.34%
A T & T's profit margin was 10.31%

Does it make you sick when you read about the profits of those companies?

Or don't you read about them.

And if not, I wonder why not?

Do you think that maybe it's because the mainstream media likes to incite their audience and need something that hits close to home - and that they can't get you riled up about the profits of the companies that sell toothpaste or Kleenex or cell phones enough to start complaining to your Senators or Representatives - but they can get you riled up if it's the profits of oil companies?

ExxonMobil is selling all its gas stations, says it can't make any profit even with gas at record prices.

06/12/2008 09:56:34 PM · #32

Originally posted by RonB:

ExxonMobil's profit margin for the last year was 10.37%

Not to argue your point, but on the other hand, Occidental Petroleum's profit margin is 29.2%, and last year it was 34.8%. I think we'd all agree that Microsoft is one of the world's most profitable companies; it's margin is 28.3%, less than Occidental's. Anyway, a company's social value is not measured by its profitability.

06/13/2008 10:54:58 AM · #33

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
ExxonMobil's profit margin for the last year was 10.37%

Not to argue your point, but on the other hand, Occidental Petroleum's profit margin is 29.2%, and last year it was 34.8%. I think we'd all agree that Microsoft is one of the world's most profitable companies; it's margin is 28.3%, less than Occidental's. Anyway, a company's social value is not measured by its profitability.

1) I usually find, as in this case, that when someone begins with "NOT TO...", it means that that is exactly what they intend to do.
2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS. When it comes to profit MARGINS, Microsoft doesn't even rank in the top 100 companies in the world ( nor, truth be known, does ExxonMobil ) - see Companies with the 100 Highest Profit Margins.
3) In a discussion of profits and/or profit margins, what is the relevance of a company's "social value"?
4) What IS a company's "social value"?
5) How DO you measure a company's "social value"?

06/13/2008 04:27:49 PM · #34

Originally posted by RonB:

2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS.

Erm... profit margins are merely a measure of profitability, and are in effect synonyms.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/13/2008 05:19:39 PM · #35

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS.

Erm... profit margins are merely a measure of profitability, and are in effect synonyms.

But they are not interchangable in making comparisons, since PROFITS are measured in monetary untis, but MARGINS are a ratio. Comparing dollars to percentages is illogical.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

06/13/2008 07:10:14 PM · #36

Originally posted by RonB:

When it comes to profit MARGINS, Microsoft doesn't even rank in the top 100 companies in the world ( nor, truth be known, does ExxonMobil ) - see Companies with the 100 Highest Profit Margins.
3) In a discussion of profits and/or profit margins, what is the relevance of a company's "social value"?
4) What IS a company's "social value"?
5) How DO you measure a company's "social value"?

A significant portion of those are mutual funds, not companies.

3) A company that has no social value, will, in the long term, fail.

4,5)I look at companies the way I look at people. How do they treat their neighbors, their family, their friends, competitors? How do they treat the little guy? What do they contribute to the world around them? If that company were a person, would I want them as a friend?

Just because a company is a good corporate citizen doesn't mean it's not a good investment.

Message edited by author 2008-06-13 21:54:13.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/13/2008 10:15:33 PM · #37

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by togtog:
It makes me sick, when the oil companies, make 10bil in profits per month.

ExxonMobil's profit margin for the last year was 10.37%
Chevron/Texaco's profit margin was 8.49%

According to this Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007Exxon's profit for the year came to $4.6 million an hour. Not too shabby.

Ray

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/13/2008 11:48:39 PM · #38

And I thought I was the cynical one. Wow FocusPoint - you have renewed my faith in myself to be a little less cynical than I thought. And All this time I thought that I was the miserable bastard. Not so. Thanks for that.

And listen, I am not making excuse for the stupid clowns that own Escalades, But for the love of God- why do we have pro Oil company people in these threads? Whats next... Pro tobacco people, pro drug dealers? pro gun runners. Save your pro exxon talk for the gas station coffee line.

Message edited by author 2008-06-13 23:49:16.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/14/2008 09:58:34 AM · #39

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS.

Erm... profit margins are merely a measure of profitability, and are in effect synonyms.

But they are not interchangable in making comparisons, since PROFITS are measured in monetary untis, but MARGINS are a ratio. Comparing dollars to percentages is illogical.

Hm? Illogical? What kind of comparisons? Besides, neither of us mentioned dollar figures, and all the companies we're talking about are multi-billion dollar enterprises. Doesn't make sense.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/14/2008 10:44:09 AM · #40

For what it is worth, in re: earlier posts, the correct quotation is NOT "Money is the root of all evil", it is "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

Think about that for a bit, and you'll realize it's a defensible statement, even if you don't totally agree with it. But saying that "money" is the root of all evil is patently absurd...

R.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/14/2008 01:00:02 PM · #41

Originally posted by blindjustice:

{snip} But for the love of God- why do we have pro Oil company people in these threads? Whats next... Pro tobacco people, pro drug dealers? pro gun runners. Save your pro exxon talk for the gas station coffee line.

[Calm and reasoned reaction to your post]

Here's a different point of view ... we'd better all become pro-oil-company. They are the only businesses searching for more oil to slake our increasing thirst for energy. And most are spending a much of the profits on alternative energy R&D which we desparately need. You think government's doing this? ... not the US Government at least! Politician? Nope! Honda, Toyota, Kia, GM, Ford or Chrysler? Nope! Greenpeace or the Sierra Club?? Nope!!

In my view, comparing them to Tobacco Companies (making and selling a regretably legal but deadly discretionary product), Drug Dealers (selling an illegal and deadly discretionary product), and Gun Runners (delivering illegal deadly weapons to groups who will undoubtedly use them as deadly force) is rediculous!

The profits these companies make go to R&D and to a large extent back to investors. Not true of drug dealers (unless the drug is Viagra) or gun runners.

If you own any mutual funds, you are an investor in big oil. Got a bank account? The banks are lending money to big oil. About the only way you're not an investor is if you live in a hole with your money stuffed under the mattress. If you're serious about being anti-oil, you better start digging.

It's time folks got a dose of realism about how the world's energy economy really works and how it will change dramatically over the next 50 years.

[/]

06/14/2008 11:26:28 PM · #42

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by togtog:
It makes me sick, when the oil companies, make 10bil in profits per month.

ExxonMobil's profit margin for the last year was 10.37%
Chevron/Texaco's profit margin was 8.49%

According to this Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007Exxon's profit for the year came to $4.6 million an hour. Not too shabby.

Ray

So, according to that same article, here are some of ExxonMobil's expenditures ( see the last paragraph ):

"Exxon boosted capital spending last year to $20.9 billion, up 5 percent from 2006. About three-quarters of that went for oil and gas exploration, with much of the rest for refinery projects. That was still outstripped by the amount of money the company spent to repurchase its own shares. In 2007, Exxon Mobil bought 386 million shares of its common stock at a cost of $31.8 billion. About a tenth of that went into company pension and benefit plans; the rest went toward reducing the number of shares outstanding."

So, ExxonMobil spent around $1.8 million per hour on attempts to INCREASE the amount of gas and oil available, which, if demand remains flat should translate into an eventual DECREASE in prices. Not too shabby.

And they repurchased shares of common stock on the open market, at the request of share owners, at a rate of $3.6 million an hour. Millions of people, whether individual investors, or co-owners of mutual funds and/or pension funds, initiated, whether personally or through proxy, the selling of those shares ( hopefully, at a profit of their own ). Not too shabby.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/14/2008 11:52:27 PM · #43

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS.

Erm... profit margins are merely a measure of profitability, and are in effect synonyms.

But they are not interchangable in making comparisons, since PROFITS are measured in monetary untis, but MARGINS are a ratio. Comparing dollars to percentages is illogical.

Hm? Illogical? What kind of comparisons? Besides, neither of us mentioned dollar figures, and all the companies we're talking about are multi-billion dollar enterprises. Doesn't make sense.

In a discussion about the relative profit MARGINS of companies, which my original post raised, what is the relevance of either profitability ( which you interjected into your earlier post ) or capitalization ( which you have now interjected into your last post )?
The interjection of such irrelevant points tend to make your posts mirror the style of the mass media.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/15/2008 12:10:45 AM · #44

Originally posted by RonB:

....So, according to that same article, here are some of ExxonMobil's expenditures ( see the last paragraph ):

At the end of the day, isn't profit the number that is left after one has tallied all expenses. If indeed such is the case, then they most certainly had a good year.

Oh, in passing, a decrease in price due to flat demand... not likely in today's ever changing world, but you are free to believe what you want.

Ray

littlegett

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/15/2008 12:46:53 AM · #45

I am curious, not that I have really been following the conversation much but I have a question.

When talking about profit margins, we always want to look for the highest margin. In other words a profit margin of 20% is better than one of 10%.

Yet, I am thinking, % of what? I mean if its 10% of $200mil, or 20% of $50mil? Is that not taken into consideration when determining how much a business earns?

I have no actual numbers facts of figures, but Just curious about what ya all think about when talking these %'s Because to me just because they have a high/low profit margin doesn't it really matter what that number is?

06/15/2008 08:16:32 AM · #46

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by RonB:
....So, according to that same article, here are some of ExxonMobil's expenditures ( see the last paragraph ):

At the end of the day, isn't profit the number that is left after one has tallied all expenses. If indeed such is the case, then they most certainly had a good year.

Oh, in passing, a decrease in price due to flat demand... not likely in today's ever changing world, but you are free to believe what you want.

Ray

Yes, of course they had a good year. So did Proctor & Gamble, International Paper, and A T & T.
That was my point - why pick on Oil companies and NOT pick on the others who were MORE profitable on the basis of profit MARGINS ( as Louis pointed out, profit margins are a measure of profitability )?

06/15/2008 08:32:56 AM · #47

Originally posted by littlegett:

Again, that was my original point about the profit margins of the oil companies.
Take three companies:
One makes a profit of $10,000 on sales of $100,000; one makes a profit of $20 million on sales of $200 million; and another makes a profit of $40 billion on sales of $400 billion.
All three have the same profit margin - 10%.

Some politicians and presidential aspirants want to impose a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies ( the one with the $40 billion profit ) but not the others. Doesn't that seem unfair, since their profit margins are essentially in line with many other corporations?

06/15/2008 09:43:07 AM · #48

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS.

Erm... profit margins are merely a measure of profitability, and are in effect synonyms.

But they are not interchangable in making comparisons, since PROFITS are measured in monetary untis, but MARGINS are a ratio. Comparing dollars to percentages is illogical.

Hm? Illogical? What kind of comparisons? Besides, neither of us mentioned dollar figures, and all the companies we're talking about are multi-billion dollar enterprises. Doesn't make sense.

In a discussion about the relative profit MARGINS of companies, which my original post raised, what is the relevance of either profitability ( which you interjected into your earlier post ) or capitalization ( which you have now interjected into your last post )?

In essence, you've just said, "A discussion of profit margins makes a discussion of profitability irrelevant," even while apparently understanding margins merely to be a metric of profitability. You suggest that undefined "comparisons" can't be made between dollars and percentages, even while solely discussing enterprise-level organizations.

It's interesting you've done this, sophistry aside.

If margins are more important in making comparisons, examine two hypothetical companies. If Mom&Pop Inc.'s profitability is measured as a margin of 40%, and BigCorp Inc.'s is measured as 10%, perhaps you would have us focus our attention on the finances of Mom&Pop. Mom&Pop had revenue of $100,000, showing a profit of $40,000, while BigCorp had revenue of $390,000,000,000, showing a profit of $39,000,000,000. So let's scrutinize both these organizations equally, and sanction the more profitable one with higher taxation perhaps.

To take tax as an example, rates are governed by dollar amounts to avoid the very absurdity this scenario presents. Dollar amounts count.