[FreeorDie2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slgcmng:
My opinion is that I feel it is wrong for them to be making that much of a profit when there is really no other alternative to fuel. I feel that there should be government restictions due to the fact there are no alternatives. If it were another company like Walmart making that much, then so be it. There are tons of other places to buy food and other household items. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slgcmng. . . When you say restrictions, I'm not sure you understand the implications. Were you an adult during the price controls imposed during the Nixon administration? Do you understand what happens when prices are "restricted?" Here's how it works:

When supply goes down or demand goes up, the price increases. This does a couple of things, one being to reduce demand. Another of the benefits of the increased price is that it provides motivation to increase supply. When supply increases and or demand decreases, the price gets back to a stable, balanced point.

If prices are restricted, there is no motivation to increase supply and there is no incentive to decrease demand. That means that supply cannot match demand and although you get a stable price, supply dwindles. That means that you can buy the gas cheap -- if you are lucky enough to find it. And since other countries won't have the restrictions and will be willing to pay the market price, they will get the oil and gas. In other words, any restrictions will eventually result in no gas at all.

And by the way, if you take a look, you'll find that Exxon's profit ratio -- even at $10 billion -- is not significantly above that of any other industry and during most quarters, it's about the same.