GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 7 < 12 3 4567 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Case and point of Americas Plight. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=510144)

CE_BigB 08-31-2005 10:17 AM
One Hundy!!

muhahhahahaaaaa

Big B
CECash.com

SilverTab 08-31-2005 10:56 AM
God damnit anyone who can't understand Per Capita statistic should shut the fuck up...

Yes the starving africain don't care about per capita....but I see no starving children here...you can't really be that fucking clueless...How do you expect a small country like Denmark to give more than the US damn...I can't believe i'm trying to explain that...

YOU'RE NOT THE MOST GENEROUS COUNTRY, YOU'RE JUST THE MOST POPULATED... how stupid do you have to be to not grasp this simple concept...

Again: following your logic...

Person for person... USA is the most unemployed country!....it has more unemployed person than Canada, Japan, Germany, France, UK etc...

Wait...no .... that's false... Because it only has more unemployed person because it has a BIGGER POPULATION...so you have to come up with a % (the unemployment rate) that will take that into consideration (i.e. 10% of the POPULATION is unemployed)...
you can't take raw numbers....you're talking about a country with like 20x the population of denmark...and you wonder why the USA give more...god damn I hope you're kidding...

Fact is...Danish are more generous...eh...
__________________

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
you can't take raw numbers....
But the results of the raw numbers are the PRIMARY concern of those in need though, aren't they?

So the per capita stuff doesn't really matter to anyone except someone trying to get some kind of recognition for their own efforts. Go buy yourself a "You're a winner" bumper sticker and be done with it already if that's what you're looking for. No one else cares.

chodadog 08-31-2005 11:05 AM
SilverTab; Alien is a lost cause. Don't waste your time.

chodadog 08-31-2005 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
But the results of the raw numbers are the PRIMARY concern of those in need though, aren't they?

So the per capita stuff doesn't really matter to anyone except someone trying to get some kind of recognition for their own efforts. Go buy yourself a "You're a winner" bumper sticker and be done with it already if that's what you're looking for. No one else cares.
And ultimately, whichever country the money came from at all is irrelevant to those in need. So it doesn't even matter that the US gave $X and Canada gave $Y. In the end, the guy in need gets $X+$Y. So couldn't it quite easily be argued that people shouting about how much the US gives in total are looking for a national pat on the back themselves?

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chodadog
And ultimately, whichever country the money came from at all is irrelevant to those in need. So it doesn't even matter that the US gave $X and Canada gave $Y. In the end, the guy in need gets $X+$Y. So couldn't it quite easily be argued that people shouting about how much the US gives in total are looking for a national pat on the back themselves?
Well I never said those who received the contributions shouldn't keep in mind who helped them. Far from it.

But assuming it was some genuine contribution and not just a token amount to 'get their name on the list', what point is served by arguing about these numbers? Idiots can cut up statistics any way they want, saying one country is more generous if you take into account the population, or if you take into account the GDP, or if you divide it by the average income, or if you factor in that one country was in a recession at the time while consumer spending was up in another, etc... these types of formulas can be viewed from so many sides that they are essentially meaningless. If you think they do prove something just read the past 100 or so posts again LOL.

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 02:49 PM
Bump for more laughs! :1orglaugh

chodadog 08-31-2005 03:05 PM
For those that think per capita statistics are somehow worthless and the overall numbers are what's important, let's take a look at another statistic that SilverTab mentioned. Unemployment.

The US population is 295 million. Zimbabwe's population is approximately 12 million.

The unemployment rate in the US is about 5 percent now, right? That means there are 14.75 million unemployed americans. That is more than Zimbabwe's entire population. Zimbabwe's unemployment is 70 percent with a staggering 8.4 million people out of work. Now, using the logic of those saying that per capita statistics are meaningless, and that the overall numbers are all that is important, then surely you guys would be saying that in this comparison, the US has worse unemployment than Zimbabwe?

Or would you prefer to use per capita statistics when it looks positive and suits you?

Worldnet 08-31-2005 03:10 PM
I will never donate one fucking dime to any foreign disaster relief again, unless its a country that is really poor. Fuck the rest of the world!

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chodadog
For those that think per capita statistics are somehow worthless and the overall numbers are what's important, let's take a look at another statistic that SilverTab mentioned. Unemployment.

The US population is 295 million. Zimbabwe's population is approximately 12 million.

The unemployment rate in the US is about 5 percent now, right? That means there are 14.75 million unemployed americans. That is more than Zimbabwe's entire population. Zimbabwe's unemployment is 70 percent with a staggering 8.4 million people out of work. Now, using the logic of those saying that per capita statistics are meaningless, and that the overall numbers are all that is important, then surely you guys would be saying that in this comparison, the US has worse unemployment than Zimbabwe?

Or would you prefer to use per capita statistics when it looks positive and suits you?
That's a totally different situation which would require a totally different method of viewing and analyzing the statistics.

Obviously you're too ignorant to grasp the reason why that is. Or you're a troll attempting to bait conversation. Do you honestly think that all situations should only be measured through one method of analysis?

SilverTab 08-31-2005 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
That's a totally different situation which would require a totally different method of viewing and analyzing the statistics.

Obviously you're too ignorant to grasp the reason why that is. Or you're a troll attempting to bait conversation. Do you honestly think that all situations should only be measured through one method of analysis?

ok basically...when it makes USA looks good, use Per Capita statistics, when it makes USA looks bad, don't use them....

riiiight!...

you said it yourself: Do you really think all situations should only be measured through one method of analysis? so why are you doing it with aid statistics?

And to answer what others said before: Do you think a starving african care about per capita blabla.... do YOU honestly think that a starving african care that USA give more than small countries like Denmark? All he cares about is eating...so that's REALLY not an arguement...

fact is...the average Danish gives him much more food....Japan even gave more than you and they have a smaller population...

I'M NOT saying USA isnt giving enough...any foreign aid is appreciated i'm 100% sure of that...but stop pretending you guys are the most generous! it's just not true...per capita statistics ALWAYS serves a purpose...it put things in perspective...which you don't seem to be able to do...

SilverTab 08-31-2005 03:38 PM
Chodadog: I really think we should stop trying..

fact is...not a SINGLE non-american person agreed that per capita statistics means shit.... while even 4 or 5 americans (because there are also a lot of smart people in the US..) admitted that saying per capita dont mean shit is just being plein stupid

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 03:44 PM
I find it simply astonishing that some Americans do not grasp the very simple concept of per capita statistics and when to use it (i.e. when you are comparing countries with vastly different populations)

Do they not teach this very basic concept at school...or are some Americans just not prepared to admit that they are not the most generous nation on Earth?

Michaelious 08-31-2005 03:45 PM
it's a bit ironic with all the looting that happened in iraq that usa are doing the same

leedsfan 08-31-2005 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
While the USA has givin billions in AID for relief to other countries for natural disasters and the world community at large places AID and Relief to other countires stricken by natural disasters it will be America that has to bare the burden of paying for our own natural disasters while the world community will sit and laugh and never think twice about helping.

We wont see a fucken dime from other nations to help with New Orleans.
Yet our Generousity is unparalled in helping others.
over 800 people died today in baghdad. this is a bigger disaster in human loss. Get over yourself.

leedsfan 08-31-2005 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR THE USA HAS GIVEN MORE DONATION CASH THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE FUCKEN HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

POPULATION IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPIN FOR CHEAP ASS NATIONS TO THROW IN THE USA'S FACES


YOU SIR ARE STILL AN IDIOT

leedsfan 08-31-2005 04:02 PM
oh and by the way. The proper expression is case IN point.

The Sultan Of Smut 08-31-2005 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR THE USA HAS GIVEN MORE DONATION CASH THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE FUCKEN HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
I see what you're saying... It's just like when one man with a net worth of $20,000 gives $100/year to charity he's not as generous as a man that has a net worth of $1,000,000 and gives $105/year.

Is that what you're saying? Did I get it?

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
ok basically...when it makes USA looks good, use Per Capita statistics, when it makes USA looks bad, don't use them....

riiiight!...
Well since you're at least responding to this somewhat politely I'll explain it to you. The per capita analysis doesn't mean anything in this instance because the end result of assisting those in need isn't affected by it. They only care about the total received regardless of where it came from and who gave how much. What is being measured by a total sum is the requirements of the person IN NEED and whether it has been met, you can measure the groups who are GIVING by any standards you want and come up with a million different numbers depending on how you divide it.

In your example of unemployment rates, the per capita is significant because it's in direct relation to the desired outcome of the people IN NEED, for the same reasons you mentioned. In the other example what is being measured is just the opposite, the givers, not the recipients.

An absolute measure, or a total sum measure, is irrelevant in this instance. To compare this with what was being compared above you would need to analyze what someone was doing to create jobs on a per capita basis.

Quote:
fact is...the average Danish gives him much more food....Japan even gave more than you and they have a smaller population...
Hmm, that sounds like a nationalist comment there, like you're trying to place your people above our people... that's something you don't often see people in the US doing even when they have the opportunity to do so - there's a reason for that.

theking 08-31-2005 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Citizen
No, it's not the most generous.

The most generous nation is the one that gives the most PER CAPITA.

Do you not understand why they have per capita statistics? It is so you can compare countries with vastly different populations.
Does not alter the fact that the US is the number one donator of monies...now does it?

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
Does not alter the fact that the US is the number one donator of monies...now does it?
No, it doesn't... but it's a LONG way from being the most generous.

And that's a fact.

american pervert 08-31-2005 04:48 PM
And the countries that give more per captia also TAX their citizens more then USA does.. that is why they can give more. So if they USA had the same tax structure that Denmark has then it would also be able to give more per captia. Where do you think the money comes from that the goverments give away? They don't go door to door with their empty hand, they take it from you when you buy food, gas, booze, cars etc...

directfiesta 08-31-2005 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by american perv
And the countries that give more per captia also TAX their citizens more then USA does.. that is why they can give more. So if they USA had the same tax structure that Denmark has then it would also be able to give more per captia. Where do you think the money comes from that the goverments give away? They don't go door to door with their empty hand, they take it from you when you buy food, gas, booze, cars etc...

LOL ... So tax the US citizens more if you want to be labbelled as " the most generous people " ... :1orglaugh
It is not illegal ...

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by american perv
And the countries that give more per captia also TAX their citizens more then USA does.. that is why they can give more. So if they USA had the same tax structure that Denmark has then it would also be able to give more per captia. Where do you think the money comes from that the goverments give away? They don't go door to door with their empty hand, they take it from you when you buy food, gas, booze, cars etc...

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

have fun trying to prove your point....

Remember: Denmark gives 10x more money to aid per capita.... (Note: I'M NOT Danish...I'm using them as an example because they seem to be the more generous country!)

cambaby 08-31-2005 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by directfiesta
LOL ... So tax the US citizens more if you want to be labbelled as " the most generous people " ... :1orglaugh
It is not illegal ...
How that uptime there bud? Still crappy?

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

have fun trying to prove your point....

Remember: Denmark gives 10x more money to aid per capita.... (Note: I'M NOT Danish...I'm using them as an example because they seem to be the more generous country!)
Did you read that page you just posted? It seems to prove his point.

Denmark: 38-59%
USA: 0-35%

american pervert 08-31-2005 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

have fun trying to prove your point....

Remember: Denmark gives 10x more money to aid per capita.... (Note: I'M NOT Danish...I'm using them as an example because they seem to be the more generous country!)

You proved it for me, Denmark taxes its citizens more, hence it has more money to give. Not sure if you saw the VAT section.. The USA doesn't have that, and Denmark's is 25%. The more you tax the more you can give away.

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
Well since you're at least responding to this somewhat politely I'll explain it to you. The per capita analysis doesn't mean anything in this instance because the end result of assisting those in need isn't affected by it. They only care about the total received regardless of where it came from and who gave how much. What is being measured by a total sum is the requirements of the person IN NEED and whether it has been met, you can measure the groups who are GIVING by any standards you want and come up with a million different numbers depending on how you divide it.

In your example of unemployment rates, the per capita is significant because it's in direct relation to the desired outcome of the people IN NEED, for the same reasons you mentioned. In the other example what is being measured is just the opposite, the givers, not the recipients.

An absolute measure, or a total sum measure, is irrelevant in this instance. To compare this with what was being compared above you would need to analyze what someone was doing to create jobs on a per capita basis.


Hmm, that sounds like a nationalist comment there, like you're trying to place your people above our people... that's something you don't often see people in the US doing even when they have the opportunity to do so - there's a reason for that.
Listen: I wont argue with you over the fact that USA is the one giving the most money overall! It's a fact! and it's a good thing for these people receiving aid....

But you can't say americans are the most generous when it comes to aid!...since when does having a bigger population makes you more generous!...

Listen... if Joe gives 50$ a month to aid and have an income of 600$ a month... and Bill who makes 20k a month only gives 200$ monthly to aid...who's the cheap fuck??? (ok sure, at least Bill's giving so let's word it differently..who's MORE GENEROUS...) The question is not WHO can afford to give more money....but who gives more considering their income....

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.... in the end...Bill still gives more...he's still not as generous as Joe...

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by american perv
You proved it for me, Denmark taxes its citizens more, hence it has more money to give. Not sure if you saw the VAT section.. The USA doesn't have that, and Denmark's is 25%. The more you tax the more you can give away.

hello....percapita, denmark gives 10TIMES MORE THAN THE US....


they dont tax their citizen 10x more... (that would be 1000%)...

wow it's hard to make a point with you guys

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:17 PM
let's see that AID chart again?

1. Luxembourg $313.71 per person
2. Norway $304.80 per person
3. Denmark $300.05 per person
4. Netherlands $243.79 per person
5. Sweden $188.85 per person
6. Switzerland $146.87 per person
7. Belgium $103.43 per person
8. France $89.02 per person
9. Finland $72.55 per person
10. Ireland $70.47 per person
11. United Kingdom $69.48 per person
12. Germany $67.93 per person
13. Austria $63.53 per person
14. Japan $62.00 per person
15. Canada $60.96 per person
16. Australia $44.49 per person
17. Spain $32.96 per person
18. Portugal $25.64 per person
19. New Zealand $24.70 per person
20. United States $23.33 per person


Now tell me ALL those 19 country (more generous than the US).... taxes their people 5-10x more than the us.... the Tax isnt an issue...

american pervert 08-31-2005 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
hello....percapita, denmark gives 10TIMES MORE THAN THE US....


they dont tax their citizen 10x more... (that would be 1000%)...

wow it's hard to make a point with you guys

First off, the USA doesn't have a VAT do that right there is more money.

Second, do you know how much it costs to buy a car in denmark or how much to keep it on the road (lic. fees, registration, etc)

Denmark is able to generate more money from its citizens. So they give 10x more, they still tax their citizens a hefty amount so that means more money for the goverment. The USA is also a lot larger then Denmark so doesn't it make sense that the USA gives back to its own country more money per captia then Denmark would?

american pervert 08-31-2005 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
let's see that AID chart again?

1. Luxembourg $313.71 per person
2. Norway $304.80 per person
3. Denmark $300.05 per person
4. Netherlands $243.79 per person
5. Sweden $188.85 per person
6. Switzerland $146.87 per person
7. Belgium $103.43 per person
8. France $89.02 per person
9. Finland $72.55 per person
10. Ireland $70.47 per person
11. United Kingdom $69.48 per person
12. Germany $67.93 per person
13. Austria $63.53 per person
14. Japan $62.00 per person
15. Canada $60.96 per person
16. Australia $44.49 per person
17. Spain $32.96 per person
18. Portugal $25.64 per person
19. New Zealand $24.70 per person
20. United States $23.33 per person


Now tell me ALL those 19 country (more generous than the US).... taxes their people 5-10x more than the us.... the Tax isnt an issue...


Tax is the issue. Where does the money come from????? Its not from private citizens giving to the local red cross. Its from the government and where does the government get money?? The goverment gets money from taxes.

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:24 PM
ok let's compare apples to apples...
let's say...Japan

Taxe rates: Japan 30% 10-37%

pretty similar to the US...no VAT...

they still give twice as much per capita...

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.... in the end...Bill still gives more...he's still not as generous as Joe...
I see what you're saying if you're defining generousity as a percentage of income... but it just seems like an irrelevant way of measuring it for the situation.

I mean I could see your point if you were comparing an instance where one individual is giving someone the shirt off his back and his last dollar in comparison to some wealthy person who gave them a larger amount that was only 1% of their daily earnings.

But this isn't a situation of such drastic differences, so I don't understand why you're trying to make it out like that. Without actually running the numbers, I get the feeling that this 'per capita' difference for each person person is going to end up being a few cents for each individual in each country. It's a stupid instance to quibble over or to try to make one group come out as superior to any other.

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTab
ok let's compare apples to apples...
let's say...Japan

Taxe rates: Japan 30% 10-37%

pretty similar to the US...no VAT...

they still give twice as much per capita...
They also don't have the expenses the US does, especially military.

directfiesta 08-31-2005 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambaby
How that uptime there bud? Still crappy?
???????

What are you referring too, prick ? There are very few people I wouldn't help here, but you are on the top of the list.

How is your free host ...

PS: when you made a thread serching for a host, I kept away like I would from a diseased pussy ... :321GFY

jimmyf 08-31-2005 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
Put this in your crack pipes and smoke it:)

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...dgraphsoda.asp


:1orglaugh

Fucken morons.

Dollar for dollar...
Population total is just an offset that disillusions the facts that America gives the most...
I see where you are coming from, but others don't want 2..

SilverTab 08-31-2005 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
I see what you're saying if you're defining generousity as a percentage of income... but it just seems like an irrelevant way of measuring it for the situation.

I mean I could see your point if you were comparing an instance where one individual is giving someone the shirt off his back and his last dollar in comparison to some wealthy person who gave them a larger amount that was only 1% of their daily earnings.

But this isn't a situation of such drastic differences, so I don't understand why you're trying to make it out like that. Without actually running the numbers, I get the feeling that this 'per capita' difference for each person person is going to end up being a few cents for each individual in each country. It's a stupid instance to quibble over or to try to make one group come out as superior to any other.

initially I was just answering AlienQ's complaint...he was saying that USA is the most generous country and blahblah and do not get any help in return for Katrina.... (which is NOT true as several countries offered their help)....

again, I understand your point, I even agree with it to some extent...
just don't play the.. "we are more generous and we don't receive help in return" card...

Fact is there are countries more generous, when you consider how much they give per citizen...

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE 08-31-2005 05:33 PM
America technically buys people more rice than any other country.

Rice cost the same across the board and technically America's Donations buy more rice for those in need since it is the largest dollar donar.

So again Shove "Per Capita" up your asses.
People in need of rice can give two fucks less about per capita and they should know it is America that has given them the most rice.

Donny 08-31-2005 05:33 PM
you idiots will spin things whichever way makes your point... i wish we'd cut off almost all of our aid to others and focus on improving our own infrastructure... high speed public transportation, feeding the homeless, national healthcare, etc.

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 05:52 PM
A little education on per capita statistics for the willfully ignorant Americans:

Quote:
Per capita

Percent change in value tells you only part of the story when you are comparing values for several communities or groups. Another important statistic is each group's per capita value.

This figure helps you compare values among groups of different size.
Let's look at Springfield and Capital City again. This year, 800,000 people live in Springfield while 600,000 live in Capital City. Five years ago, however, just 450,000 people lived in Springfield while 550,000 lived in Capital City.

Why is this important? The fact that Springfield grew so much more than Capital City over the past five years could help explain why the number of murders in Springfield increased by so much over the same period. After all, if there are more people in a city, one might expect there to be more murders.

To find out if one city really is more dangerous than another, you need to determine a per capita murder rate. That is, the number of murders for each person in town.

To find that rate, simply divide the number of murders by the total population of the city. To keep from using a tiny little decimal, statisticians usually multiply the result by 100,000 and give the result as the number of murders per 100,000 people.

In Springfield's case, 50 murders divided by 800,000 people equals a murder rate of 6.25 per 100,000 people. Capital City's 50 murders divided by 600,000 people equals a murder rate of 8.33 per 100,000 people.

Five years ago, Springfield's 29 murders divided by 450,000 people equaled a murder rate of 6.44 per 100,000 people. And Capital City's 42 murders divided by 550,000 equaled a murder rate of 7.64 per 100,000 people.

In Percent, we found that the number of murders in Springfield increased 72 percent over five years, while the number of murders in Capital City grew by just 19 percent. But when we now compare per capita murders, Springfield's murder rate decreased by almost 3 percent, while Capital City's per capita murder rate increased by more than 9 percent.

There's the real story....

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Citizen
A little education on per capita statistics for the willfully ignorant Americans:
And if you would learn when and which groups to apply it to you might stop showing your ignorance with each post you make.

directfiesta 08-31-2005 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cambaby
How that uptime there bud? Still crappy?
Ran away as usual, ya litta fucking fag turd sucking trailer trash ????

So, still think the oil companys do less $$$$

you are a fucking liar .. an an idiot one.

Quote:
your stupid post:

Originally Posted by cambaby
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/li...obal_gasprices/
Oil companies arent making ANY more than they normally would you dumb fucking cockmonkey. Go back to school you fucking need it.

My answer:

Quote:
Exxon Mobil 2Q profit jumps 32 percent
By STEVE QUINN, AP

IRVING, Texas (AP) - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported a 32 percent increase in second-quarter profits as it reaped the benefits of soaring oil and natural gas prices.

Net income for the April-June quarter rose to $7.64 billion, or $1.20 per share, from $5.79 billion, or 88 cents per share, the year before. Excluding one-time items, earnings totaled $7.84 billion, or $1.23 per share, Exxon said on Thursday.

The adjusted earnings just missed analysts' expectations for profit of $1.24 per share, according to a Thomson Financial survey.

Revenue totaled $88.57 billion, a gain of 25 percent from $70.69 billion a year earlier.

Profits from exploration and production jumped $1 billion to $4.9 billion, a reflection of strong crude and natural gas prices offsetting a 4.3 percent reduction in output, the company said.

Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., said Exxon's profits from that segment stood out. But Gheit thought the figures should have been higher than the first quarter's $5 billion, perhaps by as much as $500 million.

"It leads me to believe costs must be rising, which I have no argument with," he said. "The underlying cost structure for Exxon and the industry is definitely rising -- and it could be rising pretty fast. They can do what ever they want, but at the end of the day, the industry will dictate the environment."

Earnings from refining and selling petroleum products rose $714 million to $2.2 billion, while earnings from its chemicals business were $814 million, up $207 million from a year earlier.

"We had a very strong second quarter in all segments of our business," said Henry Hubble, Exxon's vice president of investor relations. "Our continued focus on operational and executional excellence underpins these results."

The company said its capital and exploration spending rose from $3.6 billion to $4.5 billion.

"Exxon Mobil-operated projects that are key to the future volume growth continue to be on budget and on or ahead of schedule," said Exxon Mobil chairman and chief executive Lee R. Raymond.

The strong second quarter enabled Exxon Mobil to produce a record $15.5 billion in net income, or $2.42 per share, for the first six months. That 38 percent boost is up $4.2 billion, or $1.71 a share, from the first six months of 2004.

Not only has it surpassed last year's two-quarter mark. Exxon is just $1.5 billion off its three-quarter performance from last year. If Exxon continues at this pace, it could record more than $30 billion in net income; last year it netted $25.3 billion.

Revenue for the first half reached $170 billion, which is up from $138 billion after six months last year.

"They made a lot of money last year, but now they are printing it," Gheit said.

So far in the first half, exploration and production net income rose $2.1 billion to $9.9 billion, and earnings from refining and petroleum sales rose $853 million to $3.3 billion, the product of stronger worldwide margins, the company said. Chemical earnings of $2 billion were up $925 million form the first half of last year.

Shares of Exxon fell 9 cents to $59.50 in early afternoon trading. The stock has been trading in a 52-week range of $44.20 to $64.37.

07/28/05 14:11 EDT

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business...728141309990005
your answer:

NOTHING, silence, vanished....


You have something to say about my business you fucking little piece of slim ball, spit it out and back it up ...
Sure wont here from you rotten dick/c.u.n.t. for a while!

:321GFY :321GFY :321GFY

You should be fucking banned .. and killed!

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE 08-31-2005 06:08 PM
Congratulations Joe Citizen.
There is a realistic use of per capita statistics.
Good boy...

But since when is it that such statistics apply to dollars which in turn buy materials for people in need used to down play the whole number of the most generous nation in the world?

See the bottom line is simple, dollar for dollar America gives the most in dollars.

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
Congratulations Joe Citizen.
There is a realistic use of per capita statistics.
Good boy...

But since when is it that such statistics apply to dollars which in turn buy materials for people in need used to down play the whole number of the most generous nation in the world?

See the bottom line is simple, dollar for dollar America gives the most in dollars.
You really are a dumb shit Alien. The great thing about this thread is that it's exposed your stupidity for ALL to see. :1orglaugh

Now, I will spell it out for you really slowly for the last you brain dead fuckwit: per capita statistics are the ONLY way to make a fair comparison between countries/cities with vastly different populations.

Now if you can't understand that it's time to go back to school, moron.

SilverTab 08-31-2005 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips
you idiots will spin things whichever way makes your point... i wish we'd cut off almost all of our aid to others and focus on improving our own infrastructure... high speed public transportation, feeding the homeless, national healthcare, etc.

Spin things??? Per capita is not some kind of twisted ways of looking at stats...it allows you to see relevant statistic by taking the population in consideration...

Fact is: you are focusing more on your infrastructure than 19 other countries in the world...

wow I can't believe some people still can't see it...

I even said that it was a GREAT thing that USA was giving a lot of money to aid...but can't you grasp the simple fact that...considering their population, 19 countries are more generous...

If your point is to prove that the US buys more rice for poor people...you are RIGHT... but stop acting like americans are the most generous people...

In other words: you could say the US gives more money...but you can't say that as an american, you give more money than other countries LOL...

marley murphy 08-31-2005 06:13 PM
PLEASE CALL THE AMERICAN RED CROSS AND SEND SOME MONEY!!! THE AMERICAN DISASTER RELIEF SERVICES DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO GET TO SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO DIE IF WE DON'T HELP THEM!
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DISASTER THIS BIG IN OUR COUNTRY; SO MANY PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING IN DESPAIR....

PLEASE STOP ARGUING ABOUT WHO SHOULD HELP AND JUST HELP!

American Red Cross, 800-HELP NOW (435-7669) English, 800-257-7575 Spanish.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE 08-31-2005 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Citizen
You really are a dumb shit Alien. The great thing about this thread is that it's exposed your stupidity for ALL to see. :1orglaugh

Now, I will spell it out for you really slowly for the last you brain dead fuckwit: per capita statistics are the ONLY way to make a fair comparison between countries/cities with vastly different populations.

Now if you can't understand that it's time to go back to school, moron.
I am sorry your a fucking moron.
There is no explaining the facts to you. Ya exposed your self as a complete moron disputing the fact the USA gives more aid than any other nation in the world. What Per Capita does it matter to people that need help when it is America as a whole gives more than any other country in the world.

Big fucken deal we are 260 Million people strong it does not stop the fact that the USA gives more.

Oh OH! I am so sorry ya bottom feeding maggot that per capita that generous fact does not show so well :1orglaugh

Eat your own dick.

Joe Citizen 08-31-2005 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ
Ya exposed your self as a complete moron disputing the fact the USA gives more aid than any other nation in the world.
Please quote me.


Quote:
Big fucken deal we are 260 Million people strong
300 million you stupid fucking moron. Time to go back to high school dummy! :1orglaugh

AmateurFlix 08-31-2005 06:22 PM
this is tremendously amusing...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 AM.
Page 3 of 7 < 12 3 4567 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123