"John M." wrote in message
news:e4fb8$403bdc99$409cea5d$28032@allthenewsgroup s.com...
Slim Jim and Mountain Dew at the Tiger Mart.


He's not talking about simply making a profit. He's talking
about
gouging
the public.


Oh, where did "gouging the public" show up in his posting? Try
again,
loser.

Why the need to insult me?
He wrote "Mobil/Exxon posted the largest profit in history, last
quarter!".
Where do you think that money came from? Do you think it came from
vast
corporate improvements in efficiency or other internal methods?
Again, I
assert it came from gouging the public.
You may apologize for calling me a loser.
Regards,
John

Well, it's probably no comfort but I don't think you're a loser
However, I would question what appears to be your main point--that
posting an unprecedented profit equates to "gouging the public,"
whatever that means. See, there's these niggling little aspects of
capitalism involving supply, demand, competition, and the right to
charge what the market will bear (provided no laws are violated).
Since Exxon does not appear to have broken the law, I'd have to repeat
that, if you have a problem with a company making a lot of money, you
essentially have a problem with capitalism (which may be the case).
That's fine.

If you'd like to identify the point at which running a for-profit
company in the manner that shareholders expect turns into "gouging the
public," be my guest. It might also be good to consider whether it's
OK to "gouge" in one particular quarter or year to make up for other
quarters or years that were totally unprofitable, and to consider to
what extent the "gouging" has pass-thru effects that benefit the
entire economy in terms of higher salaries and job creation.