We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
From what I have read, the oil industry profits are not out of whack when looked at as a percentage of Gross Income. They simply spend a lot of money, so their profits are naturally going to go up with the increased spending.
Records based on total amount though, not percentage. They are spending more money, and a recouping the same profit percentage. I think it is different myself.
Yeah... government should not be allowed to set "reasonable" profits EXCEPT for those evil oil companies. Of course 10-15 years ago when oil companies were losing money, the government didn't seem to find it necessary to step in and say they weren't getting enough profits. ;o)
This is not a yes or no question. When utilities were regulated (essentially, their profits controlled) it was becasue it was recognized that once a society has created condition that require certain services (such as electricity or heating fuels) that the society has an obligation not to force the poorest members into choosing between necessities--food or light, heat or clothing, etc.--because they have no alternatives. No inner city dweller can decide to go out, cut some wood, and start a fire to get warm. Just as an one example.
And since these things have become necessities, there is no question that investors will profit. That absolute lack of risk balances the relative unfairness of regulation.
[3 points]4 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 4 years ago by dauguy
Well... not precisely. The reason for regulated monopolies is not because consumers can't do it for themselves, the reason is because deregulation would cause undesirable consequences, like 50 different power companies or phone companies stringing lines down your street. So competition is restrained in the interest of common sense (a concept often foreign to government).
"congress critters" hahahahaha GREAT TERM. Now, we tax payers have been asked to support their LUNCH ROOM, seems they can't make any money off themselves buying their own lunches. FAT CATS. HUNGRY MICE. hmmmmmmm
United States
Question prompted by http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1813121,00.html
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyFrom what I have read, the oil industry profits are not out of whack when looked at as a percentage of Gross Income. They simply spend a lot of money, so their profits are naturally going to go up with the increased spending.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyRecords based on total amount though, not percentage. They are spending more money, and a recouping the same profit percentage. I think it is different myself.
w, it's the same % profit. I agree with Cdog
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah... government should not be allowed to set "reasonable" profits EXCEPT for those evil oil companies. Of course 10-15 years ago when oil companies were losing money, the government didn't seem to find it necessary to step in and say they weren't getting enough profits. ;o)
Depends on how critical the product is in meeting key human need. Example: water. I'm a bit of a capitalist so I would set the standard very high.
This is not a yes or no question. When utilities were regulated (essentially, their profits controlled) it was becasue it was recognized that once a society has created condition that require certain services (such as electricity or heating fuels) that the society has an obligation not to force the poorest members into choosing between necessities--food or light, heat or clothing, etc.--because they have no alternatives. No inner city dweller can decide to go out, cut some wood, and start a fire to get warm. Just as an one example.
And since these things have become necessities, there is no question that investors will profit. That absolute lack of risk balances the relative unfairness of regulation.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user Replyding ding ding ding ding!
Well... not precisely. The reason for regulated monopolies is not because consumers can't do it for themselves, the reason is because deregulation would cause undesirable consequences, like 50 different power companies or phone companies stringing lines down your street. So competition is restrained in the interest of common sense (a concept often foreign to government).
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user Reply"congress critters" hahahahaha GREAT TERM. Now, we tax payers have been asked to support their LUNCH ROOM, seems they can't make any money off themselves buying their own lunches. FAT CATS. HUNGRY MICE. hmmmmmmm
Thank you, I rather like the term myself. And am tickled pink to see a conservative pick it up and use it!