feel bad 4 them

Way off thread jack.

Gary, I really like your boat, and don't those old Chryslers have a great sound!

Chuck

BKH, Joe was saying that "profit margin" increases when inventories turn over, which is factually inaccurate. That is what I was disputing. I never mentioned return on investment.
So now we hate them because they are making a good return on their investment???? What in the hell would you expect a company to do? Make a bad return? What do you think a poor ROI would that do to the price of gas? It sure wouldn't make it come down! You can't have it both ways. Either the oil companies succeed or you pay more. Sounds like alot of folks would gladly get screwed over themselves just to see a successful company weakened. Who in the hell cares what their return on investment is other than the shareholders? Returns on investment have alot to do with good decisions being made on the investment.

I can't change someones mind of they make decisions purely on emotion, so I am done with trying to convince folks not to hate rich people or successful companies.

However, words have meaning. If one side is changing the terms in order to back up their side, he no longer has credibility. I brought up "profit margin" which has a finite definition and finite way to calculate. Someone else is using the same word "profit margin" but is talking about something completely different in order to advance their argument(you are probably right that he was talking about return on investment). I knew that I had the facts on my side, so I kept arguing. I thought that this was being done intentionally, but perhaps it was done by mistake.
Same thing goes for when someone talks a about a sales tax and another person says that the sales tax is a "regressive tax, as "regressive tax" and "flat tax" are "commonly synonymous". Since the fact is that they are completely different, that person loses credibility.

I'm with BKH in regards to his statement about reading this post and being able to talk about it...

Poster, now I think you've got to relax on what I've said. I'll be honest, when I learned this, I knew the definitions, most of them were self-definable. But, since I couldn't find any one regressive tax by definition, I led myself to believe that is was regressive in proportion to your income, which I thought made sense. In that case, a flat tax would be regressive. But, my mistake, no need to get pissed about it--thats not my only point, so credibility is not lost.

Don't also a$$ume that I hate the rich or the sucessful companies--that couldn't be further from the truth. We are talking about specific scenarios here. I have a drive for sucess myself, and hopefully I can be high up in a company. But, I've also got morals. I don't want to make a mil. a year for Molboro or something harmful like that. Instead, maybe working for Merck would be nice, as an example, where I can help get the world the medicine it needs, and continue the legacy.

One thing is for sure, also, NO decision I make is based purely on "emotion." That's just wrong, sorry...

A person also loses credibility when he ignores the opposing argument and a$$umes it to be incorrect or immediately dislikes it without proper judgment--a reason why I always study what the "enemy" is thinking...

nice talkin', no hard feelings, i hope, nonehere at least...

good debate,is it just coincidence that it's tax season?