Originally Posted by maxxm
So your response is yet more Socratic questions, professor? That's an awfully weak rebuttal. Please analyze the facts reported in the reliable newspaper accounts that I cited on Friday. Please provide your definitions and your defenses for record oil company profits. Academic interrogatories can be entertaining, but their purpose is to yield understanding. AmeriQuest and Enron and Countrywide and HealthSouth and Archer Daniels Midland used to boast of their record profits at one time, too. But now we know why. Even the most vigorous defenses of questionable activities are not always successful. And quizzicle silence rarely contributes to an informed debate, either.
Well, you got my profession right...well done.
I've looked at the facts that were linked to...none of them lead me to a conclusion of price gouging. ExxonMobil has record profits...that's hardly evidence of anything I'd classify as price gouging...which is precisely why I asked you what your definition of it is and what the evidence is.
So I suppose it's a weak rebuttal because all you've done is a bunch of whining (albeit with fancy vocabulary)about corporate greed that comes across as much more emotional than analytical. If I saw some reasoning, I'd be able to agree or disagree with it and explain why...but all I'm reading is "waaaaaah, ExxonMobil makes too much money...they must be doing something wrong." Not very compelling.
(btw, if you're going to make fancy vocabulary your schtick, you should spell stuff like quizzical right)