SN,
Exxon Mobil is only the most profitable by your fallacious metric. Can you do more with 9% raise or a 20% raise? BTW, why do you want to punish a company that gained 10.5%/year over the last 5 years...it is expended to expand at a rate of .77% over the next 5, according to analysis because you and your ilk don't like their business but a company like Apple who has gained 58% over the last 5 years and will continue to grow at a 16%/year clip for the next 5...nada, because you like them. Rules are for everyone, not your favorites. Want to tell me what XOM is getting that is special...I've asked that of you for over a week and you haven't been able to give a cogent response. It's been their bad and they need to be punished for being successful.
How can we end this amiably? I don't think it can be done, since you decided to call me a liar...that's what bs means, and implying I'm someone who gets their information from talk radio. I think I have accurately described your thinking...solar, solar, solar...and nothing else, this all occurs in a vacuum. I've given example after example of what will happen if you use capital inefficiently...and what has happened in the past. Nope, solar, solar, solar. That is stage one, ignore the unintended consequences, solar, solar, solar.
My position has been consistent, let it compete on a level playing field. Let's make it on its own.
