|
Exxon reports highest profit in US history (AGAIN) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LatinLover |
| Good for them! |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
"Unleaded gas cost $3.74 per gallon at a Mobil station in Milwaukee, where Jeff and Jennine Pynn of Putnam Valley, N.Y., stopped Thursday during a 10-day road trip. "It's totally unfair," Jennine Pynn said as she pumped $47 worth into a Toyota Highlander. "You really hope to see them not turn so much of a profit."
ffs, these kind of people are starting to peeve me off.
Is that even $1 a litre?
Unfair? Sheez, they should come down under or to any other country and pay our rates, we pay close to $1.80 a litre. How is that for fair? |
You aren't thinking about all of the hidden costs we pay as Americans including blood. Google it, try 'hidden costs, american gasoline' that's what we call it. |
|
|
| The17sss |
The way I see it, the oil companies are the only ones that are actually helping... they provide the resource that keep the economy going, and they get demonized for doing so. What the does the government do to help? All they (the Dems) are doing is making our life more difficult. Robinhood, er, Obama is till gung ho about enacting Jimmy Carter's failed windfall profits tax idea (change?) that only decreased the supply and made us more dependant on foreign oil... oh, and don't forget to inflate your tires! Congress broke today and for the first time since the 1950s, members will skip town without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. They want american's suffering while Bush is still at the helm because they think it benefits them come vote time.
Democrats want to maximize the pain felt at the pump and at the grocery store in order to make Americans mad enough to support their vision of nationalized energy production and energy rationing. Power hungry s. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah but you'd "like to see 10% of their profits go toward renewable energy". wtf ever that means. |
You'de like me to not have an opinion on their profits huh?;)
| quote: | | i have to assume your "renewable" reference is ethanol because Exxon/Mobile is a petroleum company. they're not a solar panel company or a wind turbine company...but guess what? they're not farmers either! and until the Federal government can get it's together on how they want to pipe the country for ethanol, ethanol will remain fueling around 2% of the market. |
Ethanol? Are you crazy? I hope ethanol never gets made again.
| quote: | | alright Chavez, then can we dispense with this "authoritarian" meme you like to vomit all over this board at the drop of a hat please? |
LOL. Do you know what authoritarianism is? It's warrant-less wiretapping. It's unilateral war making. It's political control of the Justice Department. It's torture of your prisoners. It's indefinite detainment. It is your unquestionable faith in authority no matter how many f*ck ups they do..;)
ANd if you want to call state control of all oil reserves "authoritarian", then let's call public schools authoritarian, or anything controlled by the state...authoritarian...PULEEEEEEZ...:rolleyes:
I ALSO NEVER SAID NATIONALIZE THE OIL INDUSTRY!! That is what Chevez did. I said nationalize the OIL RESERVES. Private drillers, private refineries, private distribution. The drillers sell the crude oil to the government at the prevailing market price. The government sells the oil to the refinery. The refinery sells the finished fuels to the distributors or distributes it itself. The profit from oil sales would go into a fund for investment into alternative energy. This would also put incentive on the government to regulate the oil speculators with more force. This would bring down the price. I do not believe oil prices should be completely in the control of the market.
| quote: | The way I see it, the oil companies are the only ones that are actually helping... they provide the resource that keep the economy going, and they get demonized for doing so. What the does the government do to help? All they (the Dems) are doing is making our life more difficult. Robinhood, er, Obama is till gung ho about enacting Jimmy Carter's failed windfall profits tax idea (change?) that only decreased the supply and made us more dependant on foreign oil... oh, and don't forget to inflate your tires! Congress broke today and for the first time since the 1950s, members will skip town without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. They want american's suffering while Bush is still at the helm because they think it benefits them come vote time.
Democrats want to maximize the pain felt at the pump and at the grocery store in order to make Americans mad enough to support their vision of nationalized energy production and energy rationing. Power hungry s. |
Are you going the way of the conspiracy theorist? :stongue: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Nationalizing anything is not a solution. It is government confiscation of wealth. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Nationalizing anything is not a solution. It is government confiscation of wealth. |
My solution isn't to nationalize the industry. My solution is the nationalize the commodity itself. My plan would be to create a state-corporation whose purpose would be to buy whatever crude oil is drilled out of the ground by private drillers. This would be done at the prevailing market price, additionally with some futures contracts between producer and state buyer. This state corporation would then sell the crude to the private refinery. Meanwhile, the state would cut down speculation in crude oil futures contracts would be cut down by the amount of leverage they are allowed to take. No crude oil drilled from American territory would not be allowed to be exported. All profits from the sale of crude oil by the state corporation would go into a fund which invests in alternative energy projects.
I believe this is a great solution to help bring down oil prices in the short term. It would also help enormously to help finance large scale alternative energy projects throughout the USA. The goal is to stop using oil completely. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
My solution isn't to nationalize the industry. My solution is the nationalize the commodity itself. My plan would be to create a state-corporation whose purpose would be to buy whatever crude oil is drilled out of the ground by private drillers. This would be done at the prevailing market price, additionally with some futures contracts between producer and state buyer. This state corporation would then sell the crude to the private refinery. Meanwhile, the state would cut down speculation in crude oil futures contracts would be cut down by the amount of leverage they are allowed to take. No crude oil drilled from American territory would not be allowed to be exported. All profits from the sale of crude oil by the state corporation would go into a fund which invests in alternative energy projects.
I believe this is a great solution to help bring down oil prices in the short term. It would also help enormously to help finance large scale alternative energy projects throughout the USA. The goal is to stop using oil completely. |
how is nationalizing the commodity any different than nationalizing the industry? in both cases the government is controlling the distribution of the product. in any event, if the government is required to purchase all the oil produced there is no independent market for the product so a true market rate could never be established. furthermore, this proposal would actually increase the cost of gas because you are adding another party to the equation.
on to my bit: good for exxon shareholders. the company doesn't have an obligation to produce alternative energy and its stupid to think they do. exxon is not an alt energy company, so they would be less efficient at it than other companies. exxon pays more federal tax than almost any single entity. they do their part. it's not exxon's fault our government hasn't formulated a policy that would promote energy independence. people (exxon shareholders) have a right to make as much money as possible, as i'm sure you also believe. if they were producing gum you wouldn't give a . leave the emotions out of the argument. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how is nationalizing the commodity any different than nationalizing the industry? in both cases the government is controlling the distribution of the product. in any event, if the government is required to purchase all the oil produced there is no independent market for the product so a true market rate could never be established. furthermore, this proposal would actually increase the cost of gas because you are adding another party to the equation. |
It isn't nationalizing the industry because the means of production are not controlled by the government. The government would not control the means of distribution.
But you have mentioned something I didn't think of. If the government owns all the oil, then how can traders trade it on the market, and thus, how can there be a market price? I'm thinking the government could sell special oil securities backed by say a barrel of oil, and traders could trade that. If speculators start trading up the price unjustifiably, then the government could flood the market with these securities, and thus, drive the price down by diluting the holdings of the traders. But you know what? I think just the threat of that would drive prices down.
As for the premium for including an extra party to the "equation"..The state oil corporation wouldn't physically handle the oil, so no delay in the supply chain.
| quote: | | on to my bit: good for exxon shareholders. the company doesn't have an obligation to produce alternative energy and its stupid to think they do. exxon is not an alt energy company, so they would be less efficient at it than other companies. exxon pays more federal tax than almost any single entity. they do their part. it's not exxon's fault our government hasn't formulated a policy that would promote energy independence. people (exxon shareholders) have a right to make as much money as possible, as i'm sure you also believe. if they were producing gum you wouldn't give a . leave the emotions out of the argument. |
Listen, they can spend their profits however they want, and they are free to make even world record breaking profits. But if they are running commercials (in my opinion is corporation propaganda) putting up the impression that they are somehow innovators in alternative energy, that they investing heavily in alternative energy, and all this crap, WHEN THEY AREN'T, then I think there is a problem.
Personally, I think they want to use high oil prices to convince Congress of opening up more areas for them to drill.
The proposal I have, I think is a much better alternative than drilling more hydrocarbons, and adding yet still more greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere, NOT THE MENTION, continue our oil addiction even longer. It's like recommending to a heroine addict who is in withdrawal, that they shoot up more heroine!! |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Instead they spend more on advertising they care for the environment than they spend in research of green technology!! The CEO gets paid more than that too! Shell Oil on the other hand, is spending BILLIONS on renewables research. Exxon, a measly $100 million... |
This is part of the issue that a lot of people have with how they spend their money.
| quote: | | The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how is nationalizing the commodity any different than nationalizing the industry? in both cases the government is controlling the distribution of the product. in any event, if the government is required to purchase all the oil produced there is no independent market for the product so a true market rate could never be established. furthermore, this proposal would actually increase the cost of gas because you are adding another party to the equation.
on to my bit: good for exxon shareholders. the company doesn't have an obligation to produce alternative energy and its stupid to think they do. exxon is not an alt energy company, so they would be less efficient at it than other companies. exxon pays more federal tax than almost any single entity. they do their part. it's not exxon's fault our government hasn't formulated a policy that would promote energy independence. people (exxon shareholders) have a right to make as much money as possible, as i'm sure you also believe. if they were producing gum you wouldn't give a . leave the emotions out of the argument. |
I'm surprised to hear you say this (maybe I had an incorrect impression of your viewpoint), but I agree with you no less. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm surprised to hear you say this (maybe I had an incorrect impression of your viewpoint), but I agree with you no less. |
i am certainly a free market kind of guy. i also believe that in limited circumstances the government has a role to divert resources in the right direction because private citizens don't always make the best decisions for society (the degree to which is probably where our viewpoints don't agree). but in theory, i'm 100% on board with the free market philosophy. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
they're operating at a 9% profit margin:rolleyes: |
Hehe, exactly, their profit is only big because its a huge company! It's really insane that so many people (including politicians and media) keeps thinking that companies like Exxonmobil's profits are in any way unrealistic, because they are not! |
|
|
|
|
