Largest Corp profit in American history

The Judge

Sorry about that last post, I did not mean to imply anything when I mentioned getting a piece of the pie. I just get so excited.

shack

Demiurge wrote: »

Senators girlfriends....

NO NO NO thats a creek...not the harbor.

tonyb

I still,for the life of me,figure out how that moron has stayed in office all these years.

Demiurge

shack wrote: »

NO NO NO thats a creek...not the harbor.

SKsolutions

You try driving with a martini balanced on the dashboard.

polktiger

Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution here other than to develop alternative sources of energy which requires politicians to stop thinking with their wallet and start thinking about our country. The oil lobby does play a major role in this. The oil industry remains the largest unregulated "utility" in the country. I refer to them as a utility since the demand elasticity most closely mirrors that of water an electricity. Without water, oil and electricity our country does not move. Until there is an alternative to oil, they can remain one of the few industries to pass on materials cost increases with little backlash from the consumer. And I wish this BS with corn ethanol would stop. Don't get me wrong, my extended family is having a great year in farming due to corn prices, but we all know it is not a viable long term solution. But hey, it buys votes and that is what it really boils down to in this country. Well that and wacko environmentalists whose absurd objections to nuclear power make it almost impossible to build new plants in the US. (Note: even John Kerry's beloved France derives most of electricity from nuclear power.)

markmarc

I have no problem with the oil industry making a profit. What I do have problem with is the special tax breaks they get while they are making the record profits. They obviously don't need them right now.

Polktiger is right, alternative energy, including nuclear is our way out. .

Just a few miles from my house is a new electric car dealership. The big problem with electric cars is that we don't have the excess electricity grid capacity to go full force into electric cars. But I was thinking what if the electric car company sold a solar panel pack with the transformer stuff to make it a grid neutral system. Just a rambling thought.

SKsolutions

polktiger wrote: »

Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution here other than to develop alternative sources of energy which requires politicians to stop thinking with their wallet and start thinking about our country. The oil lobby does play a major role in this. The oil industry remains the largest unregulated "utility" in the country. I refer to them as a utility since the demand elasticity most closely mirrors that of water an electricity. Without water, oil and electricity our country does not move. Until there is an alternative to oil, they can remain one of the few industries to pass on materials cost increases with little backlash from the consumer. And I wish this BS with corn ethanol would stop. Don't get me wrong, my extended family is having a great year in farming due to corn prices, but we all know it is not a viable long term solution. But hey, it buys votes and that is what it really boils down to in this country. Well that and wacko environmentalists whose absurd objections to nuclear power make it almost impossible to build new plants in the US. (Note: even John Kerry's beloved France derives most of electricity from nuclear power.)

Great analogy, but I won't touch the Kerry comment.

Petroleum is a critical need area affecting every citizen, every price on every product, and the stop gap measures will fail without a clear plan or some regulation. That plan will never happen, and will never be studied, unless those that write the law are no longer able to accept any money from any corporation or lobbyist.

wizzy

We can't all forget ... who is Exxon?

For much of middle class America (and other classes) it is you and me. Exxon it is a publicly traded company - owned by the shareholders. It is the teacher with their 403b.

It is the guy who works picking up garbage for your local town, invested in the town's retirement fund.

It is the small business owner with her Roth IRA invested in diversified funds.

It is the everyperson with a 401k.

It's the guy down the street who worked for the big city police department for 35 years - drawing a pension from city funds invested in the market.

Yes, Exxon is me & you.

SKsolutions

Should every citizen be REQUIRED to pay for your investment? Please don't tell me teachers or garbagemen can afford to invest in any meaningful way, and their retirements/401K are about as secure as Enron's.

shack

I was talking with someone the other day and he had an interesting take on the oil/gas issue...and quite frankly one that I think has a lot of merit.

He thinks that the high cost of oil is the best thing to happen to the economy of the US...FOR THE LONG TERM. He believes that as the US has done in the past, we will have to adapt and create alternatives to what we are doing now (much as some have stated above). THAT adapting will probably create new industries that may not even exist now and have nothing to do with energy per se. Obviously, new technological energy sources will create new business but his example was packaging. Think of all of the plastic packaging we currently use. A great example is a 2G SD memory card I bought a few months ago. You know...about the size of a postage stamp (remember those?). It was packaged in a 8"x11" plastic blister pack that was probably 20 mils + thick. It had to weigh 100 times the SD card. As oil becomes more expensive, that type of packaging will no longer be cost effective. Something NEW will have to be developed that will offer the same ability to display the product and protect the retailer from theft and handling losses. That new something will create new industry and create new jobs. Because it is new the foreign producers will not have the technology to manufacture at inception.

His point is that creating new technologies and adapting to new products to counter not only the cost but the availability of oil and other energy sources will stimulate the economy of the US and create new businesses and jobs. This is a simplistic model...but I really think there are some really good points to ponder. I've said it before and I will say it again. The US is the greatest economy in the world. It did not get that way by chance. It will survive and adapt and grow and we will be if not the largest (think China) economic nation, the most influential economy for a long time to come.

wizzy

SKsolutions wrote: »

Should every citizen be REQUIRED to pay for your investment? Please don't tell me teachers or garbagemen can afford to invest in any meaningful way, and their retirements/401K are about as secure as Enron's.

Not sure why you're getting so defensive, relax.

I was just pointing out people always seem to think of Exxon as "them" when they're a little more "us" than most people realize, or care to admit.

hoosier21

SKsolutions wrote: »

Should every citizen be REQUIRED to pay for your investment?

wth does that mean? :rolleyes:

SKsolutions

wizzy wrote: »

Not sure why you're getting so defensive, relax.

I was just pointing out people always seem to think of Exxon as "them" when they're a little more "us" than most people realize, or care to admit.

Objecting to abject stupidity is not being 'defensive'. I would also like to take a moment to thank you for informing me of what I need to 'realize' and 'admit'. So I'm clear, I made some scribbles.

I am Exxon
Us = Exxon
Them = Exxon
Exxon = Exxon

It's clear now.

jdhdiggs

Well, if they didn't get the tax breaks, they would just raise prices to protect their margins so we can support them through tax breaks or through higher prices. They will get their piece of pie regardless of what we or the government do...

wizzy

SKsolutions wrote: »

Objecting to abject stupidity is not being 'defensive'. I would also like to take a moment to thank you for informing me of what I need to 'realize' and 'admit'. So I'm clear, I made some scribbles.

So, I take it you think Exxon is owned by some big fat stereotypical cigar chomping 58 year old man sitting at the head of a large table in a boardroom named Mr. Exxon?

The only one exhibiting abject stupidity here is you.

Exxon = The millions of Americans that own Exxon stock, either directly or indirectly

rskarvan

Everytime I fill up my gasoline tank, I take pride in knowing that I helped to contribute to the largest corporate profit in the history of America. Where is my Thank You letter?

nms

Where is my Thank You letter?

They're increasing their corporate profits by not sending them. :rolleyes:

Come off it guys, Exxon happens to be in a very profitable market. What's wrong with them doing what they're supposed to do: make money?

If you don't like their profit margin, stop buying gas, or buy gas from someone else.

wizzy

nms wrote: »

They're increasing their corporate profits by not sending them. :rolleyes:

Come off it guys, Exxon happens to be in a very profitable market. What's wrong with them doing what they're supposed to do: make money?

If you don't like their profit margin, stop buying gas, or buy gas from someone else.

Exactly!

George Grand

They're recording record profits NOW. The **** is $3/gallon. Am I supposed to trust these guys to rush out and develop alternative sources of energy (let's face it, we've known there was a problem since about 1970) when the price gets to $4/5/6/gallon? There is less of the **** in the ground. Supply and demand? I'm thinking we'll see $10/gallon before you get a real alternative. If you think there are record profits now, I don't think we've seen anything yet.

Dennis Gardner

Exxon's largest shareholders are pension funds and mutual fund holders, so when they reap, so do we.

I would rather see Exxon post record profits at the hand of CITGO, but that is wishful thinking.......Chavez isn't my favorite dictator.

shack

Exxon, as one of the largest corporations in the world, was generating record proffits when gas was at $.99 a gallon. The fact that their profits are a record now has to do with their sheer size and inflation. Their profit margin is very similar to what it has been over decades.

It's just like with movies. A movie in 2007 grosses $200,000,000 in the first week. A movie in 1977 grosses $50,000,000 in it's first week. The 2007 movie is a record..but the 1977 movie sold more tickets and more importantly...generated a greater profit based on margin.

Yes in actual dollars it is a record...but you have to compare based on inflation and compare based on percentages...not raw numbers.

PolkWannabie

SKsolutions wrote: »

Objecting to abject stupidity is not being 'defensive'. I would also like to take a moment to thank you for informing me of what I need to 'realize' and 'admit'. So I'm clear, I made some scribbles.

I am Exxon
Us = Exxon
Them = Exxon
Exxon = Exxon

It's clear now.

Obviously not enough notes nor ones you can read later since you still don't understand the definition nor the formula for area.

HiPerf360

And the little fact that the only one group pays for everything...


The end user.

PolkWannabie

Given that in the average state that the combined federal and state taxes on a gallon of gas exceed corporate profits, perhaps one should look elsewhere to gripe as opposed to at an industry that actually provides other little things like jobs ...

Then again maybe we can just double those taxes so we can have free healthcare.

Demiurge

PolkWannabie wrote: »

Given that in the average state that the combined federal and state taxes on a gallon of gas exceed corporate profits, perhaps one should look elsewhere to gripe as opposed to at an industry that actually provides other little things like jobs ...

Then again maybe we can just double those taxes so we can have free healthcare.

Bingo.

wizzy

Or at least raise the taxes on gas enough to cover the cost of roads, instead of subsidizing them with money from income taxes, sales tax, etc.

I would throw in property tax too, but most people would like the fire trucks to be able to get to their house if it's on fire, or the ambulance ...

I myself can't complain about gas taxes when it doesn't even cover the costs of the infrastructure needed to support the car nation.

PolkWannabie

It doesn't cover the cost ? ... Or it's being spent elsewhere ?

wizzy

PolkWannabie wrote: »

It doesn't cover the cost ? ... Or it's being spent elsewhere ?

It's weird - something like 60% of fed goes to fed roads, and 40% gets used in unrelated items. But, then they take other unrelated taxes and use those for roads.

Everything I've ever read says taxes on gas don't cover costs, and they *really* don't cover costs when you factor in those things that are car/road related that aren't obvious to the general person.

The thing is, if we has gas taxes that covered the costs to maintain the infrastructure for the last fifty years the cost of gas would have got more people buying efficient cars. In European countries where gas costs have reflected the costs of driving, 40+MPG cars are commonplace and dominant.

Read this:

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm wrote:

The 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study found that vehicle user fees (fuel taxes, registration fees and road tolls) would need to increase by more than 43% to fund all roadway expenses, and more if other motor vehicle externalities are to be internalized through fuel taxes. Puentes and Prince (2003) analysis indicates that fuel taxes would need to approximately double if user fees are to cover all roadway costs. Fuel taxes in Canada are also less than total roadway expenditures (Blanchard, 1996).

Demiurge

Do you even know what you just copied any pasted?