It's Official - Exxon Hits Record Profits for Any Corporation Ever
07-31-2008, 09:08 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
I wonder how relevant the car industry will suddenly become if the government helps themselves to some revenue from hydrogen fuel cells?
Maybe the British car industry (what's left of it) is more in line with his way of thinking?
This way, there is no threat of GM ever getting the hydrogen fuel cell to market... to compete against BIG OIL.Just some thoughts to ponder.
07-31-2008, 11:08 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 85
exxon pays 32billionish in taxes every quarter..thats what 128billion per year not including all the other taxes our lovely gubment throws at em....and you think those retards in washington want lower gas prices?...i think not....
08-01-2008, 02:42 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Exactly. The costs of pulling crude out of the ground and refining it have not increased, at least not nearly at the same rate as the value of oil has risen. Therefore, mega-profits. The oil companies haven't had to do much of anything except run their business, sit back and watch the dough roll in.
And before we get too rah-rah about a possible "windfall profit" tax, just who do you think will be paying that tax in the end? Remember, higher costs for anything are A-L-W-A-Y-S passed on to the consumer.
And before we get too rah-rah about a possible "windfall profit" tax, just who do you think will be paying that tax in the end? Remember, higher costs for anything are A-L-W-A-Y-S passed on to the consumer.
The more profit, the higher the tax. Nothing is passed onto the consumer, and it's written exactly that way.
Not everyone here on this site is rooting for not just a corperation that has made more money than any corperation in human history while we are paying record prices, or a single company that makes more in just 6 months than the entire total of cash the General Motors Corperation has available in the bank to run itself and bring new vehicles out.
Consider that the developing the Zeta platform and all derivitives to date (including the Camaro) equals about a week and a half of profit for just Exxon alone.
Or consider this, the $7.4 billion Cerberus paid for Chrysler, Exxon made in less than 2 months.
Exxon ALONE has makes enough profit to buy all 3 US automakers with cash, and have billions in profit left over from the last 12 months.
Meanwhile, we have roads deteriorating & 46% of US bridges in serious need of attention or repair.
Last edited by guionM; 08-01-2008 at 02:45 AM.
08-01-2008, 07:10 AM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
And before we get too rah-rah about a possible "windfall profit" tax, just who do you think will be paying that tax in the end? Remember, higher costs for anything are A-L-W-A-Y-S passed on to the consumer.
Here was my response regarding oil, our dollar, a windfall tax and how I would do it if I were wrongfully sentenced to a term in the white house...
"Here's my parting salvo....
* Get our @ss out of the middle east pronto. We should never have gone in there like we did to start with.
* Funnel $80-BILLION a year back into paying off the unimaginable debt that we have to China and Japan. Imagine what the dollar would do if we went back to financial stability here at home instead of being in hock to Asia.
* Slide $1 or $2-BILLION of that savings into education while we are at it. No friggin way we are going to win a war of intellect when workers get a 1-2% raise but education costs go up 15-20% annually. That SH1+ MUST STOP. Asia is setting the benchmark for educating their people at little or no cost. I saw China training and educating our employees at no charge before they were brought to our facility for employment - 16-20 year old kids.
* Implement the windfall tax on energy companies with a conditional clause... If they reinvest 25% of their NET PROFITS into development of alternative fuel sources, improved refining methods, infrastructure for electrics and/or bio fuels, etc then they are exempt from the windfall tax. In other words, if you won't invest in our nations future on your own, "we'll help you do it". That still leaves them a sickening 75% of $40-Billion/year to wallow in and I think that's PLENTY. If/when their profits come back to parity with other large industries, the windfall tax becomes unapplicable and lies dormant. No profits, no taxes - fair?
* If they resist or start jumping through loopholes to get around doing what is fair and right, slide the noose shut on them and regulate ALL fuel pricing in the USA - just like electricity. I personally would like to see that happen anyways, but I'll give the greedy bastards a chance to show me that they can do what is right if given a chance (why we should need to explain it to them in the first place demonstrates their mentality though... so I digress).
* STOP subsidizing farmers to NOT grow grains. Flood the market with the crap and drive prices down. Feed people and fuel people... dammit. If anything, subsidize them TO plant grains so they can maybe make a decent living while making a sellable good. (This item is not aimed at farmers, but government. I know farmers are struggling to make a profit as it is, but that (IMO) is due to governmental policy and the growth of huge ag-companies that rum farms like a production line and have shifted the profit from the man growing the product to the company packing it and retailing it - which I think is unfair. I would advocate pushing the profits back to the grower to a point of equality with the distributor.)
* START leveraging our ability to produce grain and food for the world like the world is leveraging our dependence on their oil. Hey Russia/China... You want grain? We want cheap oil, steel, and concrete. Let's talk.
* STOP allowing our manufacturing to flee the country like rats from a sinking ship. Manufacturing is the conversion of raw materials and resources into something of elevated value and use, i.e. "wealth". If you are not "making something", you are not "creating wealth". All services are simply a relocation or minor adjustment to the wealth created by someone else. As a service provider, you will NEVER see the same level of wealth created by producer. Example... a new TV costs me $600... it goes "pop" one day and doesn't work... a repairman says it will be $100 for the service call and $400 to fix it... do I repair or replace... economics standard says if the repair cost is more than 40% of a depreciated value - you replace. So what does the repair man get out of it compared to the TV manufacturer? They sell 2 sets, the repair man wasted his time and effort quoting the repair."
I don't have the solution to everything, but I can offer some suggestions instead of passivity, complacency, and the desire to just accept what I get.
08-01-2008, 08:55 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
I was waiting for that post from you, PP. Well said.
Why are politicians complete fools? Is it greed? Is it power? Surely it can't be because they care about their country because every politician (IMHO) is only concerned about their own well being. If they did care, they'd fix health and education... that's what's really most important in life... because if money wasn't a means of survival, it would be totally irrelevant to our well being.
Why are politicians complete fools? Is it greed? Is it power? Surely it can't be because they care about their country because every politician (IMHO) is only concerned about their own well being. If they did care, they'd fix health and education... that's what's really most important in life... because if money wasn't a means of survival, it would be totally irrelevant to our well being.
08-01-2008, 09:08 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
08-01-2008, 10:28 AM
#23
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Democrat presidential candidate top contributers:
Goldman Sachs $658,430
University of California $495,159
JPMorgan Chase & Co $423,107
Citigroup Inc $393,904
UBS AG $377,600
Top Industries:
Lawyers/Law Firms $21,126,520
Retired $16,722,771
Securities & Investment $9,472,773
Education $8,024,122
Republican presidential candidate top contributers:
Merrill Lynch $258,360
Citigroup Inc $251,801
Goldman Sachs $197,895
Blank Rome LLP $183,076
AT&T Inc $179,930
Top 5 Industries
Retired $15,391,807
Lawyers/Law Firms $6,179,468
Securities & Investment $5,480,732
Real Estate $4,978,084
Misc Business $2,825,074
Not any mention of car companies or oil companies... Now, once again, who is in the crosshairs of political scrutiny and who is getting bailed out? This is not a call for political debate... just an observation folks can make of what they wish.
Goldman Sachs $658,430
University of California $495,159
JPMorgan Chase & Co $423,107
Citigroup Inc $393,904
UBS AG $377,600
Top Industries:
Lawyers/Law Firms $21,126,520
Retired $16,722,771
Securities & Investment $9,472,773
Education $8,024,122
Republican presidential candidate top contributers:
Merrill Lynch $258,360
Citigroup Inc $251,801
Goldman Sachs $197,895
Blank Rome LLP $183,076
AT&T Inc $179,930
Top 5 Industries
Retired $15,391,807
Lawyers/Law Firms $6,179,468
Securities & Investment $5,480,732
Real Estate $4,978,084
Misc Business $2,825,074
Not any mention of car companies or oil companies... Now, once again, who is in the crosshairs of political scrutiny and who is getting bailed out? This is not a call for political debate... just an observation folks can make of what they wish.
LETS LOOK AT THE CURRENT ADMIN'S RIDE BACK INTO OFFICE IN 2004... (Look at the red ink)
From 2004 Campaign - http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepol...ustrybucks.htm
Defense Sector
Bush: $654,988
Kerry: $173,421
Energy and Natural Resources
Bush: $3,938,588
Kerry: $372,842
Labor
Kerry: $105,825
Bush: $46,150
Construction
Bush: $7,305,421
Kerry: $1,204,781
Industry (civil servants, clergy, education, non-profits, retired)
Bush: $21,429,865
Kerry: $14,826,559
Communications and Electronics
Kerry: $4,979,932
Bush: $4,426,006
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Bush: $28,169,889
Kerry: $7,890,906
Health Care
Bush: $8,527,909
Kerry: $3,405,107
Lawyers and Lobbyists
Kerry: $12,812,930
Bush: $10,621,326
Transportation
Bush: $4,045,459
Kerry: $381,420
Miscellaneous Business
Bush: $16,937,976
Kerry: $6,266,083
So the defense sector (guns, missiles, and bang-bang things) liked Bush ALOT - wonder why?
Also looks like the "energy and natural resources" industry were a little preferential to Dubya, huh?
Transportation, Finance, Health Care, and "industry" (a big bucket) all liked him too. (BTW - WTF do people make in the "retired" industry?!?!)
LETS LOOK AT BUSH SUPPORT OVERALL...
Who was the number 1 corporate contributor to the Bush campaign - Enron.
"The bankrupt energy trader has lost its standing as the top campaign contributor in President Bush's political career, a position it held for years, as company executives gave Mr. Bush $602,625 throughout his tenure as Texas governor and his days in the White House, according to the Center for Public Integrity."
Who was the number 1 individual contributor to the Bush campaign - Ken Lay.
"On the same day Enron filed for bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan revealed that they had all received calls from Enron's CEO, Kenneth L. Lay asking for assistance during Enron's downward spiral. Attorney General John Ashcroft, having received contributions from Enron during his 2000 campaign for Senate, recused himself from the government's criminal investigation. Lay was also the largest individual contributor to President Bush's presidential campaign."
Oil and Gas in Abundance in Washington
provides this little chart...
"According to a recent report by another Washington-based group, the Center for Public Integrity, the oil and gas industry has spent more than 440 million dollars since 1998 on campaign contributions and lobbying. ExxonMobil was the industry's lobbying leader, spending 55 million dollars in Washington since 1998, adds the report, 'The Politics of Oil'. "
LETS LOOK AT SUPPORT FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES TODAY...
Oil Money for McCain - 27July2008
"Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May. "
GOP Candidates for Oil Industry Ties - 29 July 2008
"What kind of mark has Bob Schaffer made as a politician?" says an ad attacking Colorado's Republican Senate candidate and former congressman. "He's left a definite imprint, accepting over $150,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests and voting in Congress to give oil and gas interests over $13 billion in tax breaks."
Oil Money: John McCain's Close Ties to The Petroleum Industry
"Thirty-three McCain staffers and fundraisers have received $9.65 million in lobbying fees from at least 30 oil and gas industry corporations and associations. These lobbying clients’ executives and PACs have donated $225,651 to McCain’s campaigns. "
OK - there's so much of this stuff out there I can't read it all, much less post it here in one post. I didn't even have to go to Cheney and haliburton yet. So I think you get the idea. Be careful of how your sources categorize "industry", because there is a huge difference between the "oil" industry and the "textile" industry, and one can provide good camouflage for the other if thrown into the same bucket.
If anyone wants to argue that oil is not closely tied to a certain political party -much less a small group of people in that party - the table is yours... bring the A-game though.
Aside from anything else, can anyone possibly think that Bush's admin has done anything to help the situation?!?! We're deeper in hock than ever in history, we're in hock to our enemies of WWII and the cold war (of all people), we are occupying countries in which our very ideals are viewed as "evil" because of unsubstantiated accusations, our housing market is dying on the vine, inflation is out of control, helthcare is worse now than it was 8 years ago, social security is foundering... I mean... dang - somebody point out some good things they have done in the last 4 years?!?! One thing for sure, oil has been in the spotlight for bad reasons, and nobody can deny this admin is deep into the oil industry.
08-01-2008, 11:16 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Of course the housing market is going to be down, for years mortgage companies were giving people zero down, initially low interest adjustable rate loans to get people into homes they really couldn't afford. The housing market being what it is has a lot to do with certain groups of people believing that everyone should have the ability to purchase a house -- regardless of whether or not they could afford it. Fiscal responsibility doesn't just end at the governmental level.
Social Security has been wacked for years -- perhaps someone someday will make it enough of a priority to fix.
Social Security has been wacked for years -- perhaps someone someday will make it enough of a priority to fix.
08-03-2008, 08:40 PM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
I just got an offer to "lock-in" on my gas prices from Sept 1 through 30April09 from my gas supplier. At the low-low price of $2.879/gal no less.It's currently selling for $2.679/gal here now. Tells me they think they know something. 
Lasy year I opted not to lock-in, and the a-holes came and filled my tank within a week of the deadline, and charged me $.10/gal more than the lock-in was. Seems they had a price increase the day after the lock-in, and I'm sure I know which customers got filled-up that first few days...
If I want to shop a competitors price, I have to buy the 500-gal tank that has been in the ground for 10+ years. Thing is - competitors prices are better, but not enough to justify paying for the tank.
I freaking LOVE energy companies.
Lasy year I opted not to lock-in, and the a-holes came and filled my tank within a week of the deadline, and charged me $.10/gal more than the lock-in was. Seems they had a price increase the day after the lock-in, and I'm sure I know which customers got filled-up that first few days...
If I want to shop a competitors price, I have to buy the 500-gal tank that has been in the ground for 10+ years. Thing is - competitors prices are better, but not enough to justify paying for the tank.
I freaking LOVE energy companies.
08-04-2008, 08:59 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arcadia, OK
Posts: 669
I just got an offer to "lock-in" on my gas prices from Sept 1 through 30April09 from my gas supplier. At the low-low price of $2.879/gal no less.It's currently selling for $2.679/gal here now. Tells me they think they know something.
Lasy year I opted not to lock-in, and the a-holes came and filled my tank within a week of the deadline, and charged me $.10/gal more than the lock-in was. Seems they had a price increase the day after the lock-in, and I'm sure I know which customers got filled-up that first few days...
If I want to shop a competitors price, I have to buy the 500-gal tank that has been in the ground for 10+ years. Thing is - competitors prices are better, but not enough to justify paying for the tank.
I freaking LOVE energy companies.
Lasy year I opted not to lock-in, and the a-holes came and filled my tank within a week of the deadline, and charged me $.10/gal more than the lock-in was. Seems they had a price increase the day after the lock-in, and I'm sure I know which customers got filled-up that first few days...
If I want to shop a competitors price, I have to buy the 500-gal tank that has been in the ground for 10+ years. Thing is - competitors prices are better, but not enough to justify paying for the tank.
I freaking LOVE energy companies.
08-04-2008, 09:33 AM
#27
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
I assume you're talking about propane. I'm in the same situation, although my tank isn't buried, so I could switch providers; it would just be a hassle. Last week I drove by my provider and there must have been 100 old 500 gallon tanks sitting there. Evidently lots of other folks have switched and had their tanks picked up. I swapped out my traditional A/C /propane furnace for a heat pump/dual fuel set-up in March, so my propane consumption should be 200 gallons instead of 600 gallons this year (propane still used for hot water, stove and emergency back-up home heating). At $3 gallon, that's $1,200 NOT going to the propane people this year. It cost me $3,900 to switch out; that's less than four years break-even. In addition, my old A/C was ten years old anyway, and I now have a brand new one (with a ten year warranty).
We also use gas for the water heater, and cooking. Fortunately the new washer/dryer we bought are electric. We are shopping for solar water-heating systems right now. that will take a big chunk of our year-round usage away, and it looks like good, proven systems can be had for $2500-$3500 complete that piggy-back right on top of the existing gas system.
My family continues to persue energy-savings wherever possible. The gas thing is the last big thorn in our side for now - as far as home life goes. Travelling is another story.
Funny thing is that the same companies that are smacking me at the pumps are the ones smacking me at home too - just through different vendors and/or supply chains. Most oil companies have subsidiaries that are into natural gas, LP gas, and other forms of energy too.
Ever feel like a pork chops at a dog show?
08-05-2008, 01:11 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Re: "Windfall Profits"
Originally Posted by 8/4/08 Wall Street Journal
What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
August 4, 2008; Page A12
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).
If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.
If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?
The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."
General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.
The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
August 4, 2008; Page A12
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).
If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.
If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?
The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."
General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.
The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
08-05-2008, 03:52 PM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
There's definitely 2 sides to this story.
My personal problem is that it is so blatantly obvious that there is simply a transfer of profit taking place because of a monopolistic condition.
The US (and the world) needs fuel to move and make money - PERIOD.
Unless we can make our own fuel (like we can grow our own food and make our own house), we are forced to buy it from suppliers who are licensed to produce and sell it to us. Hence - they have us by the jewel-sack, and we must pay. Personally and professionally.
If you have a small business that depends on transportation to make your money - you are SOL right now. Landscapers, couriers, transport companies, pest control, plumbers, A/C repair, construction companies, etc - they all must go to the jobsite to do their work. These are the ones we see drying up all over the US, because their 5%-10% profit margin has been more than consumed in higher fuel costs - which mean simply that the profit was shifted from the guy doing the work to the gas company that fueled his vehicle.
Again, I don't care if it's .001% or 50% of your total expenditure... $1-Billion is a HUGE amount of money (especially pure profit), and I personally think that is "enough" for any group in a single year.
1-Billion...
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
Now imagine exactly how much $40-Billion a year really is.
I guess my biggest problem with this kind of profits in this business is that it is a protected, closed field in which not just anyone can come in and play too. You or I simply can not start-up a business to compete with them.
If it were shoes or stick-pads - THAT would be another thing.
Anyways - I try to see both sides of any story, but right now what I see a select few gaining a lot at the expense of the very many, and that is NOT what America is founded upon - REGARDLESS of what the f-ing lawmakers and Wall Street Journal writers might say. We should be looking out for each other, taking our fair share but not more than we need, giving to those who need it, helping those trying to help themselves, and trying to kick-*** and take names with respect to other countries and competitors outside. Frankly, I don't think the elite in our country (or any other) give a rats rear about the average working peasant anymore, they are only concerned about their personal bank accounts. ...and that is sad.
My personal problem is that it is so blatantly obvious that there is simply a transfer of profit taking place because of a monopolistic condition.
The US (and the world) needs fuel to move and make money - PERIOD.
Unless we can make our own fuel (like we can grow our own food and make our own house), we are forced to buy it from suppliers who are licensed to produce and sell it to us. Hence - they have us by the jewel-sack, and we must pay. Personally and professionally.
If you have a small business that depends on transportation to make your money - you are SOL right now. Landscapers, couriers, transport companies, pest control, plumbers, A/C repair, construction companies, etc - they all must go to the jobsite to do their work. These are the ones we see drying up all over the US, because their 5%-10% profit margin has been more than consumed in higher fuel costs - which mean simply that the profit was shifted from the guy doing the work to the gas company that fueled his vehicle.
Again, I don't care if it's .001% or 50% of your total expenditure... $1-Billion is a HUGE amount of money (especially pure profit), and I personally think that is "enough" for any group in a single year.
1-Billion...
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
Now imagine exactly how much $40-Billion a year really is.
I guess my biggest problem with this kind of profits in this business is that it is a protected, closed field in which not just anyone can come in and play too. You or I simply can not start-up a business to compete with them.
If it were shoes or stick-pads - THAT would be another thing.
Anyways - I try to see both sides of any story, but right now what I see a select few gaining a lot at the expense of the very many, and that is NOT what America is founded upon - REGARDLESS of what the f-ing lawmakers and Wall Street Journal writers might say. We should be looking out for each other, taking our fair share but not more than we need, giving to those who need it, helping those trying to help themselves, and trying to kick-*** and take names with respect to other countries and competitors outside. Frankly, I don't think the elite in our country (or any other) give a rats rear about the average working peasant anymore, they are only concerned about their personal bank accounts. ...and that is sad.
08-05-2008, 06:06 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: FL/MI
Posts: 1,808
Anyways - I try to see both sides of any story, but right now what I see a select few gaining a lot at the expense of the very many, and that is NOT what America is founded upon - REGARDLESS of what the f-ing lawmakers and Wall Street Journal writers might say. We should be looking out for each other, taking our fair share but not more than we need, giving to those who need it, helping those trying to help themselves, and trying to kick-*** and take names with respect to other countries and competitors outside. Frankly, I don't think the elite in our country (or any other) give a rats rear about the average working peasant anymore, they are only concerned about their personal bank accounts. ...and that is sad.
I can only ask you give a thought that large corporations are not mere greedy entities. I also have great discomfort that politicians can discuss redistribution of wealth and folks raise their arms and cheer without regard to the ramifications. I don't suggest you are doing such a thing, we can agree it's going on. The oils companies are just that... plural. Not monopolies.
If return on investment in the oil business were guranteed, as you suggest, venture capitol would be springing oil companies up left and right.
The numbers are astronomical when viewed by folks that are tightening their belt. It would, however, be not fully earnet to ignore just how much taxes are already being paid.
The US oil companies are exporting oil and that is under the good or bad decisions by our government.. That's republican and democrat.
We do need to look at alternatives that make sense and we aren't ready to get away from oil. I'm not ready to take a lifestyle hit greater than the one I already have because the race to cheap labor has given another country the ability to outbid me for oil rather than the past situation which gave and continue the US citizen the best prices possible on oil. "Greed" is involved but oil pices are a result of policies and not a cause.
I'd rather get some breathing room through all the local sources than bet that everything will get better if the government has an opportunity to play Robin Hood.
IMO, lot of this situation is a bellwhether of what can take place when free trade is confused with fair trade.
We agree on some of the issues. I'm not certain we agree on the resolutions.
As an aside. Weigh this observation as you wish:
Sending tax rebate checks to stimulate the economy are somewhat less than max effective when folks take the lump sum and but a big screen TV from the far east...
I am always suspicious when the folks that brought us the issues that come with greater government controls are getting a lesson in economics from governments that have chosen to relax their hold. Statesmanship is sadly lacking.
