quote:Moreover, drilling will not significantly lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The oil of the Arctic Refuge would not be available for another 10 years, and would provide only a 6-month supply.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should drill in ANWR. Ted Stevens is, but he's pretty well known for his agenda. And he's not on Hatrack.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to this article Exxon's profits rose 7% from a year ago, their revenues 8.45%. (The income per share rose 12%, but there are more outstanding shares, so we look at the total profit numbers.)
Of the $6.93B in new revenues, $0.55B, or 7.93%, of that was profit.
If they were gouging, a much higher percentage of the new revenue would be profit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...are you celebrating the high gas prices?...pinched wallets are what make people change their ways."
Nope, the people who are wasting the most gasoline, who are the most responsible for driving up gasoline/etc* prices don't particularly care about the cost of gas. The price rise ain't all that much when compared to the opportunity**cost of $500 per month (for low end buyers) just for purchasing their gas hog. And that isn't including the opportunity costs for actually driving the vehicle as opposed to driving a car with better fuel economy.
People with pinched wallets weren't driving much even before prices started to rise. People who are currently having their wallets pinched were probably putting on less miles in vehicles using less gasoline per passenger mile than the average driver. Those are the folks who will cease driving. Those are the folks who will end up driving less. Those are the people who will suffer: when crude oil prices go up, so do other energy costs such as those for heating and electicity.
* Fertilizers, plastics, etc prices are directly tied to crude oil prices. The price of food, consumer goods, etc, and natural gas and other energy are indirectly tied to the cost of crude oil.
** Profits lost when money is spent instead of invested.
posted
"The oil of the Arctic Refuge...would provide only a 6-month supply."
I've seen similar figures, vonk. I think that estimate is made under the assumption that the US quits importing crude oil and uses only the ANWR reserves as replacement
"Exxon's profits...7.93%, of that was profit...If they were gouging, a much higher percentage of the new revenue would be profit."
Exxon made record profits in the year previous to that, too. And distributed record dividends Profit is after costs: such as dividends to stock holders, paying their CEO $53million for last year, giving him a $400million retirement package this year, etc I doubt that other Exxon board members and executives are displeased with their increased pay&perks and bonuses either. As well as bonuses and all kinds of perk purchases such as new office furniture, new computers, football/basketball/baseball/theater/plane tickets, reward lunches and dinners, vacation hotel, etc, for their staff.
quote:Profit is after costs: such as dividends to stock holders,
Profits are not reduced by dividends. Dividends affect the balance sheet and the cash flow statement, not the income statement. It's likely that most of the $400 million retirement package isn't being applied as an expense in this quarter.
As for the rest, you would need to present evidence that these expenses have changed as a proportion of revenue for those expenses to support a charge of gouging.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I forgot that the dividend exclusion hasn't taken effect (I wasn't paying enough attention: was it passed?)
Who says that they are gouging? They are charging what the market will bear. I am merely pointing out that Exxon is very happy with the extreme rises in crude oil prices: 10% of $10million is a more pleasing profit than 10% of $3million, n'est-ce pas?
Quite a bit of that profit increase is necessary to be able to buy the same amount of crude oil. When 4barrels of crude costs $300, you need to make 10% profit if the rising market is gonna charge you $330 for your next purchase of 4barrels, just to stay even in your purchasing power within the crude oil market. If you didn't make that amount of profit, you only have enough money to buy 3.6barrels the next time. And if the market keeps rising and you keep refusing to make a profit on your purchase, eventually you won't have enough money to buy any amount of oil. You won't be in the oil business any more.*
I just don't like the crocodile tears being shed by oil industry executives laughing all the way to bank. I dislike watching the oil industry pat itself on the back with extraordinary-performance bonuses when there was no extraordinary service being provided by those executives. Cheetah the chimp could have been the CEO, and the accountants still would have provided the same profit increase on the rise in crude oil prices. I most especially dislike folks trying to obfuscate what is really going on in fear that the cops'll rein in the party.
* Which is one of the reasons why local owners of independent gasoline stations are being hammered: they didn't forsee the rapidity of the price rise with sufficient clarity and failed to charge enough for their gasoline to pay for their gas stations' next tanker-delivery and continue their old ~$0.05 per gallon profit margin. And that ~$0.05 per gallon profit on gasoline wasn't free&clear. It was profit before mortgage/rental payments, equipment loan payments, employee wages, taxes, etc. Their percentage of profit in relationship to the cost of a gallon of gasoline has fallen even more dramaticly.
posted
Yeah, and I think the government should just pay off our national debt by printing more money. I mean, they own the mint. I don't understand why those bozos in congress haven't figured this out yet.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose with inflation, this is roughly equivalent to a chicken in every pot. Particularly if thermal depolymerization becomes practical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and seeing as how my state's junior senator is in on this, I'll quote myself from when he wanted to make it illegal for the National Weather Service to provide weather forecasts to the public:
quote:It's a Speed thing, like the movie. Santorum's got a bomb inextricabily wired into him and if he doesn't embarass himself and his state at least once every 90 days, it'll explode.
Election day is coming, though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: *blink* I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should drill in ANWR.
I am. I'm pro-drilling pretty much everywhere. No, it will not affect gas prices today, or even next year, but we will still need petroleum 10 years from now.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 years from now we should already have this problem solved. That's my only problem with drilling in ANWR, not the environmental concerns.
It gives everyone another chance to pawn this problem off on the next guy, or the next generation, or the next whatever. We should figure this out now, this year, this month if possible. ANWR is a short term solution, not a long term one. Even at 20,000 barrels a day of production, it isn't going to make anything more than a tiny dent in consumption, ESPECIALLY if you consider that in the 10 years from now until production starts, our rate of consumption will have risen beyond what ANWR will produce every day.
Basically, even if we do drill, and get what we expect, it won't even bring us down to 2006 levels of consumption. It does almost nothing to solve the problem, maybe it's even worse than that, because it makes everyone THINK we're solving the problem, whilst the real problem goes unsolved as Republicans pat themselves on the back for a job UNDONE.
Solve the damned problem, long term, forever, then drill to your heart's content.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, if world temperatures go much higher than they are right now, and the permafrost in Alaska melts, you won't even be able to get the oil out of Alaska anyway, the Alaskan pipeline won't work. So good luck with that!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irregardless, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, done responsibly, but see no need to open it now, nor do I think we should. Since we seem constitutionally incapable of saving money, ANWR strikes me as our country's savings account. We shouldn't touch it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Irregardless, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, done responsibly, but see no need to open it now, nor do I think we should. Since we seem constitutionally incapable of saving money, ANWR strikes me as our country's savings account. We shouldn't touch it.
Would you want your savings account tied up such that you can't access it until ten years after you decide you need it?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a Speed thing, like the movie. Santorum's got a bomb inextricabily wired into him and if he doesn't embarass himself and his state at least once every 90 days, it'll explode
It took me a second to figure this out. I was reading santorum with the Savage Love defenition. I was thinking, "I know it's gross, but I still don't get it." Then I realized you meant the person. Hmm...
If this amendment passes, it's proponents are gonna end up with santorum on their hands.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you want your savings account tied up such that you can't access it until ten years after you decide you need it?
Yeah, actually. If you have an asset that is worth a great deal of money, it is possible to capitalize on its value without actually selling it. Borrowing against its value, for one. Which I don't recommend, of course, but it could be done. And then there is just outright sale. We could always sell Alaska if it got that tight. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure the Russians would gladly take it back. Of course, they'd try and buy it with vodka, but given the President's history with alcohol, he just might take the deal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: They don't pay taxes. [edit: to the statement "Even 14 year olds working part-time?"]
And I assume that 'taxpayers' refers to income tax.
Someone may have already pointed this out. But anyone who earns more zero income must file an income tax returen even if they are 14 years old and only work part time. Anyone who earns more than a very base level income, must pay income tax. A 14 year old who who is counted as a dependent on his parents income tax return, can not claim him/herself as a dependent on his/her income tax return and so usually must pay some taxes if he/she earns more than about $900.
My tax software indicates that a 14 year old who earned $1000, would owe $21 in income taxes. Theoretically, such an individual would then receive the $100 tax rebate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry to say that my Senator--Mr. Talent (wrongly named as any person I can think of) is also a sponsor of this public bribe. I am sending him a letter attacking his economic conservative credentials by sponsoring this.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing that amazes me more than how consistently this party underestimates the American people is how often the American people prove them right.
I don't pretend the Democrats wouldn't do similarly if they weren't too pathetic to get away with it, but I'm not sure I'm still capable of outrage with the Republican party. Do I have any expectations left for them to fail?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Now the whole thing about increasing the tax that oil companies pay. Ummm, wouldn't that make things worse? You know they will just pass the expense on to the consumer by raising prices.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it looks like making the oil companies pay for it is the only part they're backing away from.
quote: In a statement, Frist said he will still push the rebate, but abandoned the accounting change and said the Senate Finance Committee planned a hearing on the issue in the near future.
Frist gave no indication how the rebate, estimated to cost about $10 billion, will be paid for, although he said he still planned to "find a way to bring our proposals to the Senate floor for a vote."
Call me cynical, but this really seems like something the GOP wants to push to a vote so they can say "See how we tried to give you a tax rebate but the Democrats voted against it?" in Novemeber. Never mind that the rebate doesn't solve the problem, as many have already said.
quote:Now the whole thing about increasing the tax that oil companies pay. Ummm, wouldn't that make things worse? You know they will just pass the expense on to the consumer by raising prices.
Yes, gas companies would simply raise prices to make the consumers pay for the money being given back to them. It would just mean that taxpayers who don't drive will get $100 for nothing while taxpayers who DO drive would pay not only their own $100 back at the pump but also the $100 being given to those who don't drive. It distributes wealth from drivers to nondrivers.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious, what are the mechanics of putting up a petition to have Bill Frist taken out on the Capital steps and beaten with a copy of The Wealth of Nations?
(Yes, I know it's actually the people out there who don't understand economics and the Senators are just playing to these people's ignorance and stupidity, but still.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
