Political Discussions
Exxon Mobil Quarterly Profit Sets U.S. Record
Posted by satijournal • 7/31/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Buoyed by soaring oil prices, Exxon Mobil Corp. reported $11.7 billion in second-quarter profits, breaking its own record for the highest quarterly earnings in U.S. corporate history.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073100656.ht...
User Comments
-
Again? Isn't this their third record in a row?
Cripes. I'm glad I have not driven my car in a week
(love the cartoon)-
The previous records were for Exxon Mobil. This new record is for any U.S. company.
I'm glad I work at home. People can't afford to put gas in their cars to get to work. It's a total disgrace that the Oil companies are making record profits when the rest of the country is suffering. -
Oh wow...I'm glad I wok at home too
The Mr has a motorcycle, so he gets like 80 miles to the gallon, it's awesome....
I don't understand how people can sit back, and claim hat the profits being made have nothing to do with the high prices of gas. I understand that across the pond a large portion of the price is tax - but in the US it's not.
Then you have some that claim it is the speculative pricing and actual pricing of the barrels that have done it - forgetting to mention that prices were raised on barrels of gas, (already refines or on it's way) in the US prior to the price hikes overseas - ergo they speculated the costs and raised the prices before there was a need to.
AND if it was a mere reflection of inflated oil costs - the company would not be increasing it's margins. Ugh....
-
-
Great minds think alike. I wrote a post about this this morning:
griperblade.blogspot.com/2008/08/corporate-commies.html
Oil companies are basically the beneficiaries of a sort of reverse socialism -- private profits, socialized risk.-
Good article, Wisco. When profits were taxed at a higher rate, oil companies had more incentive to invest that money in exploration and drilling since there's no tax on R&D. The tax cuts had the opposite effect that the right loves to use in their arguments for lower taxes. The oil industry has also become an oligopoly with all the mergers in the past eight years, which allows them to have more control over prices.
-
-
But a company's goal is to make as big a profit as possible.
If you go with the reasoning that a profit is 'too high' then the next step is a cap on how much. That will simply lead to companies moving overseas. Plus, it creates a precedence to be able to implement in other industries. This is not something that is good for business overall.
Businesses are owned by rich people but these people also are the ones who create the wealth and provide jobs. In a sense, corporations are like modern-day fiefdoms. But this time around we do have a say.
Give Exxon Mobil the green light to drill anywhere they want in the US and you will see lots of spending of those billions on R&D. Instead of punishing them, give them something to do with their profits that benefit us.
Taxing them only gives their money to the government to squander. But what do I know, I'm looking at something rationally when pols don't think that way because it doesn't further their career.-
"Too much" profit for an industry that a country relies on for it's survival is a profit that comes at the expense of said country, or populace.
Oil is necessary for the very infrastructure of our country, from production to transportation to individuals using it to make it through the day. The industry itself has set up a pseudo-monopoly and has the US by the testes.
How would people feel if the (entire) agricultural industry simply decided to increase it's profit margin by gouging the consumers for products they need for survival?
How would you like to pay $8 for a loaf of bread? Or $10 for a gallon of milk? Would you like to go without meals all while the industries making said products are raking in the largest profits of any industry?
The price gouging has already had detrimental effects on ALL industries as the oil industry has its fingers in every industry, in some form or fashion. It can't continue. The company can make a sacrifice for the country that allows it to operate and make such large profits - by sacrificing a million here, or a million there.
They aren't going to go out of business because of it, that's for sure. In fact, they may even endear themselves to the public that currently has a very bitter tastes in their mouths. -
The problem is that the current situation is bass-ackward. We've socialized risk for corporations, so they get tax credits and subsidies, while we get squat. Personally, I don't think a company that routinely makes more profit than any company in history -- itself included -- needs a govt. handout to get along.
How about we take off the training wheels for a little while before we give them another set in the form of tax cuts? -
Same thing with Sallie Mae and Freddy Mac. We take the risk and shareholders and the CEOs take the profits that were made before this latest thing. Of course, Democrats had to do this bailout, but that's another matter.
-
That is true Anok but Exxon Mobil is just one company in the industry and there aren't many US-owned oil companies anymore. Almost all the oil comes from government-owned or controlled corporations overseas. All a windfall profit tax does is punish the few remaining domestic companies. We would be hurting ourselves because the same standards would not apply to the industry as a whole. You can't play the tax game with businesses anymore because it is a global economy and they will simply uproot and move to another country.
I understand that Exxon Mobil's profits are mind-boggling and with those numbers it would be nice if they gave something back to the 7 billion people that contributed to their wealth. But what we are doing is telling a business how to spend their profits. And if we give the solons this tool to use they won't apply it to what's right, like say the Health Care industry which gouges us worse then oil, but whatever they feel is best which is never truly in OUR best interest.
There is a bigger picture to 'punishing' oil profits then we would like to realize and it could cost jobs here in this country as well as set a bad precedent for a society based on capitalism. -
I'm not talking about windfall profits tax - or even "giving back" to the community, or where/how to spend their profits - but rather let's see them price their products the same way they would if they actually had competition. (Which they don't).
Monopolies were made illegal for a reason - it's one of the few laws I agree with. (Mainly because it regulates the corner of the world that has the fewest scruples and the greatest potential for damage, all in the name of money).
That said, if the oil companies had competition, and the government wasn't so deep in protecting their own investments, do you think gas prices would be anywhere near as high as they are? I don't.
In light of recent economic events in pairing with historical economics events I wouldn't oppose a profit cap on necessary commodities like oil, energy, etc. I know our government locally has already put a percentage cap in place and the energy companies must prove that the price increase is justified before being able to jack up prices.
It has prevented the energy monopoly in my hometown from utterly gouging customers literally out of house and home.
Even then, they are still making their projected margins, increasing their profits, and are in no danger of going broke. They, of course DID find a loophole, and found a way to legally double charge customers, but that's another story
I see no reason why the oil companies shouldn't be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. If their price increases are legitimate, they will get the increases they need, if not - they won't be allowed to gouge consumers.
Necessary commodities are NOT the industry that should be based on speculation, nor should it go without stringent regulation OR competition.
-
-
The oil companies are getting rich at the expense of peace and our environment. Were it not for the vast amounts of money they put into electing people like Reagan and the two Bushes, we would have far less of a dependence on oil, hence far fewer problems in the Middle East and a less serious environmental crisis. -
We're fighting a war for the benefit of the oil industry. The least they can do is help pay for it.
-
There is a bigger picture to 'punishing' oil profits then we would like to realize and it could cost jobs here in this country as well as set a bad precedent for a society based on capitalism.
Two points; a heavily subsidized industry ain't capitalism, it's corporatism. Capitalism doesn't socialize risk, overhead, and loss.
Also, dependence on oil isn't creating jobs, it's costing them.
www.iags.org/costofoil.html
Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which, according to a study [PDF; www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/pdf/ORNL_TM_2000_152.pdf] commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last 30 years. That is more than the cumulative cost of all of the wars fought by the U.S. since the Revolutionary War. The transfer of wealth to oil-producing countries -- $1.16 trillion over the past thirty years -- significantly increased our trade deficit. The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment.
Before you point out that this is foreign oil, consider that we don't have enough oil -- even with radically increased production -- to cover our oil use. Oil has reached the Hubbert's peak (www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=news&sid=arur.i7moHMs). In addition, the oil we'd get from US sources would be traded on a global market; i.e., a lot would be sent overseas. -
"I see no reason why the oil companies shouldn't be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. If their price increases are legitimate, they will get the increases they need, if not - they won't be allowed to gouge consumers."
Exxon Mobil's net profit margin was only 8.5%. Disney's was 13.9%. Lilly was 16.8%. Wow nobody is talking windfall profit taxes when it comes to the #1 drug manufacturer.
So in order to have a windfall profits tax it would have to be based on gross profit as a dollar amount and not a percentage?-
Yep, that's the right-wing defense of the oil companies. It's been parroted all over the internet.
Obviously it couldn't be a percentage. Some guy making something out of his garage might have a 75% profit margin. -
I'm not talking about a windfall profit tax - for the second time.
I'm talking about regulated price increases for essential commodities, OR create a competitive market.
Either they need to prove justification for price/rate increases before being able to make the numbers jump up, or they don't get to raise the price OR they need to do away with this pseudo-monopoly. and allow a competitive market to regulate the prices....The latter is never going to happen, so in my opinion, it would have to be the former.
-
-
A countering opinion to a left-wing argument is always going to be considered right-wing. I could say your opinion is the left-wing response but all I would be doing is trying to reduce the value or relevance of it. Good try though.
Let's cut to the chase here....
How much profit is too high for an American company? In dollars amount of course.-
Already answered that - so let's cut to the REAL chase...
What are we, the US citizens, gonna do about it?
-
-
I can't see how regulated price increases are any better. Not only are you telling a private company what they can charge for a product or service but it also creates a government entity which must regulate and manage the process.
Why would you want the government determining the prices of anything?-
Considering the influence the the oil companies have had on our government over the past half century, that's a really ludicrous question.
-
Why? So they can't gouge us for necessary commodities.
For the same reason the utility companies where I live are subject to that very premise. Had they not been regulated in that manner, our energy prices (here) would have gone so high, no one would be able to afford it but the wealthy - had they gotten (all) the increases they asked for we would be paying triple what we are paying now...
Why? because it works.
I don't give a rat's ass about the oil companies being "private industries" they are private companies supplying necessary commodities to people - and businesses - that rely on the oil for survival at the moment.
They have shown time and time again that they will hike prices to make a profit regardless of the detrimental effect - if they are willing to take actions in the name of profit that could cause economic fallouts to the nth degree without any regard to the people it would harm - why should we care about their profits, their business or their "rights" as a private business?
As far as I'm concerned, private businesses are entities that are not human, and not entitled to rights. They are not humans, they are not "citizens" no matter what their technical status says.
What they have are privileges, privileges that can and should be revoked when they starting harming the community at large.
Edited to add: Had this been a truly competitive market, and oil was not a necessity and Big Oil was not essentially a monopoly - any other business who engages in practices the wya they do would have been put out of business long ago - or never acted this way in the first place.
Let's get real here...they do what they do because they can, and they will.
-
-
If they had that much influence, why have we drilled less and less of our own domestic oil since the 1970's? And why have there been no new refineries in decades in this country?
If anything the government restricts them and has succeeded at doing so. There is power of course but it is clearly not on the oil companies side. If it were they would be doing a lot more domestic drilling and refining.
Honestly, I can't understand why the American oil companies still try to lobby our pols. They aren't getting anything out of it.-
Other than spending hundreds of millions fighting wars for oil instead of developing alternative energy sources or getting serious about conservation?
-
The government "restricts" them and they are not, and have not, been drilling here not because of altruistic "green" reasons - but because basic supply and demand.
Less supply + high demand = big profits.
The shareholders and investors of Big Oil on The Hill aren't stupid.
The moment that oil prices rose too high and oil crisis analysts began stating we couldn't rely on foreign oil for much longer was when the eco-friendly charade in Washington was dropped - and the call to drill at home, in wild life refugee areas was put on the table, and the green lobbyists were essentially told to go to hell
-
-
So what?! Their margin was less than just about any other company. The reason it is so high is because the price of oil is high.
If you want to decrease the price of oil, drill here...drill now...pay less.-
I'll bet you can't cite a serious study that says prices will go down in any significant manner.
-
Mark, you really just go around the board banning peoples comments that you disagree with don't you.
It is called basic economics sunshine. -
I don't ban anything. Admin removes comments that entail personal attacks. But that happened on another thread. Why would you got there here too? Why more name-calling?
Back to the topic. You claim gas prices would go down. I suggested that no serious study shows that. And I suggested you couldn't cite one here either. Is your criticism confirmation of my conjecture?
"Basic economics" as you call it, seems to be more about your intuition. Even the oil companies aren't making the claims you are. So again. Can you go beyond your common sense to cite a study? Or not? -
It's the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity school of debate. You don't offer any actual facts, you just try to shout the other guy down. If you're a big enough blowhard and loudmouth, then you win.
It's a simple strategy for simple people. -
Prices don't need to go down beyond the minuscule amount to keep people from rioting in the streets. Once the Oil companies have found their threshold, they'll stick with it.
Why? Because they are a pseudo-monopoly with a serious grip on America.
The reason it is so high is because the price of oil is high.
No shit Sherlock. Oh, you meant the barrels, not the price gouging at home...
Listen, when projected profits for a necessary commodity become more important than the economic welfare of the country that allows for such gross profits, you have a problem.
A serious problem.
We aren't talking about used cars or LCD TV's or iPhones here. We're talking about the substance that courses through the veins of this country.
Let's get real for a moment, talking about how "low the profit margin" is for a necessary commodity - when in reality most people are comparing it to the higher profit margins of luxury items such as entertainment devices, and conveniences...
It's intellectually and economically disingenuous. And everyone who throws that stat up knows it.
-
-
This is the future of transportation -- not oil
The Chevrolet Volt is due to be on the market late 2010 -- just two years from now. It's a plug-in hybrid vehicle that is driven by an electric motor and has a gasoline engine powered generator to charge the battery on extended trips.
The main sticking point is battery technology. They're just too expensive right now, but with more and more companies getting into the industry, it won't be long before prices come down and technology advances enough to make it feasible.
It would take 10 years to get any oil on the market from a new lease, and it would do little to affect the price of gas. Plug-in hybrid technology will reduce demand for oil and will lower gas prices.-
It could also save GM.
-
-
I suspect the future is going to involve a lot less traveling in personal vehicles, however they're powered.
-
Hey, maybe the silver lining will be lower rates of obesity and obesity related diseases
I know I sure walk and bike a heckuvalot more than I used to. And my waist line is thanking me for it!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
