Exxon shatters profit records

2

Comments

  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    jlew24asu wrote:
    by this i'm sure you are blame them for being a money hungry corporate giant that steals from the little guy.

    do you drive a car?


    your attitude is awesome!! you better figure out a way to sell your pictures to oil companies or send them overseas...no one is gonna buy crappy pictures they could edit themselves in an economy that is broken
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    slightofjeff wrote:
    woo hoo! My Exxon stock is going to go through the roof. Suck on that! The haves be having more.


    are you kidding?
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    macgyver06 wrote:
    are you kidding?

    I'm not kidding about my Exxon stock going up.
    I am kidding with the "suck on that" comment.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    I'm no fan, but any record breaking profits fall squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. Anyone here ride the bus? Bike or walk on two mile trips instead of drive. If you are driven by convenience and live an auto-dependant lifestyle, YOU are the reason for those profits. Or course gas prices are going to be high. The prices are inelastic--when the prices go up, demand does not go down that much.

    We're the chumps.

    Would you lower the price of your good if sales at high prices were through the roof? Out of the goodness of your heart? Exxon owes us nothing in terms of cheap gas. We owe it to ourselves. Now everyone get a bike and a bus pass. Don't ask what your community can do for you, ask what you can do for your community--make a sacrifice. If you use less gas, the price won't matter as much.

    This is where the oil companies have most of us by the balls. Suburban sprawl has flung many consumers miles away from their places of business. Many urban areas STILL don't have great public transportation. I live in a suburb outside of San Antonio -- a city of a million people. There is no possible way for me to get to work except to drive.

    The city of San Antonio has a public bus system ... which doesn't reach the suburbs. I wouldn't be surprised if other cities of similar size were the same way.

    I guess I could move closer to my place of business ... but how the hell am I supposed to sell my house in this market? :)
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    slightofjeff wrote:
    This is where the oil companies have most of us by the balls. Suburban sprawl has flung many consumers miles away from their places of business. Many urban areas STILL don't have great public transportation. I live in a suburb outside of San Antonio -- a city of a million people. There is no possible way for me to get to work except to drive.

    The city of San Antonio has a public bus system ... which doesn't reach the suburbs. I wouldn't be surprised if other cities of similar size were the same way.

    I guess I could move closer to my place of business ... but how the hell am I supposed to sell my house in this market? :)

    You just crossed into my professional field.

    Sprawl is a function of two things. First and foremost, it's a function of the market. White flight, desire for big yards, perceptions of bad schools, the relative ease in the 1950s to get anywhere by car without parking and traffic problems (a thing of the past now), etc. I hear you on the cost of housing comment. Lending practices are also pro-sprawl, unwittingly. They do not take into consideration the reduced travel expense of living in the City--If a 2-car family can be a one car family and drive a quarter of the miles, there are a lot of savings there, but from what I am told, that is not recognized at the banks. The second thing is that federal government practices have a very sprawl inducing history. The homeownership programs after WWII were very suburban-oriented and generally were anti multi-family house. Tack on the immediate love affair with the automobile and the highways that the government funded, ignoring transit, and you have a recipe for sprawl. (I toook some of this, and recommend, "Inside Game, Outside Game" by David Rusk).

    And the problem with Transit now is that the development is so spread out that it just cannot efficiently cover the suburbs. My City, Minneapolis, has bus service to the suburbs, but it gets inefficant in a hurry.

    Nevertheless, we continue to make choices. Developers continue to develop strip development that is conducive to the car. State DOTs (at least one in another state I used to work in) continue to have anti-sidewalk rules because we like low taxes. The market (i.e. the choices we continue to make to this day) continues to do things that lead to oil dependancy, and the government continues only to make marginal improvements (when not screwing it up, particularly at the federal level). All you and I can do is examine our own behaviors and do our best minimize our dependance. Every time I see a Ford Expedition owner whine about the price of gas, I have to try had to contain my laughter--but our behavior (and I am guilty of some bad convenience-driven behavior myself) is as important as our chosen vehicle.

    Edit: Misread your housing comment. You were talking about selling your house. I was thinking about the cost difference in the City vs. the suburbs. Well my point stands about the lending practices. As for selling your house, now's probably not a great time, but you did make a choice to live there. Do the oil companies exploit that? Sure. But most companies can be counted on to exploit what they can to make money.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    macgyver06 wrote:
    your attitude is awesome!! you better figure out a way to sell your pictures to oil companies or send them overseas...no one is gonna buy crappy pictures they could edit themselves in an economy that is broken

    More often than not, I agree with your politics more than Jlew's, but this smart-ass comment is in response to a smarmy, yet totally relevant question of "do you drive a car?" At the risk of putting words in his mouth...think of your own behavior when you are unhappy about gas prices and Exxon profits. It's not truely whether you drive, but what kind of car, do you drive two blocks to visit your buddy, do you know the little rules of gas saving (i.e. trip-chaining), do you forgo some of that convenience in order to save on gas.

    Perhaps it is YOUR attitude that is awsome.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    it's funny when we talk about how this "war" benefits the oil companies - people always say it doesn't ... well, if this ain't proof - nothing is gonna convince peeps that this "war" was an imperialistic venture ...

    send you troops to die, kill innocent civilians including children - all so your oil companies and defense contractors can make record profits ... all the while - your debt as a citizen of your country continues to mount ...
    Oil companies are primarily making record profits base on higher pump prices. This is a great thing for the environment. I want higher pump prices, it allows for more alternative green sources of power to be viable.

    And don't forget that the whole record profit thing is just a hoax. I could boast I had record income this past year as well. With inflation every year should be a record year for profit and income for every company and individual. If not you have serious problems.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    surferdude wrote:
    Oil companies are primarily making record profits base on higher pump prices. This is a great thing for the environment. I want higher pump prices, it allows for more alternative green sources of power to be viable.

    Hopefully it leads to this.
    surferdude wrote:

    And don't forget that the whole record profit thing is just a hoax. I could boast I had record income this past year as well. With inflation every year should be a record year for profit and income for every company and individual. If not you have serious problems.

    Interesting point. A few years ago, as gas prices went up and people got upset, I think that they were actually, adjusted for inflation, the lowest since the early 1980s. I don't think that's the case anymore.

    But yeah, any discussion of historic profit using nominal (as opposed to real) dollars is fairly meaningless.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Oil companies are primarily making record profits base on higher pump prices. This is a great thing for the environment. I want higher pump prices, it allows for more alternative green sources of power to be viable.

    And don't forget that the whole record profit thing is just a hoax. I could boast I had record income this past year as well. With inflation every year should be a record year for profit and income for every company and individual. If not you have serious problems.

    uhh ... did you read the article? ... it says profits are due to oil prices and that gasoline was not a huge factor ...

    again - i don't care how much they make - they could make trillions ... i just don't like the WAY they made it ... through fraud wars ...
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    the problem is HOW they are making this profit ... it's through record high oil prices ... why are oil prices at a record high? ... cuz of instability throughout the world ... why is there instability? ... cuz america has gone to war in that region and are threatening another country ... why are they going to war in the middle east? ... so that they can destabilize the region? ... why do they want to do that? ... so, that companies like exxon can make record profits ...

    :)


    But doesn't it stand to reason that in these areas are unstable the costs to operate them are going to go up? I mean if you are running oil in a country that could blow up at any minute it seems pretty reasonable that it is going to cost more to get people to work there, it is going to cost more to get equipment delivered there, it is going to cost more to insure your holdings and so on.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    But doesn't it stand to reason that in these areas are unstable the costs to operate them are going to go up? I mean if you are running oil in a country that could blow up at any minute it seems pretty reasonable that it is going to cost more to get people to work there, it is going to cost more to get equipment delivered there, it is going to cost more to insure your holdings and so on.

    they don't care ... the people they have to pay to handle all these issues are also posting record profits ... the thing is they wouldn't have access to this oil without these wars ...
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    they don't care ... the people they have to pay to handle all these issues are also posting record profits ... the thing is they wouldn't have access to this oil without these wars ...

    That doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think oil companies would prefer to work in unstable areas rather than areas of political stability (if that was the case how do you explain the Alberta oil sands and Canada being the US's biggest oil supplier)? The lack of stability has to cost them more and cut into their profits.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    That doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think oil companies would prefer to work in unstable areas rather than areas of political stability (if that was the case how do you explain the Alberta oil sands and Canada being the US's biggest oil supplier)? The lack of stability has to cost them more and cut into their profits.

    they don't care about instability ... it's the price they pay to have oil at $90 a barrel ... it's not that they choose unstable ones over stable ones ...

    look at why the US overthrew mossadegh in iran ... it was because he nationalized their oil ... oil companies want access to oil - plain and simple ... saddam nationalized the oil ... guess what? ... more instability ...

    the article lays it out ... exxon posts record profits due to the price of crude oil ... the price of crude doesn't get so high without the instability in the region ...
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    You just crossed into my professional field.

    Sprawl is a function of two things. First and foremost, it's a function of the market. White flight, desire for big yards, perceptions of bad schools, the relative ease in the 1950s to get anywhere by car without parking and traffic problems (a thing of the past now), etc. I hear you on the cost of housing comment. Lending practices are also pro-sprawl, unwittingly. They do not take into consideration the reduced travel expense of living in the City--If a 2-car family can be a one car family and drive a quarter of the miles, there are a lot of savings there, but from what I am told, that is not recognized at the banks. The second thing is that federal government practices have a very sprawl inducing history. The homeownership programs after WWII were very suburban-oriented and generally were anti multi-family house. Tack on the immediate love affair with the automobile and the highways that the government funded, ignoring transit, and you have a recipe for sprawl. (I toook some of this, and recommend, "Inside Game, Outside Game" by David Rusk).

    And the problem with Transit now is that the development is so spread out that it just cannot efficiently cover the suburbs. My City, Minneapolis, has bus service to the suburbs, but it gets inefficant in a hurry.

    Nevertheless, we continue to make choices. Developers continue to develop strip development that is conducive to the car. State DOTs (at least one in another state I used to work in) continue to have anti-sidewalk rules because we like low taxes. The market (i.e. the choices we continue to make to this day) continues to do things that lead to oil dependancy, and the government continues only to make marginal improvements (when not screwing it up, particularly at the federal level). All you and I can do is examine our own behaviors and do our best minimize our dependance. Every time I see a Ford Expedition owner whine about the price of gas, I have to try had to contain my laughter--but our behavior (and I am guilty of some bad convenience-driven behavior myself) is as important as our chosen vehicle.

    Edit: Misread your housing comment. You were talking about selling your house. I was thinking about the cost difference in the City vs. the suburbs. Well my point stands about the lending practices. As for selling your house, now's probably not a great time, but you did make a choice to live there. Do the oil companies exploit that? Sure. But most companies can be counted on to exploit what they can to make money.


    Good stuff, probably a stupid question from me here kind of along the same lines.... how come renters can't take the cost of renting off thier taxes? More people in the city rent. Why isn't that worthy of a tax right off I'm still out the money?
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    polaris wrote:
    they don't care about instability ... it's the price they pay to have oil at $90 a barrel ...

    Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone)

    But Exxon REFINES oil. They don't sell oil.

    $90 a barrell is the cost Exxon has to PAY for oil. It's not the cost it RECEIVES for oil.

    I'm thinking Exxon would benefit from high oil prices the way McDonald's would benefit from high beef prices.

    But, again, correct me if I'm wrong.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    slightofjeff wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone)

    But Exxon REFINES oil. They don't sell oil.

    $90 a barrell is the cost Exxon has to PAY for oil. It's not the cost it RECEIVES for oil.

    I'm thinking Exxon would benefit from high oil prices the way McDonald's would benefit from high beef prices.

    But, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

    no ... they are in the extraction business ... see article - record profits due to high prices of crude ...
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    slightofjeff wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone)

    But Exxon REFINES oil. They don't sell oil.

    $90 a barrell is the cost Exxon has to PAY for oil. It's not the cost it RECEIVES for oil.

    I'm thinking Exxon would benefit from high oil prices the way McDonald's would benefit from high beef prices.

    But, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

    Exxon recorded the highest profit by a company EVER. Haven't checked lately but I think it was $35 billion in a year.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Good stuff, probably a stupid question from me here kind of along the same lines.... how come renters can't take the cost of renting off thier taxes? More people in the city rent. Why isn't that worthy of a tax right off I'm still out the money?

    That I don't know the answer to. I suspect it is because government tends not to want to do things that provide incentives to rent.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    More often than not, I agree with your politics more than Jlew's, but this smart-ass comment is in response to a smarmy, yet totally relevant question of "do you drive a car?" At the risk of putting words in his mouth...think of your own behavior when you are unhappy about gas prices and Exxon profits. It's not truely whether you drive, but what kind of car, do you drive two blocks to visit your buddy, do you know the little rules of gas saving (i.e. trip-chaining), do you forgo some of that convenience in order to save on gas.

    Perhaps it is YOUR attitude that is awsome.


    im not unhappy about gas prices.. you are aware you are paying over 7 dollars a gallon right now though right?
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    macgyver06 wrote:
    im not unhappy about gas prices.. you are aware you are paying over 7 dollars a gallon right now though right?

    No I am not aware of that. Explain.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.

Categories