Exxon Mobil post $39.5 Billion profit in 2006

13»

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    There's a general downturn among employees' opinions regarding oil exploration.

    No there isn't. These numbers prove that the employees' opinions of oil have only gotten better.
    Perhaps incentive to ween Exxon off of oil would be a better use of our overhead dollars.

    Really? Perhaps not buying their products would be a better use of our overhead dollars. The reason you won't propose that, however, is because you realize how inappopriate the word "our" is in your own analogy.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    The previous company didn't allow for employee input and generally sucked at profit sharing.

    Here's some input: I don't want to work for you and I don't want your profits. Do you "allow" that input?
    This one manages the business quite a bit better than that one did at the time.

    I wouldn't be so sure of that, if I were you.
    But it's still the same business.

    Yes it is. It's a business that has failed time and time again throughout history. Even the Catholics can outlast you.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No there isn't. These numbers prove that the employees' opinions of oil have only gotten better.
    Necessities are called necessities because they're necessary.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Really? Perhaps not buying their products would be a better use of our overhead dollars. The reason you won't propose that, however, is because you realize how inappopriate the word "our" is in your own analogy.
    Had I something better to buy, I would.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Necessities are called necessities because they're necessary.

    There's nothing "necessary" about oil. If it were "necessary", we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we wouldn't be here.
    Had I something better to buy, I would.

    http://www.schwinn.com/

    http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

    http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SiteMap

    http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/hobikit.html
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Here's some input: I don't want to work for you and I don't want your profits. Do you "allow" that input?
    Then stop accepting the benefits. There are other companies looking for employees, you know. I hear Dubai's nice this time of year.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    I wouldn't be so sure of that, if I were you.
    When I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. However, I think our business is properly diversified. We're likely in it for the long haul.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes it is. It's a business that has failed time and time again throughout history. Even the Catholics can outlast you.
    Despite what many people think, the Catholic portfolio is quite adaptable. And so are we. You can say they "can" outlast us, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, it's a different market. One that's not shown much success recently in cross promotion.
  • Androgynous Mind
    Androgynous Mind Posts: 520
    Keller wrote:
    Yeah. One problem with alot of people in this country is that they are always looking down upon people making money. I don't understand, i always viewed making money as a good thing.

    I'm pretty impressed that made much. Congrats to them.

    And, no i don't own any oil stock or anything but i'm always impressed by good business.

    I agree completely.

    America is a capitalist, free-enterpirse nation that gives individuals the opportunity to make as much money as they want. This is a business where there is a high demand and the profit margins are excellent.

    If I had the opportunity, I would be in the oil industry. What an opportunity.
    Oh he fills it up with the love of a girl...
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There's nothing "necessary" about oil. If it were "necessary", we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we wouldn't be here.
    I'm not so sure what you mean by that.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://www.schwinn.com/

    http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

    http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SiteMap
    http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/hobikit.html
    I've got a bike. As for the rest, I'll buy 'em when I can afford 'em.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Then stop accepting the benefits. There are other companies looking for employees, you know. I hear Dubai's nice this time of year.

    Land is not a benefit. You didn't make it. You didn't give it value. You didn't exchange for it. You don't own it.
    When I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. However, I think our business is properly diversified.

    Properly diversified??? Your business is based on two things: violence and faithful submission. Perhaps at one point you had respect, but not anymore.
    We're likely in it for the long haul.

    I'm quite sure that's correct.
    Despite what many people think, the Catholic portfolio is quite adaptable. And so are we. You can say they "can" outlast us, but there's no guarantee that they will. Besides, it's a different market. One that's not shown much success recently in cross promotion.

    You compete for the same market using the same tools. The Catholics, however, have a much better fear machine than you do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    I'm not so sure what you mean by that.

    Age of civilization: roughly 10,000 years
    Age of oil consumption: roughly 1,600 years

    There's nothing "necessary" about oil.
    I've got a bike. As for the rest, I'll buy 'em when I can afford 'em.

    Did you steal that bike?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...why not??? Is the principle not exactly what you're founding your stance on? Namely, that men have a fundamental right to the products of the labor of others?

    nope ... not at all ...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I haven't simplified it at all. The system has. It has declared itself the arbiter on ownership, thereby pitting men against each other to protect their wealth from each others' whims. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. Can you tell me how what you're proposing is different?

    according to your simplification ...

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Cool. Since I don't believe in it, I can choose not to then? Or are you going to force me to? And, following that logic, would you support a system wherein I could force you not to?

    i'm not gonna force u to do anything - i'm not the gov't nor lawmaker ... again - what you define as 'force' has many components ... they are not black and white ... while u may see all laws and taxes put forth by gov't as an act of force - i do not ...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Me neither. Nowhere am I defending Exxon's tax breaks. I'm simply defending their right, my right, and your right, to own the products of their labor.

    but they aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else ... they are given preferential treatment ... and to somewhat interject - i do not see the concept of social programs to be the same thing ...
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Land is not a benefit. You didn't make it. You didn't give it value. You didn't exchange for it. You don't own it.
    So all land is free, then? I'm sure you have no problem with people squatting on your property.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Properly diversified??? Your business is based on two things: violence and faithful submission. Perhaps at one point you had respect, but not anymore.
    Yeah, the current CEO has been a bit of a clod. However, there's a lot more involved here than violence and faithful submission. Plenty of incentives, and vast opportunity for upward mobility. Sure, there's cronyism and the board is lousy with people you have no idea how they got where they are - but that goes for most companies.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm quite sure that's correct.



    You compete for the same market using the same tools. The Catholics, however, have a much better fear machine than you do.
    Again, that remains to be seen. However, I still believe these markets split a while back.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Age of civilization: roughly 10,000 years
    Age of oil consumption: roughly 1,600 years

    There's nothing "necessary" about oil.
    Economies change. Our current business model requires oil. Chevy, for example, doesn't deal in horse carriages.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Did you steal that bike?
    Actually, I picked it out of the trash. I did have to buy new tires, though.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    nope ... not at all ...

    Hehe....how???
    according to your simplification ...

    Then, please, show me how my simplification doesn't account for aspects of your system.
    i'm not gonna force u to do anything - i'm not the gov't nor lawmaker ...

    So you're not responsible for your hired goons?
    again - what you define as 'force' has many components ... they are not black and white ... while u may see all laws and taxes put forth by gov't as an act of force - i do not ...

    Ok. What happens if I don't follow them?
    but they aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else ... they are given preferential treatment ...

    How so?? The "poor people" you mentioned earlier also pay very little in taxes. As a matter of fact, Exxon alone pays more taxes than everyone in poverty in America combined. Are they not getting "preferential treatment". In 2005, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron paid roughly $44B in income taxes. That's almost exactly equal to the total amount of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all American wage earners.
    and to somewhat interject - i do not see the concept of social programs to be the same thing ...

    Why not?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    So all land is free, then?

    No. Land is not free. Land is either discovered, purchased from an owner or taken by force.
    I'm sure you have no problem with people squatting on your property.

    Depends on the squatter. But in most cases, I do have a problem with it. However, I own my land. I purchased it from those who occupied it before me.
    Yeah, the current CEO has been a bit of a clod. However, there's a lot more involved here than violence and faithful submission. Plenty of incentives, and vast opportunity for upward mobility.

    Incentives for what? Upward mobility in what?
    Sure, there's cronyism and the board is lousy with people you have no idea how they got where they are - but that goes for most companies.

    Hehe...
    Again, that remains to be seen. However, I still believe these markets split a while back.

    Nope. For the most part they just learned to work together. One competes for the body, the other for the mind.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. Land is not free. Land is either discovered, purchased from an owner or taken by force.
    Then the benefit is, no one's likely to take it from you by force. Except for upper management, of course. But, then, you're likely to get a pretty decent severence package. Not so under other circumstances.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Incentives for what? Upward mobility in what?
    Class.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...



    Nope. For the most part they just learned to work together. One competes for the body, the other for the mind.
    Fair enough; though there's definitely some competition between the two.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    yippy skippy....39.5 BILLION...nicely done...I guess when you have friends in high places, and you can write the Gov't's energy policy, it's pretty easy to make money....

    I wonder, with all that sweet profit, why the hell are my tax dollars going to exploration...? The way I see it, a business should use the same bootstaps the poor need to use...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    I wonder, with all that sweet profit, why the hell are my tax dollars going to exploration...?

    Because "we" are "employees" of the same "company". Because of "cooperation". Because of "compassion".
    The way I see it, a business should use the same bootstaps the poor need to use...

    Exactly. Welfare.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because "we" are "employees" of the same "company". Because of "cooperation". Because of "compassion".
    Actually, that's a business expense we can do away with.
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    Yet somehow, they can't afford to pay their fines from the Exxon Valdez disaster...and the US Justice system lets 'em off the hook.

    Imagine that. :(
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader

Categories