Posted on 07/23/2007 6:17:52 AM PDT by Daffynition
Please tell us how much profit, if any, they'd be permitted to make under the TommyDale form of government.
As much as other industries? None? Less than none?
Re my previous post-- we're both pretty much asking the same question.
America's a great place; the left says what they're going to take and the rest of us can find out what we can keep.
If oil companies can "jack up the prices" whenever they want, why do they need a leak as an excuse? Why would they ever drop the price?
LOL, as if the commies ever gave a rat’s ass about either one.....
There used to be a great photo on the web of one of those long-haired Free Mumia types holding a sign that says, “HUMAN NEED NOT CORPORATE GREED,” but I can’t find it anymore.
So much for raping the public. Maybe you should reserve your socialist envy for big beer.
The U.S. government has investigated gasoline prices about 30 times over the last 20 years but oil companies were never found to have “fixed” prices. Most recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) completed an exhaustive study of alleged market manipulation to increase gasoline prices in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina late last summer. The FTC report, released in May 2006, included these findings: No evidence that refiners manipulated prices by running refineries below full production capacity, restricting gasoline production or diverting gasoline from the U.S. market to less lucrative foreign markets. No evidence to suggest refinery expansion decisions over the past 20 years resulted from either unilateral or coordinated attempts to manipulate prices. No evidence to suggest companies reduced inventories to increase or manipulate prices or exacerbate price spikes. No situations that might allow one firm – or a small collusive group – to manipulate gasoline futures prices by using storage assets to restrict gasoline movements into New York Harbor, the key delivery point for gasoline. BTW....I own stock in Exxon Mobil, and Conoco-Phillips. I have a selfish interest in seeing them do well. I have owned these stocks for 25+ years, and in the bad days of the oil bust in the early 1990's profits were down and margins were very low. Also, your referenced website, Public Citizen is also against nuclear power and is pushing for a future course in which the government will decide on how you will travel (and when probably). They are definitely socialist, if not outight communist. Windfall profits taxes are espoused on the oil companies. So that means once big oil is "tamed", how much longer before windfall profits taxes are imposed upon farmers for increasing their profits to obscene levels from the ethanol boom? On ADM for their excess profits from the same boom? On real estate sales in areas where property values have gone up 50%+ in the last 10 years? Where do you draw the line????
Excellent post!
Again I ask, what statistic posted in Post #79 is incorrect?
What kind of profit level would NOT be considered obscene, in your eyes, given the volume of product these companies sell? Yeah, they make billions, but they sell tens of billions. esides, the government gets a far larger cut than the people who actually make the stuff. Why not bitch about that?
What is this question meant to imply? That you disagree with the war and think we should pull out now? Or that you think we should fight the war using less fuel?
The oil company profit margin is about 8%. That's not 'obscene', and is, in fact, pretty low as compared to many other industries. (See sample articles below.)
http://txfx.net/2005/10/30/mommy-what-is-a-profit-margin/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/
People have been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years. We are never going to control the hostilities there. We deposed the evil ruler - we should get out and let them kill each other. We need to protect ourselves, but we are in a no-win situation there.
There was a post this morning about the government not having the resources to deal with the illegal aliens or to train prison officials in Virginia and other states how to start deportation procedings. When we can’t enforce the law in our own country, we shouldn’t be spending a lot of money on other countries. The constitution says that the government exists to protect THIS country and its citizens, and it is not doing a good job of it when they leave the borders open.
Many industry analysts claim that rising demand in China and India are the big reasons why the price of oil exceeds $60 a barrel. However, they neglect to mention the role U.S. demand plays in setting global crude oil prices. Americans consume 25% of the world’s oil every day (see chart comparing global oil consumption). China, the next biggest consumer, uses less than 7% of the world’s oil each day. America’s huge appetite for oil combined with the fact that the United States is the world’s third largest producer of it (only Saudi Arabia and Russia produce more than we do) creates a strong argument that the United States holds a lot of sway over world oil prices.
Oil price are now set by the margin demands, not the bulk demand. Demand is almost at (or at) the production capacity, so a small amount of increase or decrease in demand is going to cause large price swings for the entire world. The ability of the US to influence world prices is minimal now that we import over 60% of our crude consumption (and ~5% of our gasoline to boot). Refusal by Congress to rescind drilling bans in ANWR and off the Florida and California coasts are one reason.
The energy bill that President Bush signed in 2005 does nothing to address the U.S. factors that are driving oil and gas prices to record highs. Congress and the White House explicitly rejected efforts to improve fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks (which account for 60% of our oil consumption) or adequately fund fossil fuel alternatives.
Government mandated fuel economy standards will do nothing to curb consumption or increase fleet efficiency. Again you seem to want the socialist solution, not the market driven solution. Ditto for adequate funding of fossil fuel alternatives. There are no alternatives to replace the petroleum derived fuels. At best bio fuels would supplant ~10%-12% of gasoline/diesel consumption and drastically raise food prices. (BTW windfall profits taxes on food producers/processors anyone???) Hydrogen?? Another joke, hydrogen production is a worse net energy loser than ethanol/biodiesel. Also your buddies at Public Citizen would have a meltdown over that, since a hydrogen economy would require a massive nuclear fleet expansion.
As Americans shell out more dollars at the pump, the profit margin by U.S. oil refiners has shot up 158% since 1999 (the year Exxon and Mobil merged).
Well, let's see. In 1999, I can seem to remember paying roughly $1.00/gal for regular unleaded in January/February. If they are making margins of 8-10% now, call it 10%, so in money, that means at $3/gallon, the refiner is making 30 cents.(much less than the taxes BTW) Dividing it by 1.58 means they were making roughly 19 cents per gallon back in 1999.
Meanwhile, gas prices continue to go up up up - and no oil company is reinvesting their profits into the things that will benefit motorists.
Since when is it a requirement of a company to invest in things that someone else outside the company decides is of a benefit to their customers???? Good profitable companies base their re-investment decisions upon what brings the best return on investment (ROI). Customers do figure in on these decisions, but stockholders have a vastly greater say and rightly so. Again, the implication is that government as a proxy for the "people" will make these decisions, again socialism.
How much should they have made? How much less profit would end your whining?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.