“In absolute terms (IOW, the perception of the public) things seem impossibly and obscenely high.” When he says “In absolute terms” he doesn’t mean “in the perception of the public”; he simply means in absolute dollars as opposed to ROI or return on investment. Perhaps he should use something like my simple $1 worth of crude sold for $1.05 example, but he mistakenly thinks that people can see beyond the astoundingly large numbers.
The Senators of course do nothing more than pander to the public misconception when in fact there is nothing impossible or obscene about the level of profits when considered from a “return on investment” basis. Some of the Senators know that the absolute dollar figures are virtually meaningless; however, none of them care because the purpose of the hearings is to put on a show. A “show trial”, so to speak, in the old Soviet sense.
What is obscene, the amount of tax income to government from high petroleum prices will never be the subject of such hearings -— nor will the truly obscene current pay and benefits and future retirement packages of the Senators themselves!
I agree with this as well. It's never really a good idea to tax the business sector. It slows the economy, I feel.
However I have to say that the airline industry was more passenger friendly when it was heavily regulated than in today's climate of deregulation. Regulation, not taxation.
But if the profit situation is as you claim, why don't the oil companies undertake a MASSIVE educational effort? If this were successful, they'd have the public off their necks and be free and clear. Unless they're afraid that somebody is going to come along and publicly blow this theory out of the water. Probably some economist. We both know that when properly tweaked a good statistician can make the numbers crunch any answer they wish.