Economy is Great!
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- TheBlueOne
Well, for Exxon-Mobil at least...
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/27/…
For the life of me I can't figure out why though...
- Llyod_Christmas0
I'd be okay with it if the fat pigs didn't have such influence on the gov
- joyride0
the market dictates the price of a barrel of oil. Yeah they benefit but they also have taken a loss 30 years ago.
I agree it's a bit rediculous... but they are in business to make money. Which they have been doing. Sorry... invest and make enjoy the ride.
- TheBlueOne0
So like having the US military, paid for by our tax dollars, secure your supply routes isn't like the most giantest welfare subsidy of all time? And then I get to pay taxes on each gallon I pump at the service station? And all the execs get tax cuts on their earnings? Heckuva racket I tell ya...
- Mimio0
Don't forget the US producers are still heavily subsidized by the Fed. Corporate welfare bullshit.
- CyBrain0
Aren't the fat pigs we speak of the government?
- joyride0
I agree it's crazy money. But the US economy benefits when they do well. They reinvest in a ton of causes. Schools for 1 benefit from them. It's deeper then what you read.
*i'm not defending them, just saying it's how the current system works. Free markets dictate this type of thang! High prices === higher profits The %cost of products from each barrel is usually consistant. So if the price per barrel goes up... the profit goes up as well.
They work for share holders not the good of the US economy.
- mrdobolina0
its all price gouged to fuck. If it werent, they wouldnt have massive profits due to massive gas prices. The profits would remain static. It should be regulated because people in america NEED gasoline.
Saying that you should buy stock in these companies is selfish as fuck.
While you're at it you should start buying up foreclosed properties and have illegal aliens fix them up then report them to DHS after they complete the work.
Then try to align that shit at church on sunday.
- mrdobolina0
Im really sorry that money just isnt that important to me.
- ********0
so...the 2nd and developing worlds are increasing their demands for oil, based on, in part, actions of US companies like Walmart sending billions of dollars their way (and fair play to the Chinese for their industry), tensions in the market regarding the military and political overseas policy of the US govt./oil lobbyists...
Said increase in price of oil means more profits for said cartel.....so....
er...um...
Bah, there isnt a simple '1 group of people screwing another' style lefty phrase I can come up with the encapsulates the whole problem neatly.
And frankly, Im too old for anti-capitalist rhetoric at this point..
If someone could inform me though - ExxonMobil make a huge profit - where does this go ?
Does it all go to shareholders dividends ?
Many of the shares will surely be millions of peoples investment and pension/endowment portfolios, so in effect, the net result of the govt/oil/corporation's actions (they are indistinguishable from one another at the highest levels of each), is to transfer wholesale public liquidity (the cash people have in their pockets), into stock value..Does anyone have any Naom-Chomsky like conspiracy info about why this happening at this time ? How does this fit into the perceived globalization strategy/new world order ? Or is it just an attempt to mitigate the explosive growth of the Chinese economy ?
- mrdobolina0
when people are broke, they have no time to read the paper and incredible profits go to the overseers. pretty simple, really.
- mrdobolina0
It is dangerous when capitalism becomes corporatism. One step away from mussolini-style fascism.
- joyride0
I agree totally, it's crazy. But think about it this way. If your %profits are 10% per barrel of oil. If all this turmoil in the world ups the price of each barrel, your 10% is still 10%. so 10% of $35 is < 10% of $75. Could they lower the price ... yes they could. But they won't, because it is a traded company. They work for shareholders. not the good of the economy. Which is a debate. If their product is directly tied to the economy, isn't it in their best interest to keep the economy strong and not hurt it by charging $3+ per gallon. That is where we are at now. If demand slowed prices would come down. But demain has not slowed... so yeah. it just sucks. But we in effect, we OK their profits.
- mrdobolina0
It's predatory any way you slice it.
- mrdobolina0
using that logic, joyride. Do you think that these oil companies want the price of oil to ever come down?
Nope.
- spifflink0
its high-state level socialsm only for the super rich, the top 1% that control 40% of the nation's wealth.
as in the past, the costs and risks of the coming phases the industial economy were to be socialized, with the eventual profits privatized, a form of state-socialism for the rich on which much of the advanced US economy relies, particularly since WW2, but with precendents in the advanced economies back to the early days of the industrial revolution. In the past several decades, Pentagon funding for R&D has declined, while support through the National Institute of Health and other "health-related" componentss of the state sector has increased as the cutting edge of the economy of the future shifts from electronics to biotech. The longime chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan and other idealogues may hail the wonders of "entrepreneurial initiative" "consumer choice," and "free trade" but those who channel public funds to development of the economy and those who profit from these decisions know better.
It is sometimes argued that concealing development of high-tech industry under the cover of "defense" has been a valuable contribution to society. Those who do not share that contempt for democracy might ask what decisions the population would have made if they had been informed of the real options asnd allowed to choose among them. Perhaps they might have preferred more social spending for health, education, decent housing, a sustainable environment, and support for the United Nations, international law, and diplomacy, as polls regularly show. We can only guess, since fear of democracy barred the option of allowing the public into the political arena, or even informing them about what was being done in their name.
----
sources
-Frances Williams, Financial Times, 20 October 2005.
-Tom Wright, International Herald Tribune, 30 September 2005
-"Hope and Folly" 1989
- ********0
ooh yeah, nice one, spiff..
Democracy sounds great, but the maxim that we get the politicians we deserve is never truer considering the influence of oil and drug company lobbyists, exerting influence on the elected representatives of peoples deliberately misinformed and manipulated by a media largely controlled and own by mega-corporations, in whom interests it is to have a fearful, overworked, undereducated and ignorant proletariat... That is the reality of democracy in the US today, where, sadly, it is probably in its most advanced form..Most extremely proved unworkable in California, where the process of opening up voting on thousands of minor issues to the voting public, rather than responsible, effective representative leaders has stultified any meaningful progress.
- spifflink0
i am not one for finding all of the solutions. however i agree with some of your points. opening up the voting process completely to the thosands of minute situations is inundating to the public, however i would hardly count a lot of these representatives as qualified, as most of them lack the transparency necessary to inform the public. it is quite apparent through recent(and not so recent events) that the public feels strongly about certain directions the country is taking, however mass protests, and voting for the monolithic bipartisan consensus that is the domcrats and republican parties hardly counts as particpatory, only ceremony. an ingenious system of control if i do say so myself. i see little hope in this situation. you must agree that if the general public feels strongly one way or another, the government should arbitrarily follow suit. i do agree with you that this government, now, is definately what a lot of americans deserve because of their electoral "decisions".
- tkmeister0
it is pretty fucked given the price of gas. but do you think in 20-30yrs they will be making the same profit? i hope not. i hope that by then the automobile industry will produce alternate fuel cars.
american car industry is a bit slow on this. honda has invested a lot or R&D into making more fuel efficient cars for years and years and now, their profit is up by 30% or so from the last year and it was up 25% or so last year as well if i remember correctly. where as many of american car companies are suffering.
not all the oil companies are bad. look at BP, they repositioned their brand as beyond petro. and really commited to different fuel form. i haven't seen that kind of commitment from exxon at all.
- lowimpakt0
i'd love to make my billions from a resource mostly stolen from poor countries and poor people.
i'd feel greeeeeeat
- mrdobolina0
exactly.