Exxon Reports Another Record Profit Reutersposted: 8 HOURS 16 MINUTES AGOcomments: 1924PrintSharefiled under: Earnings, Investing, Crude Oil PricesText SizeAAANEW YORK (July 31) -
Exxon Mobil Corp said on Thursday soaring oil prices pushed its second-quarter earnings up 14 percent, again breaking its own record for the highest-ever profit by a U.S. company.
AP
Net income in the quarter rose to $11.68 billion, or $2.22 a share, from $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, last year. Exxon -- the world's largest publicly traded company -- previously set the high-water mark for quarterly earnings in the fourth quarter of last year, when it brought in $11.66 billion. Despite the new record, Exxon's results lagged behind analyst expectations. The company posted operating earnings of $2.27 a share in the quarter, which exclude a $290 million charge related to the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Exxon Valdez case. Analysts, on average, had expected the company to earn $2.53 a share, according to Reuters Estimates. Revenue in the quarter rose about 40 percent to $138.07 billion. Exxon both produces oil and refines it to make gasoline, and profit margins for gasoline were weak during the quarter, holding back earnings slightly. The company said earnings from its exploration and production business rose about 68 percent to $10.01 billion. But its refining and marketing earnings fell about 54 percent to $1.56 billion. U.S. oil prices averaged slightly less than $125 a barrel in the quarter, nearly double prices from a year earlier. Gasoline prices only rose 25 percent during that same period, resulting in weak profit margins for the fuel. Shares of Exxon Mobil fell 2.2 percent in pre-market trade after its earnings were announced. Through Wednesday's close, they were down about 10 percent this year, underperforming the Chicago Board Options Exchange's oil index, which has fallen about 5.2 percent over the same period.
Reporting by Michael Erman, editing by Dave Zimmerman Copyright 2008, Reuters 2008-07-30 15:04:29
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You know...I dont get why people get all butt hurt over a company that makes profit.
The feds make double what oil companies make on TAXING your gallon of gas so why dont more people cry foul about the government? Its always "the big bad oil man" in this capitalist society thats business and they happen to have a product people need.
Yeah so what they make a profit...isnt that what you would want if you built a company and it grew?
Posted by jordanreed on :
oil is government,,government is oil.....get it?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
No
Posted by jordanreed on :
not surprised
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
What side of the bed did you wake up on today? You cant just make some small liberal comment and expect everyone to read your mind
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
ocean is water, water is ocean.....get it? air is oxygen, oxygen is air...get it?
dirt is soil, soil is dirt...get it?
Posted by jordanreed on :
'splain it to me, Lucy
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Jordan I can tell you are very anti-natural resources. What gives?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Government is NOT oil and oil is NOT government - otherwise you lefties WOULD LOVE IT! BTW, that's the reason that the socialist Maxine Waters wants to socialize it!
This is a great illustration of the thought process of the wacko left. They complain about jobs going overseas, but they don't want companies to make a profit. Instead of applauding American companies being successful and American jobs staying here, they complain that anyone would dare make a PROFIT (a dirty word for the left).
RIDICULOUS!
Posted by jordanreed on :
what else can you "tell" about me?
I am against being a pawn in the government chess game!..why arent you?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
EXACTLY property manager...they cry foul about jobs going overseas, but when a local company posts profits its the "big bad businessman" or "corporate giant"
Some people will never be happy and live doomsday day to day.
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Government is NOT oil and oil is NOT government - otherwise you lefties WOULD LOVE IT! BTW, that's the reason that the socialist Maxine Waters wants to socialize it!
This is a great illustration of the thought process of the wacko left. They complain about jobs going overseas, but they don't want companies to make a profit. Instead of applauding American companies being successful and American jobs staying here, they complain that anyone would dare make a PROFIT (a dirty word for the left).
RIDICULOUS!
this guy is ccccrazy!...who wants to align themselves with this guy?...I feel sorry for all you conservatives out there, if he is in anyway a spokesman ....youre in big trouble. He reminds me of David Duke... Posted by glassman on :
hmmmm... i suppose the point here is that the economy is dying.
you have people trying to downplay the profitabilty of Exxon while they make more money than ANY company ever before, and you have "conservatives" in Washington screaming that they need to make more?
they have admitted to manipulating the gasoline supply publicly which forces the price of oil up, and you expect people to be happy?
i dunno...
i have no problem getting the gas i need... but i would sortof like to see the economy not fall apart....
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Jordan....David Duke? Are you serious? How on earth do you come up with David Duke in this thread unless its something you commonly use to throw out there to dramatize your position? Seriously....
Glass...yes I would say once a company gets as large as Exxon there are problems. ANY industry has that problem....the justice department, the entertainment industry, etc
There are a lot of John no name farmers out there in the heartland that own many acres for cattle and have oil wells on them. They make a profit too by providing energy for all of us. Thats what im talking about to support.
Posted by glassman on :
There are a lot of John no name farmers out there in the heartland that own many acres for cattle and have oil wells on them. They make a profit too by providing energy for all of us. Thats what im talking about to support.
i agree about drilling where we can, heck, NW Louisianna is having a major nat gas boom right now...
but this offshore oil political scam is just crazy...
GM just lost 15 billion cuz oil went up too fast...
at 4$ a gallon? gasoline isn't all that expensive if you don't drive an SUV... but the price increase was too fast to work thru the sytem without a lot of pain, and it makes people suspicious...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Jordan....David Duke? Are you serious? How on earth do you come up with David Duke in this thread unless its something you commonly use to throw out there to dramatize your position? Seriously....
Straight out of the Left's play book. When you don't have anything intelligent to say, play the race card (even if it doesn't make sense)!
quote:but this offshore oil political scam is just crazy...
This is no scam. We need more oil to reduce prices and to become less dependent on our enemies for oil. Some of the best drilling locations are off limits because of the congressional ban. The Republicans and a lot of Democrats want to drill in these areas. The Wacko Socialist Left including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are preventing a vote on the issue.
This is no scam - it is an OUTRAGE!
Posted by jordanreed on :
yes..David Duke!..has nothing to do with any playbook...I have never,ever followed any political agenda. I dont know what a Dem or Rep is,and dont care...I look at the person and what and how they speak..that is all..after hearing PMS speak on this board for a few months, he sounds like a white,extremist,goose-stepping,red-neck, who has no tolerance for anyone that doesnt have his POV...reminds me of David Duke...even sounds like Duke!...I have no political mind..I'm not cut from that cloth.I only try to figure out, for myself, what sounds logical and what would be the correct way to conduct ourselves as a people...
enjoy your day....shot a 74 last nite! Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Well we can talk about this and that all day long but we NEED oil...as much of it right now as we can produce. Im sure everyone agrees there needs to be a balance here with fossil fuels and the switch to cleaner forms of energy.
We need to produce more oil while becoming less dependent on it. Its simple in thought really. Drill offshore and get those massive reserves pumping like there is no tomorrow. Use the taxes generated on THAT production and funnel a lot of it towards wind farms, and the expansion of wind farms.
Also use the tax revenue to offer federal monetary incentives towards the purchase of eco-friendly or high MPG vehicles...and im talking about highly generous offers combined with tax breaks.
Anti oil people say "we cant drill our way out of this" Well no s%%%! We CAN however drill our way to relief and to the future.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Have any of you who are for lifting the ban on offshore drilling looked into where or why the ban is in place? Or are you just taking it on faith that Bush Jr. and the oil companies have told you there is oil there?
What about all the other leases that the gov has granted that have never been acted on? Why don't they give them up? Could it be that they won't be satisfied until they have obtained the mineral rights under all federal land?
What are the oil companies doing with their record profits? Why have many of them announced that they are getting out of the retail gasoline business (or the refining business) because it is a drag on profits when they are making over 100k per minute? How is that helping America in a stressed economy?
Government subsidies are to grow businesses. Why are we subsidising businesses that are larger than most countries 'nationalized' industries while they are making record profits? If the point of subsidies is to grow business, exactly how big do we want these companies to get before we ask them to pay their own bills?
What about all that oil in Montana? Who is going after that? What about the new projections on the North Face in Alaska? Oil shale in the Dakota's? Why do the lawmakers and lobbyist consistently turn the conversation to areas where they can't drill when there are multiple options available to them where they can?
Can you honestly tell me that none of these questions make you pause for a moment and say...wait a minute now...?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Why are profits so bad? If a company becomes successful it is because it had consumers or products to put it there.
Bigfoot...I guess you dont know what is going on in Montanna. There is more drilling than you know of going on. If you would like to made a bid on some federal leases go call the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office in Cheyenne Wyoming.
In June 2008 there were 456 new drilling permits issued in Wyoming. In Texas there was 1,955, and in Kansas 457. Alaska only had 18....yes 18. Why? Thanks to overbearing red-tape brought on by useless political crybabies.
If any of you here start a company, build it and become very very successful do I have the right to come here and blame you for my problems? Because thats what a few here seem to do. Should I come after you and demand I get a portion of your profits for having nothing to do with your business? Should we call for MORE taxes such as what the Democrats are doing on your business because its not fair how well you are doing?
Do we REALLY have to know exactly what an oil company does with its profits? The majors (biggest oil companies) have plenty of charitable donations going on and give back to the community.
In fact, I bet these terrible terrible oil companies have done more as far as giving back than 95% of Americans.
Im not saying they are perfect because you find corruption everywhere....even judges whom are sworn to uphold a just rule of law go under from time to time.
You pay 2 times as much in federal taxes on a gallon of gas than what an oil company makes in profit. So who is the real culprit here?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:but this offshore oil political scam is just crazy...
This is no scam. We need more oil to reduce prices and to become less dependent on our enemies for oil. Some of the best drilling locations are off limits because of the congressional ban. The Republicans and a lot of Democrats want to drill in these areas. The Wacko Socialist Left including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are preventing a vote on the issue.
This is no scam - it is an OUTRAGE! [/QB]
well i read the words, but i see no reason to think they are anything more than what rush limbaugh told you to say...
first off? the outrage is how exxon says they have such low profits, as if we are supposed to be happy they manage to get oil to the pump at any price...
just like gold? oil is where you find it... these claims that the "best" drilling locations are off-limits is stupid. it's about as stupid as any political myth ever contrived... and the goal is to confuse the avg consumer, and try to set up a divisive political campaign.
even if they opened up all the offshore tomorrow? the OIL CO's themselves can't get enough equipment to effectively get oil from proven finds RIGHT NOW...
construction of rigs is backlogged and the money is already there to build them..
this idea that the US has any possible hope of becoming self-sustaining on domestic oil by production alone must be drug induced.
we use 20 million BPD. cutting that in half is the only way we can become domestically independant even if we open up everything...
Posted by andrew on :
So Cuba, with China's help (and the help of the Leftists in the USA), can drain the oil reserves WE don't ALLOW ourselves to drill, by drilling on the edge where our water rights end. The Commies win, we loose. Because we LET them.
Cant remember the source, but so true.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
There is exploration as close as 60 miles but no drilling as of yet.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by andrew: So Cuba, with China's help (and the help of the Leftists in the USA), can drain the oil reserves WE don't ALLOW ourselves to drill, by drilling on the edge where our water rights end. The Commies win, we loose. Because we LET them.
Cant remember the source, but so true.
LOL more propaganda... don't you guys realise that if Obama is elected and your worst fears come true that it's because of all these stupid lies? people have lost their trust in the "conservatives" because over and over again they proven to be propagandists.
if we had trade with Cuba? Exxon or Chevorn could be exploring or even drilling there right now..
why isn't BP?
once again you have to remember that, just like gold, oil is only where you find it.
Posted by andrew on :
You are correct...SeekingFreedom.....China is not drilling off shore...BUT THEY CAN and WE CAN NOT.
Posted by glassman on :
In U.S. controlled waters, thousands of oil platforms are either floating or attached to the ocean floor off the shores of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Many of these platforms are huge structures that house multiple drilling rigs and also house workers. Though some of the platforms can be moved, they are, for the most part, like self-sustaining steel islands, complete with helicopters pads. Once drilled, oil and gas are transported from the platforms through sub-sea pipelines to refineries located in the gulf states, especially in Texas and Louisiana.
i beleive they are correct, and you are just posting rumors andrew..
Posted by andrew on :
I am not posting rumors I never said we were not getting any oil from off shore....Congress has not approved any further drilling. More platforms ..more drilling = more oil.
This also comes from your source.
Posted by glassman on :
you said we cannot...
but we can and we are...
there's a huge feild coming now, an dthey are building eqpt to get the feild up-n-running as fast as they can.
all of this crapola about offshore drilling is a diversion from the fact that Bush and Cheney are oil people and they have been in office overseeing/managing this financial crisis..
blaming the dems for the problem is actually pitiful... it's beyond pitiful, and anybody who beleives the propaganda when confronted with real facts is hopeless...
who aproved all the big oil mergers? cuz there so few people managing the supply of gasoline that they have total control over the price...
heck, i wouldn't be surprised if oil came down tomorrow if they opened all exploration today...
in other words? you/we would have been blackmailed...
Posted by glassman on :
obviously fuel prices are still too cheap since the newest jumbo jet has showers on board.... sheesh...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Dont hear much about Cheney these days. He liked to show his face all over the place before the war, and in the beginning when he went around parading the idea. Now...MANY years later he is very reclusive.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Dont hear much about Cheney these days. He liked to show his face all over the place before the war, and in the beginning when he went around parading the idea. Now...MANY years later he is very reclusive.
he''s the one that got this oil plan in place CCM...
i am not against drilling anywhere, i realise that i seem to be arguing against it, but waht i am aruing for is just a little bit of honesty and integrity...
the severe lack of that is what has allowed people to place Obama on his pedastal...
look at the crowds he draws by simply talking about change...
heck i don't beleive he's "the answer", he's just a dude that wants the brass ring... but at least he's asking for the ring and not stealing it...
Posted by glassman on :
d'oh, i just remebered that i am against drilling in places like the Chesapeake bay and the Currituck sound, or lake ponchartrin cuz they would be ruined no matter how careful we are..
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
These are the same people that think the laws of supply and demand no longer apply, yet they are the first ones to whine about high gas prices. The whacko point of view is that the oil companies are holdoing this magical technology that will solve our dependence on oil. The truth is no one can answer how many years it will take for these alternative energy sources to become viable, if ever. How much will a gallon of gasoline cost ten years from now when the liberals will still say we can't drill because it will take ten years to come on line!
Anyone who moveon.org supports to me is highly questionable...especailly when their words make me think of a anti-free market socialist.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I hear you glass...im just glad the administration will be gone for good soon. They really did a number on our country and the world. What are we ....2 billion a day/month? or something like that for the iraq war?
Posted by glassman on :
7 billion a month for Iraq was the last i saw...
and whenever we leave? Iran will be their closest ally... that is totally unavoidable without keeping a huge presence there, and keeping a huge presence there will just destabilise the region even more...
the "surge" such it is worked about as well as we could have reasonably hoped, and the threat of leaving is also helping the surge. they watch our politics too, they see that a Dem will likely win and they are working on their end to be prepared for that too..
one side blaming the other? sure, but both sides have influenced the situation..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Why are profits so bad? If a company becomes successful it is because it had consumers or products to put it there.
Profits aren't bad, but irresponsible business ethics should be the concern of every American, especially in companies this large. (Enron anyone?) And if they are making record profits why are we subsidizing the business? Seems to me they are all grown up and can take care of themselves.
quote: Bigfoot...I guess you dont know what is going on in Montanna. There is more drilling than you know of going on. If you would like to made a bid on some federal leases go call the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office in Cheyenne Wyoming.
In June 2008 there were 456 new drilling permits issued in Wyoming. In Texas there was 1,955, and in Kansas 457. Alaska only had 18....yes 18. Why? Thanks to overbearing red-tape brought on by useless political crybabies.
Ah...I see....so we ARE drilling in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, the Dakota's, etc...all easily accessed domestic areas. Hmmm. Well that sounds good. Maybe we should keep it at that and see what happens once they are online. Why build vastly more expensive infrastructure to get to expensive deposits of unknown size? Especially since we are seeing a big push from auto makers both big and small toward hybrids, electrics, and alternate fuel source vehicles?
Remember, the over-development during the embargo years ended up killing a lot of the little guys in the '70's once prices collapsed and we want our oil companies to be profitable right? How bout we extend that desire to ALL our oil companies....not just the big five.
quote: If any of you here start a company, build it and become very very successful do I have the right to come here and blame you for my problems? Because thats what a few here seem to do. Should I come after you and demand I get a portion of your profits for having nothing to do with your business? Should we call for MORE taxes such as what the Democrats are doing on your business because its not fair how well you are doing?
Nah, let's not call for more taxes...we can just pay the interest minimums on our loans that the repubs took out for us until our double down in the oil sector gives us our ten-bagger.
quote: Do we REALLY have to know exactly what an oil company does with its profits? The majors (biggest oil companies) have plenty of charitable donations going on and give back to the community.
In fact, I bet these terrible terrible oil companies have done more as far as giving back than 95% of Americans.
WOW! You sir are a trusting soul! You don't feel the need to see how Billions of dollars are being used because you believe these companies have your best interest at heart? And people call me an idealist! These companies have made many charitable donations. I won't knock that. But please keep in mind the tax deduction incentive that they have for making these contributions.
quote: Im not saying they are perfect because you find corruption everywhere....even judges whom are sworn to uphold a just rule of law go under from time to time.
You pay 2 times as much in federal taxes on a gallon of gas than what an oil company makes in profit. So who is the real culprit here?
OK...maybe you aren't that trusting of a soul after all. But lets think about that gas tax versus oil profit thought for a minute. The oil industry supposedly makes half of what the government makes on a gallon of gas. And yet....during the days of the McCain/Clinton Gas Tax Holiday ideas economists projected that removing the gas tax for 3 months (one quarter)could remove as much as 8.5 Billion out of the Highway Trust Fund. (That was the high end of the spectrum for probability costs.)
Now how is it that the government, which makes twice as much as the oil industry on a gallon of gas, if it were to suspend its tax for three months would stand to lose 8.5 Billion and yet one of the big oil companies, which makes half what the government does on a gallon of gas, can make 11.68 Billion in net income during a three month period? By the stated logic above they should not have posted net income above 5 Billion.
Posted by wallymac on :
Here's a story from 2006 and 2008. Look at the google search and you will see that it goes back even further.
Why is the US so far behind the curve? It couldn't have anything to do with who's been in power and their ties to Big Oil? Nah.
Guess who builds the majority of the cars utilizing Alternative fuels in Brazil? You got it good ole US companies.
One other little aside. Somebody talked about supply and demand as a cause for skyrocketing gas prices and profits for Exxon/Mobile. I have a question? If a barrel of oil goes up today, why is the price increase immediately felt at the pumping stations and why is it when the PPB goes down it takes weeks or months for us to feel it at the pump?
"Price gouging is a pejorative term for a seller pricing much higher than is seen as 'fair'[clarify] under the circumstances. In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that applies in some of the United States only during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits. In colloquial usage, it means simply that the speaker thinks the price is too high. Non-pejorative uses are generally in reaction to what the writer believes is an unjustified restraint on the market.
The economic theory of the last free market[clarify] suggests that, even in unusual circumstances, price controls do more harm than good by preventing incentives for the supply of needed goods. For example, in a disaster situation, a very high price for equipment (e.g. tents) will prompt hugely increased supply of the relevant goods. Libertarians are among those who think firms should be allowed to charge what they want regardless of the circumstances.
As a criminal offense, Florida's law is reasonably typical. Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. It is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as running an emergency generator, or hazard pay for workers.
The term is similar to profiteering but can be distinguished by being short-term and localized, and by a restriction to essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine and equipment needed to preserve life, limb and property. In jurisdictions where there is no such crime, the term may still be used to pressure firms to refrain from such behavior.
Some support the ability to raise prices under such circumstances, asserting that government prohibition of the practice is a violation of individual rights or that the ability to raise prices has beneficial effects or both. While some economists who defend the practice use the term "price gouging", others disparage it as merely pejorative.
The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment. [1] [2] Alternatively, it may refer to suppliers' benefiting to excess from a short-term change in the demand curve." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging Posted by glassman on :
Now how is it that the government, which makes twice as much as the oil industry on a gallon of gas, if it were to suspend its tax for three months would stand to lose 8.5 Billion and yet one of the big oil companies, which makes half what the government does on a gallon of gas, can make 11.68 Billion in net income during a three month period? By the stated logic above they should not have posted net income above 5 Billion.
funny how that math works huh?
it's because of this:
The company said earnings from its exploration and production business rose about 68 percent to $10.01 billion. But its refining and marketing earnings fell about 54 percent to $1.56 billion.
exploration and production is not gasoline sales profits......
on top of that? there's alot of other products beside gasoline... like propane, which BP got busted and fined for price fixing, but i never saw a dime back that was stolen from me in that price fixing scam....
remember that gas tax is also collected from several other co's....
funny how they quote you profits from the least profitable portion of their business to make excuses huh?
Posted by glassman on :
so let's say we open up any and all drilling here in the states/offshore?
the oil co's bid on the leases... the offshore is expensive so only well-capitalised co's can go there. This means bidding is less competitive. Whats the current price?
Tuesday March 18, 2008, 7:14 PM
Wednesday's scheduled sale of drilling tracts in the Gulf of Mexico has drawn significant interest from the oil and gas industry after a banner auction in 2006 drummed up $2.9 billion in high bids.
Lease Sale 224 marks the first time Louisiana will get a slice of oil and gas revenue that would otherwise go to the federal government. The 2006 legislation earmarked 37.5 percent of the money generated by Lease Sale 224 for Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. In 10 years, those states will begin receiving money from all new leases and production from tracts leased after 2007, said Caryl Fagot, a spokeswoman for MMS.
Exactly how much the states receive from leases will depend on bids, future lease payments and the amount of unearthed oil and gas. Louisiana plans to use the cash to pay for coastal restoration projects.
The state will not see any funds from Wednesday's Lease Sale 206, which encompasses more than 28.5 million acres in the central Gulf and could uncover more than 1.4 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease sales reap record $ 3.7 bn
20-03-08
so, for 3.7 billion the Govt sold off an expected 2 billion barrels of oil and at least 6 trillion feet3 of nat gas...
in Mexico? the Govt sells the oil to US and then uses the profits to subsidize their own gasoline down to a couple bucks... gee? this sounds like the pharmaceuticals business plan too huh?
i know, i know, it's commie pinko BS right? LOL but WE pay for it out of our own pockets for them...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Jordan I can tell you are very anti-natural resources. What gives?
Hey... Don't drag me into this CCM Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Wallymac:
"One other little aside. Somebody talked about supply and demand as a cause for skyrocketing gas prices and profits for Exxon/Mobile. I have a question? If a barrel of oil goes up today, why is the price increase immediately felt at the pumping stations and why is it when the PPB goes down it takes weeks or months for us to feel it at the pump?"
_________________________________________________
Is this just in CA. that this happens or are other states not as bad?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote Wallymac:
"One other little aside. Somebody talked about supply and demand as a cause for skyrocketing gas prices and profits for Exxon/Mobile. I have a question? If a barrel of oil goes up today, why is the price increase immediately felt at the pumping stations and why is it when the PPB goes down it takes weeks or months for us to feel it at the pump?"
_________________________________________________
Is this just in CA. that this happens or are other states not as bad?
Yah I wonder about this... isn't oil traded on the Futures market?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The story is this is to recoup losses the stations themselves have taken in trying to scale the way up so that the price increases were not huge jumps.
Not saying it's true but that is how it was explained to me.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: 7 billion a month for Iraq was the last i saw...
$12 Billion a month actually... How about this food for thought?:
BUSH TO LEAVE HEIR A $482 BILLION DEFICIT AP Last updated: 7:51 am July 29, 2008 Posted: 3:24 am July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released yesterday.
The administration said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. But the numbers could go even higher if the economy performs worse than the White House predicts.
The budget office predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and will rebound to a 2.2 percent growth rate next year. That's a half-percentage point more than predicted by the widely cited "blue chip" consensus of leading economists. The administration also sees inflation averaging 3.8 percent this year, but easing to 2.3 percent next year - better than the 3.0 percent seen by the blue chip panel.
A $482 billion deficit, however, would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: 7 billion a month for Iraq was the last i saw...
$12 Billion a month actually... How about this food for thought?:
BUSH TO LEAVE HEIR A $482 BILLION DEFICIT AP Last updated: 7:51 am July 29, 2008 Posted: 3:24 am July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released yesterday.
The administration said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. But the numbers could go even higher if the economy performs worse than the White House predicts.
The budget office predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and will rebound to a 2.2 percent growth rate next year. That's a half-percentage point more than predicted by the widely cited "blue chip" consensus of leading economists. The administration also sees inflation averaging 3.8 percent this year, but easing to 2.3 percent next year - better than the 3.0 percent seen by the blue chip panel.
A $482 billion deficit, however, would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.
This is one reason why I hope McCain wins. If Obama wins, the Republicans will blame everything on Obama.
Not saying that I'm an Obama fan but it would be nice to see one party have to answer for the mess they caused. Maybe then people in this country would consider strongly supporting a Third party that might actually effect a change that will help the country.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: This is one reason why I hope McCain wins. If Obama wins, the Republicans will blame everything on Obama.
Not saying that I'm an Obama fan but it would be nice to see one party have to answer for the mess they caused. Maybe then people in this country would consider strongly supporting a Third party that might actually effect a change that will help the country.
AS much as I agree with you on this... right now is not a good time to put the same people who made this mess in Power to continue their havoc...
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: This is one reason why I hope McCain wins. If Obama wins, the Republicans will blame everything on Obama.
Not saying that I'm an Obama fan but it would be nice to see one party have to answer for the mess they caused. Maybe then people in this country would consider strongly supporting a Third party that might actually effect a change that will help the country.
AS much as I agree with you on this... right now is not a good time to put the same people who made this mess in Power to continue their havoc...
I understand and agree. Just wishful thinking. IMO, both parties are equally to blame for the mess we are currently in, maybe not equally but still to blame.
Heck, I live in California and if I had my way, I'd fire every politician in office. Now not only can't they manage a budget they can't even agree to make a budget. Seems this happens way too often. Maybe California will be the ones to look to a viable third party to put an end to the shennagians.
One can hope
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Another thing that i noticed from city to city in CA. is that gas prices will very .10-.15 cents a gallon but usually the price does not very much with the stations that are grouped close together. (except with the exception of Arco and we know why that is) These stations seem to set their prices within their areas and cities.
When i go to my daughters house 20 minutes down the freeway i try and never to get gas in her area because gas is always 10 cents a gallon higher minium.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: I understand and agree. Just wishful thinking. IMO, both parties are equally to blame for the mess we are currently in, maybe not equally but still to blame.
Heck, I live in California and if I had my way, I'd fire every politician in office. Now not only can't they manage a budget they can't even agree to make a budget. Seems this happens way too often. Maybe California will be the ones to look to a viable third party to put an end to the shennagians.
One can hope
That's what California gets for voting in a musclehead with no brains into the Governor's office... lol
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by wallymac: I understand and agree. Just wishful thinking. IMO, both parties are equally to blame for the mess we are currently in, maybe not equally but still to blame.
Heck, I live in California and if I had my way, I'd fire every politician in office. Now not only can't they manage a budget they can't even agree to make a budget. Seems this happens way too often. Maybe California will be the ones to look to a viable third party to put an end to the shennagians.
One can hope
That's what California gets for voting in a musclehead with no brains into the Governor's office... lol
ROTFL. I completely agree. Never was a fan of his, I think we would have been better with Grey Davis. I actually supported Victor Comejo, a third party candidate. Didn't agree with all his positions but he was much more logical and genuine than the other candidates.
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Another thing that i noticed from city to city in CA. is that gas prices will very .10-.15 cents a gallon but usually the price does not very much with the stations that are grouped close together. (except with the exception of Arco and we know why that is) These stations seem to set their prices within their areas and cities.
When i go to my daughters house 20 minutes down the freeway i try and never to get gas in her area because gas is always 10 cents a gallon higher minium.
OK, let me give you an example. I have a Shell station that is maybe an 1/8 of a mile from my house, here in California, about a 1/2 mile is an ARCO station. The Shell station is always around 5-6 cents a gallon higher. Now the farther away I get the higher the price. 2 miles away, around 10 cents, 5 miles 15 cents, 20 miles which I hardly ever venture beyond 25 to 30 cents. I don't get it. It can't cost that much more to ship gas 20 miles further away.
Posted by jordanreed on :
It seems its higher in the city. Maybe more people to buy the gas, so its higher. Its not just CA. Its here too, in Mn....also.. I paid 5 cents/gal. less if I paid cash. Why?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: It seems its higher in the city. Maybe more people to buy the gas, so its higher. Its not just CA. Its here too, in Mn....also.. I paid 5 cents/gal. less if I paid cash. Why?
credit cards charge a 2-5% surcharge. so when when you pay with credit or debit? the vendor pays the surcharge
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: It seems its higher in the city. Maybe more people to buy the gas, so its higher. Its not just CA. Its here too, in Mn....also.. I paid 5 cents/gal. less if I paid cash. Why?
credit cards charge a 2-5% surcharge. so when when you pay with credit or debit? the vendor pays the surcharge
Your gonna see a whole lot more of that as this recession continues. Retail credit won't necessarily tighten but the costs of retail credit that business owners have been willing to eat in the past are going to become transparent for a lot of businesses.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Fortunately, Barack Hussein Osama Obama has the answer! Drastically raise taxes! That will certainly help both business and the consumer!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Fortunately, Barack Hussein Osama Obama has the answer! Drastically raise taxes! That will certainly help both business and the consumer!
and cutting taxes has gotten US where we are today?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Actually less taxes is in my opinion the best thing for all over us both individual and corporate. HOWEVER, its the dirt bags in office who dont manage money well who ruin it all. First and foremost the war in Iraq has crippled so many things. Just think of all the good we could have done to Americas infrastructure with over 500 billion dollars. Probably close to a trillion by now. Homeland security is trash in my opinion as well...not sure how much that one cost, but we just needed agencies to do their job correctly. CIA and FBI are like little kids who wont play together until being forced to by now. Such a joke it seems
Posted by Machiavelli on :
As much as I want our taxes to be cut and trust me I do... I wish we had low taxes... the boys in the White House get out of control with spending and putting us in debt... So even though Bush cut taxes for some of us he spent alot at the same time and put us in debt as well which countries like China has us by the Ballz... Were in a huge deficit when he leaves office and whether you like it or not raising taxes is the only thing that will get us out of it... This same exact thing happened when Reagan was in office.. he went on a spending spree then when Bush Sr. got into office and wanted to cut taxes or "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech... he finally realized that is not reality and he had to raise taxes to cut down the deficit... Then Clinton's presidency got us out of our deficit and into surplus.. then Bush Jr. came and well you know where we are now with his Presidency and our country's finances etc...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Well I agree on what happened. I dont get why Bush pushed us so far into debt. Problem that I have with raising taxes and the Democrats way is that they love welfare programs and redistribution of wealth. Taking more of someones money who worked for it and then handing it out to someone who hasnt earned it. Thats where I have an issue.
Posted by glassman on :
Then Clinton's presidency got us out of our deficit and into surplus..
uh, Clinton presidency? it happened then, but it wasn't him...
we had this thing called a peace dividend... and oil was between 12 and 20 per barrel so we grew and spent...
welfare programs and redistribution of wealth.
here's what's "funny" about that tho... i don't see the poor getting wealthier...
i see the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer...
there's no redistribution...
anybody that's making money still makes money...
the wealthiest few get shaved worse, but they don't stop growing their beards....
i wonder if Warren Buffet sits around complaining about lazy bashturds... NOT ! Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Glass, taxes get raised and we lose more out of our check. Where does it go and what happens? Thats why I dont want my taxes raised.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Glass, taxes get raised and we lose more out of our check. Where does it go and what happens? Thats why I dont want my taxes raised.
i don't either.. thing is? the govt already spent all the money and then some... most everybody did this, from Wall St to harry homeowner refinancing at 125% of value.
how are we going to pay for it? inflation is the only way... yet REAL inflation cannot happen without rising wages... wages have been flat while prices go up....
don't be a wage-earner is the lesson i suppose...
work for yourself and use the tax code (i do) take write-offs, the rich put them in there for that...
this myth that the wealthy pay high taxes is a joke: Gross income: $109,175,175, which includes: * Senator Clinton's Senate Salary: $1,051,606 * President Clinton's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250 * Senator Clinton's Book Income: $10,457,083 * President Clinton's Book Income: $29,580,525 * President Clinton's Speech Income: $51,855,599 Charitable Contributions: $10,256,741 Taxes Paid: $33,783,507
that's not high taxes...
they stop paying the "payroll taxes" that us poor folks pay at 90,000$
once you get into contracting? you are adding in the cost of taxes to what you are willing to do the work for , just like your compettitors...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
uh, Clinton presidency? it happened then, but it wasn't him...
we had this thing called a peace dividend... and oil was between 12 and 20 per barrel so we grew and spent...
Oh come on Glass.. give credit where credit is due... just like we put the blame solely on Bush for our financial woes so should you give Clinton credit for good times of the 90's... Clinton and the Dems put forth legislature and policies that did get rid of our deficit and put us in surplus... us growing and spending does not do that alone...
Whether a country is in deficit or surplus, the fact of the matter is that either/or is usually due to the current President's administration and it's policies...
Clinton/Dems passed and signed into Law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 without any Republican help... As wiki says about it:
"It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[44] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[45] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years."
I know you dislike the guy and his wife but do give him the credit he deserves in that at least as well as other good things he did in his Presidency...
Posted by glassman on :
you are correct mach i don't like him at all... Gore either, and i do give credit where credit is due.. they got their damn paychecks... fat ones too, 100 million for just breathing sheesh..
credit is due to Bill Gates for getting Windows to market and making everybody willing to use a 'puter much more productive... heck that made a lot o'tax revenues.. do you yahoo?
credit is due to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for pumping oil to US as fast and cheap as they could after the Gulf War... Bush the 1st and Powell and all the rest of the gunslingers earned it for US..
Credit is due to Nixon who cut that deal with China to to give them the Nam in return for help with the Russkies...
Credit is due to the CIA and the Pakis for helping make Afghanistan miserable for the Russkies... screw the Afghani Mujahadeen, they bit the hand that fed them.
but Clinton? he did a fair, and competent job at what he did... nothing special at all IMO...
and competency is a hell of a lot more than we've had out of the whole GOP mess in Washington since then...
i expect that BOTH Mccain and Obama will/would be competent Presidents... Obama has shown incredible competency to get himself where he is now at his age...
both of them will do things i don't like and i'll say so when they do it... if they do something i like? i'll ignore it like everybody does cuz it's just what we pay them for
as for Dubya's (in)competency? the writing was on the wall long before we hired him. If 9-11 hadn't happened? he would have gone down in '04 and been one of the least memorable of presidents. We'd have laughed about his inability to speak publicly and clapped ourselves on the back for how affirmative for action intellectually challenged people works so well even at the highest levels in our country..
Posted by Machiavelli on :
So it's obvious your bias for the Clinton's will not give credit for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and it's impact...
Posted by glassman on :
peace dividend! that was a huge money saving thing...
didn't it include a luxury tax that wiped out thousands of craftsmans jobs on the outer banks of NC? yeah i think it did...
NAFTA? what's that sucking sound?
walmart took down all their made in USA signs while slick willie was in office too..
i got real good reasons to want to see him stay in NYC, you guys can have him and Hillary
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: peace dividend! that was a huge money saving thing...
didn't it include a luxury tax that wiped out thousands of craftsmans jobs on the outer banks of NC? yeah i think it did...
NAFTA? what's that sucking sound?
walmart took down all their made in USA signs while slick willie was in office too..
i got real good reasons to want to see him stay in NYC, you guys can have him and Hillary
Show me something about the luxury/craftsman connection....
As for NAFTA... yes it isn't perfect but can be tweeked to plug any loopholes and still work... you didn't really think we could just export to other countries with impunity while we let restrict them exporting to us?
As for Wal-Mart.. we'll that is simply from trying to compete with cheap labor in other countries and had nothing to do with Clinton... Wal-Mart wanted to be "patriotic" and this or that but they finally realized that American labor is too costly compared to labor in other places and this would of happened with or without NAFTA etc...
But anyways just out of curiosity Glass... tell me some policies and legislation that he helped pass in Congress or signed into law with no GOP help that you did like... be serious though and unbiased...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
As I understood it, the "peace dividends" Clinton always talked about were a result of the military draw down against the Soviet Union, which no longer existed after 1991.
Not sure how many craftsman jobs were lost, but I know a lot of military jobs were, along with the closing of many bases across the US.
If one believes it was Reagan's stern stance with the Communists that led to the collapse, then one could say that Reagan was responsible for Clinton's "peace dividends"....
I prefer to think that Clinton was just lucky by having the collapse of the USSR occur on his watch... Even Greenspan stated in his autobiography that Bill Clinton knew very little about economics when he was president, but did add that he always seemed eager to learn.
NR.
Posted by glassman on :
DD reveals that the luxury tax was repealed in '93, so i was off in my guess..
NAFTA is a mess for both Mexico and the US-- the people who got hurt are workers on both side of the border...
don't make excuses for walmart it's called exploitation... i hate shopping there, but i have to, i buy only what i need to there and the few things i go there for a bargain on are US made stuff like triscuits and quaker oats which are US made anyway... heck i even had a Sams club membership back in the 80's and the 90's...
i know you have Chinese friends, i don't hate Chinese people, but their country is an environmental nightmare, and it's only getting worse... the Govt is subsidizing gasoline over there to increase consumption... they had to shut down a whole bunch of factories just so athletes can breathe of the games...
as for Clintons policies? i have no idea why you want to change my opinion about the Clintons.. it's history..
if Hillary had gotten the nomination? the suicide rate would have tripled nationwide from everybody having to listen to her strident and shrill ranting speeches
i don't like 'em.. it's OK with me if you do... that's politics.
"glabalisation" is not was not inevitable..
as a matter o' fact? if energy prices stay relatively high? globalisation is not going to be as much of a problem... slow and steady progress towards globlisation is better management IMO... less displacement of workers
the only reason the Chinese labor is cheaper is because their economy is still developing... it's not because they are better workers, it's because they don't have as high demand for pay.. the US worker is hurting, and it's gonna get worse, i care about them, and i am not "one of them" i am self-employed..
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: DD reveals that the luxury tax was repealed in '93, so i was off in my guess..
quote:NAFTA is a mess for both Mexico and the US-- the people who got hurt are workers on both side of the border...
Yes, it is a mess but it shouldn't be eliminated. It should be renegotiated & modified to correct the mistakes of it.
quote:don't make excuses for walmart it's called exploitation... i hate shopping there, but i have to, i buy only what i need to there and the few things i go there for a bargain on are US made stuff like triscuits and quaker oats which are US made anyway... heck i even had a Sams club membership back in the 80's and the 90's...
Whose making excuses for Wal-Mart? I certainly aren't. I hate the company and how they exploit their employees plus small town America and it's small businesses. But unfortunately they are sometimes a necessary evil in times of economic downturn and you are trying to save a buck. I really do not care if the products are U.S. made or not because products in this country not being U.S. made is a fact of life. For you to single out Wal-marts' products because of that is ridiculous because for every product you do from them I am sure you are buying other things from other places that you probably are or aren't aware that are not U.S. made... for instance my suits that i wear to work... one is made in Vietnam and the others from other places... and i bought them in Macy's, JC Penney etc...
quote:i know you have Chinese friends, i don't hate Chinese people, but their country is an environmental nightmare, and it's only getting worse... the Govt is subsidizing gasoline over there to increase consumption... they had to shut down a whole bunch of factories just so athletes can breathe of the games...
I agree with you, never said I didn't. What i see China right now is equivalent to our own nations' history during the Industrial Revolution. As we learned to be more environmental over time since that age so will China. Right now they do not realize it nor care but they will in time.
quote:as for Clintons policies? i have no idea why you want to change my opinion about the Clintons.. it's history..
Not trying to change your opinion of them, was just curious to know if there was any policy or law they originated that you do like from them. I hate the GOP but I can admit that there is at least 1 policy/law I can like from them. Could you do the same?
For example, I hated Nixon with a passion but I can admit some things he did i liked like his "detente" policy towards the Soviet Union, school integration policy in the South, and his trying to pass Universal Healthcare and Universal Minimum income etc.
quote:if Hillary had gotten the nomination? the suicide rate would have tripled nationwide from everybody having to listen to her strident and shrill ranting speeches
You would of puckered up and liked it mister, afterall you are ex-military lol be a man!!
quote:i don't like 'em.. it's OK with me if you do... that's politics.
Fair enough but like I said I was not trying to change your opinion of them was just curious of what policies/laws you did like from them.
quote:"glabalisation" is not was not inevitable..
Globalization would of always been inevitable whether people like to admit it or not.
quote:as a matter o' fact? if energy prices stay relatively high? globalisation is not going to be as much of a problem... slow and steady progress towards globlisation is better management IMO... less displacement of workers
I never thought it was/is a problem... if the U.S. did not globalize we would of had more problems then we do now... anything that is tried in life will have problems but you learn from it and modify it to perfect it... people of all kinds ***** too much about this... if you are a baseball player but your fielding is not as good as your batting... then you modify and practice your fielding till it's right and better... simple as that...
quote:the only reason the Chinese labor is cheaper is because their economy is still developing... it's not because they are better workers, it's because they don't have as high demand for pay.. the US worker is hurting, and it's gonna get worse, i care about them, and i am not "one of them" i am self-employed..
Like I said, China is in a period of time that we were that was called the Industrial Revolution. All things get worst before they get better. In time you will see wage increases in China as they try Capitalism more. That is inevitable. Its not a matter of IF but WHEN. And when that happens the playing field will level. It will probably take years of course like it did here during the "Revolution" but it will happen. It already is imo. Their quality of life is improving , be it slow, and with the exception of their environmental issues then in the past.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't see as bright a future for China as you do...
i agree we have done some screwed up things to our environment here, but we didn't have billions of people... as a matter of act? we had only 200 million here in 1970 when the "environmental awakening" began..
and they are only 25 years into their industrial revolution...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
It only takes one person or leader in a country to make change... much like Gorbachev in Russia though that became somewhat of a disaster because they went into Capitalism too fast after like 70 years of Communism and were not ready for it...they should of gone gradually like China is... but anyways as for China one day one person will make the necessary changes in that country...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Between their population controls and the death rate they are likely to see mounting over the next decade or so I'd say that revolution is gonna come around a lot quicker over there than it did here.
Push in one direction and folks will generally go where you want. Put pressure on two opposite sides and that is when folks start growling.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)