is a mere $15 billion.  

Yep, they set the record highest profits.  Shell and BP made a little over $4 billion each.  They average about $4 million an hour - in a 3 month period!  $15 billion while every other company around them is going bankrupt and unemployment and foreclosures are skyrocketing.   >:(

I heard this on NPR this week and wanted to throw up! They justified it by saying it really isn't as much as it sounds like, they have a very high over head cost. Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!

Charlotte

Audre wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 8:45pm:

Yep, they set the record highest profits.

Coca-Cola is the largest global brand in the world based on sales -- in 2002, the company made over $19 billion.

Isn't profit "profit?  Isn't the figure after all expences...all overhead?  

I believe thats right Donna

Do you think they will hire more employee's now.. ::)
what a world what a world. I have a hard time thinking that's reasonable.
the bb

   Well you should see it reflected on your quarterly stock payments. Although my Red Hat stock has done better over the years as a percentage of price than my Exxon/Mobile stocks. 643% profit last year. Not bad for a company that sells a free operating system.
  Yeah I know the housing, construction and related industries are in the tank. And screwing up the rest of the economy. But you should have seen that coming when the Democrats started passing all those weird lending laws and crap in 94.
  We'll get over it, as long as you don't let the same folks sell you another bill of goods.
[smiley=smokin.gif]

wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 8:35pm:

is a mere $15 billion.

That could be good or bad. What was their total volume?

Quote:

Coca-Cola is the largest global brand in the world based on sales -- in 2002, the company made over $19 billion

You know who has the biggest share of Coke, don't you?

Mr. Buffett knows how to make a buck.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 9:55pm:

Quote: Coca-Cola is the largest global brand in the world based on sales -- in 2002, the company made over $19 billion You know who has the biggest share of Coke, don't you? Mr. Buffett knows how to make a buck. Charlie

And that means, what?

Just that the guy amazes me. He told some interviewer that every day he has 5 or 6 cherry cokes and his favorite snack is heavily salted hamburger....nevetheless, he's 78. He must know something we don't.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 10:01pm:

Just that the guy amazes me. He told some interviewer that every day he has 5 or 6 cherry cokes and his favorite snack is heavily salted hamburger....nevetheless, he's 78. He must know something we don't. Charlie

Ok ::)

I will say that I am glad I do not pay their taxes.

anyway, here is more info on the 3rd quarter...

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

OH MY GOD!!! They made money!

Let's see, why in the hell would anybody want to be in business?  What an obscene thing, making money.

Over $10B of that obscene profit was distributed to the shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks.  $1.6B of that profit was from selling a natural gas business in Germany.

Plus, you can't make judgements on the profit number without knowing jack about the volume of business they had to do to make that profit.

If I make 10 cents selling you a loaf of bread, how is it any more obscene if I end up selling 100 billion loaves of bread?  Come on people, you can be smarter than the BS the media is feeding you.

Their profits went up 42%.  I say congratulations.

Even I don't begruge people making money........lots of it.

Opening an account called "goodwill expense" would probably do more good than harm. It's not done much.

Charlie

The guy selling hot dogs at the ballpark is charging $8 for a product that costs about $1 to deliver, labor included.  Obviously, that is an obscene profit.

With one stand, he can only sell one line hot dogs per game, and this limits his income to the profit of one stand.  To increase his volume (and profit), he hoardes his obscene profits until he can afford another stand and secures another location in the park or expands the one he's in.  He saves for and gets a license to operate a second dog stand.  Things go well and eventually he is selling dogs at 6 stands and has a team of 15 people delivering dogs in the stands.  Everybody is happy.

Now, by expanding business creatively, he has provided jobs and a market for the goods he buys and sells.  Everybody wins.  Maybe he even gets smart (some retailers do) and starts letting the savings he gets by scaling the operation trickle down into the company... bonuses for employees, lower prices for consumers... good things happen.

How much of that obscene profit should the government collect as 'obscene profits tax', and what effect will that have on the man's business?

After paying the new taxes, the man sees that the real cost of the business just grew to negate his profits, because they were obscene.  He did too well and the punishment is the confiscation of the fruit of his labor to somehow 'even the distribution' of profits.There is no motivation to expand or hire new employees.

It's a rhetorical question, but obviously the point is you don't want to tax them at all... it only puts drag on the company.  No matter how you think it will affect the company, I think we can all agree it's not a positive effect if peop

Quote:

"goodwill

Yep...that is where I shop for necessities these days.   Thanks to things I cannot control.  >:(

all though off topic... there are still tons of potential tax dollars that are going uncollected. and talk about an industry that rakes in the profits... that's right "Churches" it's all profit and it's all tax free.

I think they would solve tons of problems and go a long way toward balancing the budget and reducing taxes for every individual by adopting one new strategy... abolish the tax exemption status of  all churches.

If your church owns tons of land in any community... offer them the same privilege of paying property tax as anyone else.

just a thought.

with warm regards,
Tony

OMG....I just posted on a controversial topic and I SWORE I 'd never do that.   I must be out of my freaking mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I apologize profusely.  No really I do.   it will never happen again, since it does no good whatsoever.  Nobody wants to hear my views just like no one wants to really hear other peoples views.  Law of nature and all that. ( People only want to hear themselves talk.)

I have no problem whatsoever with a profitable business paying out dividends to its stockholders from its profits, no matter how large.

However--when unprofitable companies can pay out dividends to their stockholders from federal bailout funds, it commences to stick in my craw.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

"Redistribution" indeed.  If anyone needs to get paid first, it's the involuntary "stockholders" we've all become.

Best,

George

That seems weird that their profits rose while demand decreased............all the while telling us they make pennies per gallon and not pennies per dollar.

It's ridiculous that we give them tax breaks when oil is at $11 per barrel so that they stay in business.  It's funny how capitalists come running for socialism when capitalism doesn't pay the bills, but when capitalism creates wealth, socialism can go fuck itself.

Linda_Howell wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 2:52am:

OMG....I just posted on a controversial topic and I SWORE I 'd never do that.   I must be out of my freaking mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I apologize profusely.  No really I do.   it will never happen again, since it does no good whatsoever.  Nobody wants to hear my views just like no one wants to really hear other peoples views.  Law of nature and all that. ( People only want to hear themselves talk.)

Oh, go ahead and admit it Linda, you liked it didn't you! :)  (pssst, hey kid, ya wanna post onother?  Huh, huh?) ;) ;) ;)

:-*

-P.

Kirk wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 9:46pm:

Well you should see it reflected on your quarterly stock payments. Although my Red Hat stock has done better over the years as a percentage of price than my Exxon/Mobile stocks. 643% profit last year. Not bad for a company that sells a free operating system.   Yeah I know the housing, construction and related industries are in the tank. And screwing up the rest of the economy. But you should have seen that coming when the Democrats started passing all those weird lending laws and crap in 94.   We'll get over it, as long as you don't let the same folks sell you another bill of goods.[/b] [smiley=smokin.gif]

And that my friends is probably the most accurate synopsis of the problems of the state of the US economy you will ever see.  It wasn't confined to lending though it extended to the way corperations were allowed to report their financial assets.  This gave rise to the house of cards in the tech stock market and ultimatly its collapse in the early 00's.  It continues today.  The books have been cooked with many corperations and it is beginning to come crashing down.  

Don't forget that while you and I lost net worth last year the politicians had a net gain of 13% That's 2X the historic return of the stock market!  You think there is something the politicians know that we don't?  The voters of this country REALLY ought to sit up and take notice of this little fact.

Good post Kirk!

-P.

Marc wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 9:49pm:

wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 8:35pm: is a mere $15 billion.   That could be good or bad. What was their total volume?

Quote:

Exxon, which took in $404 billion in revenue last year... generating $40.6 billion in net income last year. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Quote:

Exxon Mobil... the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, The company said its revenue totaled $137.7 billion in the third quarter. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Still looks chesty.

That's approximately a 10% profit margin after providing millions of jobs and a useful product.

How obscene.  Get a rope!

How eff'n ridiculous it is to point to one of the only sectors in OUR economy that is working well and call it obscene profits.  MANY business, especially softwarecompanies, operate at 40-60% margins and here you are complaining about 10%.

The depth of ignorance regarding economics and simple math in this country astounds me.

Marc wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 9:49pm:

That could be good or bad.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 8:56am:

That's approximately a 10% profit margin...

Simple math???




Quote:

MANY business, especially softwarecompanies, operate at 40-60% margins and here you are complaining about 10%.

Economics????  



Is it a good witch or a bad witch?



:)

Shawn explained what NPR was saying when I said overhead costs. I guess what I meant was what it took to get the money. I know some business should be able to be successful but it just doesn't seem right that we are forced to pay such high prices for oil so their profit margin is higher. Other companies work really hard for their income and have to make sacrifices too. My kindergarten classes are over 20 because there just isn't money to hire new teachers. It sure was eaiser when class sizes were smaller. Maybe we would have more money if transportation and heating costs at the Board of Education weren't so high now. I have NO education in finances and this is just my totally uneducated opinion.

Charlotte

The hot dog example does not make me happy.

I don't want to pay $8.00 for a hot dog in a stadium, that I helped buld and maintain, to a business that has no competition or they wouldn't be getting $8.00 for that hot dog.

No, I do not have an education in ecomonics, but I think the words "lobby" and "Federal Government regulations", plus "lack of environmental protection", etc, fit in here somewhere.

Surely we've been manipulated into paying roller coaster prices for fuel.  It's just plain wrong for oil companies to gouge such record profits out of people, especially at a time like this, what with the loss of jobs, homes, and looking in the sofa cushions to try to find change to buy just one gallon of gas to get to the doctor, or pay for med's.  It's not our fault that some huge corporations are closing, moving or going bankrupt because of mismanagement, or that we bail them out so that they can continue to do what they've been doing.  

We really do need to get moving on alternative power supplies.

We really do need to get moving on alternative power supplies getting rid of the Congressional perpetraitors or else any alternative energy will be for naught.  IMO  :-/

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:52am:

.............................................................. We really do need to get moving on alternative power supplies.

I won't argue with that since I work for START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE - North America's largest solar energy services supplier  ;)

It's funny, but I haven't seen anyone post the truly obscene amount of total taxes that help drive up gas prices so dramatically.....

The trouble with "profit" these days is that these corporations are NOT creating jobs.  They are cutting jobs to create that profit.  They cut jobs, ruin careers, pay dividends to shareholders and pad their pockets with multi million dollar bonuses all out of the saved payroll dollars of the former worker bees.  

If they were creating jobs, the nation wouldn't be in such a pickle with unemployment the way it is.  Wisconsin UEI funds are nearly tapped out.  No new living wage jobs are being created, and industry is closing their doors or severely cutting workforce.

I'm very concerned about my future right now.  Very concerned.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 8:56am:

That's approximately a 10% profit margin after providing millions of jobs and a useful product. The depth of ignorance regarding economics and simple math in this country astounds me.

You are right Shawn.  The ignorance astounds me, too.  
BTW, what other companies in any of the Dow Jones averages make more than 10% net profit?

Apart from the seemingly magical ability to hike our pump prices the second oil rises $1, and the interminably slow rate at which the prices come down, even when oil drops by 50%... You are complaining about an industry that is trying like hell to create jobs, is profitable, is necessary, and is which makes a reasonable margin on their product.

The hot dog example was about a vendor who really does make an obscene profit.

Other industries (automotive, for example) have been regulated to death, literally.  They cannot compete here anymore.

What kills me is the stupid knee-jerk reaction about the magnitude of their business.  Would it be better if Exxon limited their profit to $10 and then stopped producing the product that keeps this country running?

If it's about the price you are paying for gas, complain about the enormous amount of taxes you have to pay on each gallon.  They get the taxes for doing nothing at all.  The government does everything they can to impede their ability to deliver product, THEN they tax it to death.  The government does not look for oil, drill for oil, pump oil, transport oil, refine oil, distribute the product, or pay any workers.  Yet, they make more per gallon than the oil companies!  What the hell?

And, why aren't you complaining about the obscene profits of IBM, AT&T or Coke?  Their obscene profits are far more than the oil companies.

Once again, you are being MANIPULATED.  Open you eyes and THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

Redd wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 11:36am:

The trouble with "profit" these days is that these corporations are NOT creating jobs.  They are cutting jobs to create that profit.  They cut jobs, ruin careers, pay dividends to shareholders and pad their pockets with multi million dollar bonuses all out of the saved payroll dollars of the former worker bees.   If they were creating jobs, the nation wouldn't be in such a pickle with unemployment the way it is.  Wisconsin UEI funds are nearly tapped out.  No new living wage jobs are being created, and industry is closing their doors or severely cutting workforce. I'm very concerned about my future right now.  Very concerned.

What are you saying Redd, that the oil companies should be able to employ ALL of the workers in the US?  Huh?  How are the oil companies responsible for any WI unemployment?

Or are you saying that nobody should make a profit until everybody is employed?

What jobs do you propose the oil company give these people anyway?  They aren't allowed to build any refineries or do any drilling here... tell me how they are responsible for that.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 12:05pm:

And, why aren't you complaining about the obscene profits of IBM, AT&T or Coke?  Their obscene profits are far more than the oil companies.

Jesus dude.  More fuzzy math?
Coke made 3.6B in the last 6 months.  At&T made 6.1B in the last 6 months.  IBM made 3.5B in the last 6 months.  

Its weird you say that IBM's $3.5B net profit in 6 months is more than XONs 14.8B in 3 months.

As a matter of fact, you are SO wrong, that these 3 companies combined didnt make in 6 months what Xon made in 3 months.  



Quote:

The depth of ignorance regarding economics and simple math in this country astounds me.

No shit.  Coke, IBM and AT%T made a combined total of 7.89B in Q3, 2008.  Somehow this 7.89B is bigger than 14.83B?  Can you tell me how 7.89B is bigger than 14.83B?


Quote:

Once again, you are being MANIPULATED.  Open you eyes and THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

OK, what are their margins?

I picked those guys randomly as profitable companies.  If ya like, I can find the real examples.... believe what you want.

Edited to add, at 3 of the last few companies I worked at (ranging from 3000 to 16000 employees) we would get insane pressure from management if our margin dipped anywhere near the 60% range.  My point is, if we did the same volume of business as Exxon, we would have made $60B in profit.  Exxon does not make excessive margin.

The last point I'll add is, yes, the profits right now look large because the market made it that way.  You all participate in buying the product and setting the price.  You all vote the jerks into office that pass laws that simutaneously manipulate the tax code to hand out favors and satisfy the ecological lobby.  However, the recent numbers are a blip, and big oil is not the enemy.  The state of our economy is the enemy, and the solution is in your hands on Tuesday.

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 12:44pm:

I picked those guys randomly as profitable companies.  If ya like, I can find the real examples.... believe what you want.

I just gave you the real examples.  You are going to completely evade them?
You said
Quote:

And, why aren't you complaining about the obscene profits of IBM, AT&T or Coke?  Their obscene profits are far more than the oil companies.

If Coke made $1.89B last quarter and Exxon made $14.83B, how is $1.89B larger than $14.83B?

So I just gave you 'a real example'.  Why would you believe anything different than fact?  14.83billion is a larger number than 1.89 billion, but you can  
Quote:

believe what you want

 

lol





Quote:

Once again, you are being MANIPULATED.  Open you eyes and THINK FOR YOURSELVES

I am so lost! I just know we need more money for our social service programs. The schools, fire dept. and police are running so low on money everywhere. Without these services we are going nowhere. Schools are crticized for failing but expected to run with a reduced budget, yet educate and serve more students. Our education system is where it all starts. You fail the kids and the future will be grim. Someone try to explain to me why the oil industry can make so much profit while people can't even pay taxes to support these organizations???

Charlotte

I wasn't speaking of Exxon specifically, but the ever increasing Corps. that are cutting their way to profitability.

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 9:44am:

I know some business should be able to be successful but it just doesn't seem right that we are forced to pay such high prices for oil so their profit margin is higher.

Some businesses?


Quote:

Other companies work really hard for their income and have to make sacrifices too.

Life's not fair, we can't make it fair, we never will be able to make it fair.



Redd wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 11:36am:

The trouble with "profit" these days is that these corporations are NOT creating jobs.

The purpose of a business is to make money, not provide jobs. Jobs are a byproduct of the purpose.


Quote:

They are cutting jobs to create that profit.

If that business wasn't making a profit before the job cuts and the needed work gets done after the cuts, that business had too many people employeed.


Quote:

They cut jobs, ruin careers,

As hard as it may be to stomach, jobs are fluid. Ebb and flow is a fact. People have to learn to adapt and change. It sucks that the days of working for one employer for a life time and retiring with a gold watch and a monthly check are coming to a close for the majority of the work force. Knowing that's the future, people have to adapt to the new reality and learn to survive in a different era.


Quote:

pay dividends to shareholders

Once again, delivering profit to the owners of a business is the reason the business exists.


Quote:

and pad their pockets with multi million dollar bonuses

On that you have a point. If times are tough for a business, bonuses should be minimal.


Quote:

If they were creating jobs, the nation wouldn't be in such a pickle with unemployment the way it is.

True. But the reason they aren't isn't all related to the greed of business owners. Taxes, governmental regs, changing consumer tastes and a multitude of other reasons factor in to the equation.

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 1:01pm:

Someone try to explain to me why the oil industry can make so much profit while people can't even pay taxes to support these organizations???

People do....obscene amounts in many places. The fact those orgs don't see it, or waste it when they get it is a whole different subject.


Modified because the best spell checker is the "post" button.

Quote:

If Coke made $1.89B last quarter and Exxon made $14.83B, how is $1.89B larger than $14.83B?

And that folks is what you get when one person is talking % and another is talking $.

I'n with Shawn on this one.

Alternate energy is well and good but it's not going to get us off oil.  70% of our oil consumption goes to transportation.  The only way to get off foreign oil is to change what cars run on.

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 1:01pm:

I am so lost! I just know we need more money for our social service programs. The schools, fire dept. and police are running so low on money everywhere. Without these services we are going nowhere. Schools are crticized for failing but expected to run with a reduced budget, yet educate and serve more students. Our education system is where it all starts. You fail the kids and the future will be grim. Someone try to explain to me why the oil industry can make so much profit while people can't even pay taxes to support these organizations??? Charlotte

IMO the reason our education system is in a shambles is due to Federal government intervention.  If the responsibility is left to the free market instead, these things can be regulated better by the people of that state as to the needs/wants of the schools.

IMO, the federal government needs to get the heck out of our lives, stop taxing us beyond oblivion and start doing the job the Constitution requires them to do.

Here's a good read START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

My question, what's better?  Having them fall through the cracks of a failed government run large system, or getting a smaller education that is beneficial??

edited because I forgot to delete a line. :-[

Racer1_NC wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 1:20pm:

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1st, 2008 at 1:01pm: Someone try to explain to me why the oil industry can make so much profit while people can't even pay taxes to support these organizations??? People do....obscene amounts in many places. The fact those orgs don't see it, or waste it when they get it is a whole different subject. Modified because the best spell checker is the "post" button.

The board of education isn't wasting money, at least the one I work for isn't. Bus drivers are given so much per gallon to maintain the buses and pay for gas. The gas prices rose so fast that there was no extra to give the drivers. Many of our drivers barely broke even. Last year many colleges had to increase tuition mid year or/and lay off professors to balance their budgets. If oil costs hadn't risen so fast and out of porportion maybe the accountants would have been better prepared. Jobs have been lost across the country as many organizations are trying to balance their budgets. Sorry I still don't get it!

Charlotte

Charlotte,

I don't know about your schools, but ours are failing and it has nothing to do with paying bus drivers.  By most measures, in California we support schools with the most money per student of any state, yet our students rank near the bottom.  It's not a lack of money problem.  It's a bureaucracy problem.

-Shawn

Quote:

Bus drivers are given so much per gallon to maintain the buses and pay for gas. The gas prices rose so fast that there was no extra to give the drivers. Many of our drivers barely broke even.

Our state is different.......the state and county own the school buses. They got slammed by higher energy costs, but with contract prices (without state taxes on gas), and revamping routes they got by. Of course no consideration was ever given to changing the the cross county busing of sudents for "diversity" reasons. I guess some things are untouchable even in times of economic distress.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE ......... ;D

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Charlie (You got me started)

Charlotte,

After paying my obsene property taxes that have tripled over the last fifteen yrs to pay for abysmal education in the government schools, my daughter's education costs approximately $4000 in a private school which has turned out three students who scored a perfect score on their SATs, three cadets at the Air Force Academy, one who has been offered a full ride academic scholarship to Harvard within the last five years.  This is from a school that runs between 400-450 students in the k5 through 12th grade, and has NO academic testing as a means of admission.  It is done by TEACHING!  But then we don't have to pay a High School principal $150,000, three vice principals $135,000 each, spend $1 million to revamp the administrative suite of the high school, (Out of the last referendum that we had to pass to save the band program), and I could go on and on.  Of course, we do have the advantage of not having to have an anti-drug, anti-gang, sex-ed, etc. program.  That is handled by rules that are enforced, and are covered in a handbook that the parents must read along with the student, and sign.  Our Anti-drug, Anti-gang, Sex-ed programs take about 15 minutes total in an orientation meeting with parents and students before the school year begins, so we don't need to apply 2 1/2 hours per DAY as was done when my oldest son was in the Sixth grade.  (One reason we pulled our kids out of the government schools.)

The lack of spending on Education in this country is the biggest farce perpetrated on the public that there is.  I know there are good teachers out there trying to educate to the best of their ability, but the system is so corrupted by the NEA and other unions, and used so blatantly by the liberal politicians I am nauseated.  That is why I have voted NO every time we have had a new referendum, and will continue until I see something PRODUCED for my tax dollars.  (We've passed three in 10 yrs, and have a new one coming up)

I didn't mean to go on so long, but I get really fired up when I hear a complaint about the lack of funding for a FAILED program that is used to denigrate the success of a corporation that is PRODUCING a product and is profitable.

The Federal Government has no legal basis for ANY social services.  Find them in the Constitution.

Jerry

This is long but I like this guy.....

David Brooks - NYT - Oct. 31

Government spending is growing at an astounding pace. Congress and the president have thrown hundreds of billions into stimulus packages, domestic programs, military spending and other initiatives. Total federal spending is growing at a 13.8 percent annual rate.

Has all this money done anything to actually stimulate private economic activity? Not that you'd notice. Consumption is cratering. The U.S. economy just experienced the sharpest real drop in consumer spending since 1974.

The lesson here is that we have a right to be skeptical of so-called stimulus packages. The Federal Reserve can effectively stimulate the economy. There are certain automatic government programs, like unemployment insurance, which also do it. But the history of the past century suggests that politically designed, ad hoc stimulus packages rarely work.

Often they get the timing wrong; they come too late to do any real good. Often they get the pressure points wrong; the economy is simply too complicated for lawmakers to know where to apply the stimulus patch. Almost always, they get psychology wrong. When you give people a chunk of money in the midst of economic turmoil, they don't spend most of it. They save it.

Nevertheless, economists continue to propose new stimulus ideas with unshaken confidence and over the next six months, the government will almost certainly pass more gigantic programs. Republican economists are talking of plans larger than $100 billion, and Democratic ones are hatching plans in the $300 billion range.

Bad policy ideas are coming in profusion. There are plans to bail out automakers. There are plans to issue more rebate checks (even though the last ones didn't work). Barack Obama is proposing one-time tax credits for small businesses that are hiring. This is an ineffectual ploy that would shower federal money on those few firms that would be hiring anyway while doing nothing for companies in struggling sectors.

These and other plans amount to an economic sugar rush. And yet the political climate being what it is, something big is going to pass.

In times like these, the best a sensible leader can do is to take the short-term panic and channel it into a program that is good on its own merits even if it does nothing to stimulate the economy over the next year. That's why I'm hoping the next president takes the general resolve to spend gobs of money, and channels it into a National Mobility Project, a long-term investment in the country's infrastructure.

Major highway projects take about 13 years from initiation to completion  too long to counteract any recession. But at least they create a legacy that can improve the economic environment for decades to come.

A major infrastructure initiative would create jobs for the less-educated workers who have been hit hardest by the transition to an information economy. It would allow the U.S. to return to the fundamentals. There is a real danger that the U.S. is going to leap from one over-consuming era to another, from one finance-led bubble to another. Focusing on infrastructure would at least get us thinking about the real economy, asking hard questions about what will increase real productivity, helping people who are expanding companies rather than hedge funds.

Moreover, an infrastructure resurgence is desperately needed. Americans now spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, a figure expected to double by 2020. The U.S. population is projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 42 years. American residential patterns have radically changed. Workplaces have decentralized. Commuting patterns are no longer radial, from suburban residences to central cities. Now they are complex weaves across broad megaregions. Yet the infrastructure system hasn't adapted.

The smart thing to do is announce a short-term infrastructure initiative to accelerate all those repair projects that can be done within a few years. Then, begin a long-term National Mobility Project.

Create a base-closings-like commission to organize federal priorities (Congress has forfeited its right to micromanage). Streamline the regulations that can now delay project approval by five years. Explore all the new ideas that are burgeoning in the transportation world, congestion pricing, smart highways, rescue plans for shrinking Midwestern cities, new rail and airplane technologies. When you look into this sector, you see we are on the cusp of another transportation revolution.

A mobility project would dovetail with the energy initiatives both presidential candidates have offered. It would benefit from broad political support from liberals and business groups alike. It would rebalance this economy, so there is more productive weight to go along with Wall Street wizardry.

Smart investors are going to take advantage of the current panic to make money. A smart president could take advantage of it to build something that will last for decades and decades to come.

Sounds a bit like the WPA to me. In any case, I like this guy.

Charlie.

OK, I'm going to put my foot in my mouth.....

what makes it right that Exxon, or any other huge corporation, make record profits when our people and our country are in such a disasterous situation? They made it off of us!  Who else did they make it off of?

Did they not contribute to our economical downfall?  Did they not, by making it harder to buy product and less product, have an adverse effect on our economy?

Talk about having too many employees, thus the lay-offs, the reason I quit working at the hospital was because they kept adding patients to the nurses patient-to nurse-ratio until the nurses quit, but were not replaced.  Therefore, the patients are not getting the proper care and are suffering because of it.  

Most of my friends, all working for different companies. are being over-worked to death!  They work later and take work home with them at night and on week-ends.  Raises have been reduced to 1-1/2 to 2%.  Wow. That's a whopping .20 to .30 cents per hour...once per year.  But the cost of living goes up....what is it now....over 5%?

The middle class is gone.  It is now only the rich and the poor.

Our system has some big flaws. The gap between rich and poor is as great as it was in 1920. That's not good.

In the 50s....those glorious years....as everyone likes to say...at least business, labor, defense, and research got along better.

It's called greed without conscience and we are now paying for it; literally.

Charlie

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 4:24pm:

................. The middle class is gone.  It is now only the rich and the poor................

I think it depends upon what a person calls "rich" or "poor".  I don't have any money, but I'm rich in family and friends - does that count?  ;)

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons
in Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,400 $13,000 $11,960
2 14,000 17,500 16,100
3 17,600 22,000 20,240
4 21,200 26,500 24,380
5 24,800 31,000 28,520
6 28,400 35,500 32,660
7 32,000 40,000 36,800
8 35,600 44,500 40,940
For each additional
person, add 3,600 4,500 4,140

   START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I'm rich like you Marc, but I NEED many things that only money can buy and my family and friends would be the last place I would look to for help.

Donna, so is the government a better option than your friends or family?  Even Obama preaches the fact that family is where that responsibility lies.  It's just that he doesn't feel like that applies to him, I guess, seeing that his illegal immigrant auntie that was so special to him (according to his book) lives in a Boston slum.

Fu, I don't understand what you are asking me.  If it's do I believe who should help if I need help, my answer is that I don't ask for help.......from friends, family or government.  I've gotten by thus far by the skin of my own teeth and, hopefully, I'll never be in a position to have to burden my family.  I don't own a credit card, pay cash for everything and if I don't have the money, I don't buy.  That may not be smart by most people's books, but I'm not in debt and would be worried to death if I were.

Well, you said the last place you would ask for help was friends or family.  I took that to mean you'd ask somewhere else first, not that you'd never ask for help.

I give up trying to make my point. Our bus drivers are privately owned and contracted out. Maybe some schools run differently but where I work we are all trying to do the best we can with what we have. We are very rural and get very little help. Like Donna said, teachers are quitting and they don't replace them. My friend is a school nurse in a grade 6-12  High School. The nurse she worked with retired and they didn't replace her. She is running in circles trying to deal with everything. My classes are getting more and more overcrowded because they just can't afford to hire more teachers. We have state mandates, ect. that makes it even harder. Imagine how much more money we would have if the driver's didn't have to pay $4/gallon like we did last year?? We are discussing going to a 4 day a week schedule with 90 min. extra each day. That keeps the buses off the road  and the schools closed one day a week. I think Lisa will end up teaching in private school next year. I sure would if I was just starting!

Charlotte

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 7:19pm:

I think Lisa will end up teaching in private school next year.

That seems wise.

Once again, we complain about the record profits of Exxon Mobil. XOM supplies several petroleum based products, including oil, which is made into gasoline, which, as Shawn said, is taxed to death, and we have to purchase in order to drive.

I have a suggestion, why don''t you buy some stock in the company? Then you can go to the stockholders meeting and bring up your concerns. Making a record profit? I think you'd be laughed out of the room. That's what companies strive for. That's what companies do, is make a profit, that's why they are in business.

Why blame XOM on the economic crisis we are having now? They didn't cause it. They supply products that we demand, and not just gasoline.

I suppose you could try to get people to stop buying products made by XOM. Hefty trash bags? That's just one of the things they supply. I wonder why the complaints, what about the other corporations who have made record profits. Why does no one complain about Bill Gates, who is a billionaire from selling Windows operating systems? C'mon, people. Exxon is not the only company out there. They just get the most press.

Shawn, you said it. People are being manipulated by the media. Think for yourselves. Companies are in business to make money. Stockholders expect those companies to make money. Publicly held companies have a responsibility to their stockholders. Make a profit.

I own stock in XOM, and I'm damn glad they are doing so well.  

Charlotte, you have 20 kids in your kindergarten class? Not bad, really, when I was in school, kindergarten included, there were 30 to 31 kids in each classroom. It was like that all through grade school and high school.

I have more than 20 in kindergarten. When I first started teaching almost 30 years ago, this wasn't an issue because kids were different. We didn't do so much inclusion and testing. Kindergarten was for socialization and some academics. It was also half day. The kids we get now are such a combination of abilities and manners, some aren't even toilet trained. As far as my older students, it's the same deal. Many abilities all mixed together with some major social issues. My first years of teaching were usually 25 to 32 in a class. Things are much different now thanks to No CHild Left Behind.

Charlotte

wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 8:56am:

...softwarecompanies, operate at 40-60% margins...

If you are talking operating margins, that would be different from net margins.



2006

Normalized net profit margins in the Software sector for the most recently reported quarter ranged from 35.7% (CHKP) down to 4.5% (LNUX), with a median value of 14.4%

http://static.seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/SoftwareNetMargin200605

http://seekingalpha.com/article/11196-software-stocks-net-profit-margins





Bob P wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 1:24pm:

70% of our oil consumption goes to transportation...

It looks like the U.S. energy consumption by the transportation sector is about 28.5%

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Kevin_M wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 11:25pm:

2006 Normalized net profit margins in the Software sector for the most recently reported quarter ranged from 35.7% (CHKP) down to 4.5% (LNUX), with a median value of 14.4%

Hard data is good to have.

With the software industry at 14.4% (median), my point is that just over 10% for Exxon is not obscene.  Thank you for looking up the data... I was lazy.

Don't blame Exxon for the high price of oil.  They are not the ones who banned drilling on the continental shelf, in the midwest, in the rockies, in Alaska, off the Alaskan coast, do I need say more?  If we could have been drilling here in the USA instead of importing the majority of our oil, and if we could have been refining all of our oil instead of having to import gasoline because we have not been able to build a refinery since 1972 the price of oil would be down to where we would not be paying the high prices that we are.  

Did Exxon make a large profit?  Sure.  Good for them!  They won't do it every year, unless our energy policy in DC continues to keep us in short supply.  Remember the concept of supply and demand?  Did you notice OPEC has cut production again since the price of oil started dropping?  Is that Exxon's fault?  Should they just give it away?  Chicago is now charging 10.25% sales tax.  Should they be hit with a windfall profits tax???  The percentage of sales tax is higher than the percentage Exxon made in profit.  How much does Chicago have at risk to justify that kind of return?  

Jerry

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

What is it? Something like 68 million drillable acres owned and not drilled by big oil off shore? As has been said, we use 25% of the oil and the best esitimates are that we have about 3% of the oil that we need under our flabby asses.

Most of our oil comes from those hosers up north anyway.  8-)

Oh.....and here is one thing that might bode well for entities like big oil. Try a little good will by helping out a strapped school transportation system or two. It benefits almost everybody.

Charlie

cash5542 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 11:00pm:

I have more than 20 in kindergarten. When I first started teaching almost 30 years ago, this wasn't an issue because kids were different. We didn't do so much inclusion and testing. Kindergarten was for socialization and some academics. It was also half day. The kids we get now are such a combination of abilities and manners, some aren't even toilet trained. As far as my older students, it's the same deal. Many abilities all mixed together with some major social issues. My first years of teaching were usually 25 to 32 in a class. Things are much different now thanks to No CHild Left Behind. Charlotte

What you said is absolutely right, Charlotte, and I totally forgot about that. It's a shame that kids don't come to school prepared, even in kindergarten. When I was there, we were all 5 year olds that did a little academic learning, like learning how to write our names, learning the names of things, did lot's of art and a bit more,  but we socialized, and learned to get along, and took a nap every day, and it was only half a day. And we were all toilet trained.  ::) That is inexcusable.

Things are different now. And have been for quite some time. I was speaking with a woman at work the other day about the lack of work ethic of young people today, and why that is. It's a rare young person who is interested in working, and comes to work ready to work.

Interesting how kids go to school not prepared, teachers are expected to "raise" people's children for them, then when they get into the work force, they find out expectations are entirely different. Welcome to the real world.

Part of filling out an application to work for my company involves taking a math test. It's 20 questions, and has equations and "story problems", dealing with fractions, percentages, and general math. I apparently did it the fastest of any applicant, and was the only one to get 100% right. These are typical math situations that I run into every day.

When I'd give people the application to fill out later, many people would come back to me and say "I can't do that kind of math", or only answer a few questions, and leave the rest. There is no time limit, they get to use a calculator (although at the time, I couldn't), and have scratch paper.

Oh, and the company I work for has no debt, and has made a record profit every year for the last 5 years. Just not as much as XOM.

Transportation is 29% of our total energy consumption but 70% of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Callico wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 12:50am:

Don't blame Exxon for the high price of oil.  They are not the ones who banned drilling on the continental shelf, in the midwest, in the rockies, in Alaska, off the Alaskan coast, do I need say more?  If we could have been drilling here in the USA instead of importing the majority of our oil, and if we could have been refining all of our oil instead of having to import gasoline because we have not been able to build a refinery since 1972 the price of oil would be down to where we would not be paying the high prices that we are.   Did Exxon make a large profit?  Sure.  Good for them!  They won't do it every year, unless our energy policy in DC continues to keep us in short supply.  Remember the concept of supply and demand?  Did you notice OPEC has cut production again since the price of oil started dropping?  Is that Exxon's fault?  Should they just give it away?  Chicago is now charging 10.25% sales tax.  Should they be hit with a windfall profits tax???  The percentage of sales tax is higher than the percentage Exxon made in profit.  How much does Chicago have at risk to justify that kind of return?   Jerry

Good point and good post Jerry!  

-P.

Charlie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 2:41am:

What is it? Something like 68 million drillable acres owned and not drilled by big oil off shore?

Charlie, from Factcheck.org...


Quote:

Q: Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S. that are not being used? A: Not exactly. More than 4,700 new holes are being drilled on current onshore leases. Republicans, including presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain, have been arguing that the federal ban on drilling for oil on certain offshore lands should be lifted. President Bush, in fact, repealed the presidential ban on such drilling on July 14; Congress would still need to remove its restrictions before the land would be available for exploration. Many Democrats disagree with such plans, and they have been saying that the oil companies already have more land than they know what to do with. On June 24, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama used this argument in a speech in Nevada:   Obama (June 24): The oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven't touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production. The charge has been repeated by Nancy Pelosi and others in his party. Unused Acres? According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service, there are nearly 68 million acres of federal lands (onshore and off) that are part of non-producing leases as of fiscal year 2007. This is in contrast to 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil. So, there are 68 million acres of leased land on which companies aren't extracting oil, but Obama went too far when he said oil companies "haven't touched" them. As Bureau of Land Management Petroleum Engineer Bill Gewecke, who manages the onshore sites, told us, he "wouldn't say untouched, [I] would say undeveloped." That's because these leased lands that don't contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management's Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS. And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as "production." For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That's a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as "productive" holes. And that doesn't even include holes that might have been continually drilled throughout the year for exploratory reasons. It's not known how much of that drilling is taking place on leases currently classified as "non-producing" and how much is taking place on leases that are already producing oil. BLM's Gewecke told us that the agency does not track acreage that is being developed or explored. And Andy Radford, an analyst with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association, told us that the oil companies are "very secretive about announcing where they are testing, exploring and thinking of drilling because the industry is very competitive." - Justin Bank

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Bob P wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 6:33am:

Transportation is 29% of our total energy consumption but 70% of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I see Bob.  Petroleum is about 40% of U.S. energy demand.  70% of this goes to transportation.  

Of 100% of energy demand, about 29% goes to transportation (rounded, 70% of 40%).

From the wrong viewpoint I read was housed the answer but involved a little simple math, needing the total consumption figure.  ;)

From the chart in the link I posted, transportation used 5,105,000,000 barrels of oil in 2006.

From your link:

U.S. Petroleum Consumption:  20,687,000 barrels/day


5,105,000,000 divided by 365 is about 14 million barrels/day.  

Lookin' like 70%     :)



Doesn't leave much room left for Hefty Bags.  



Thanks, Bob.

Quote:

After paying my obsene property taxes that have tripled over the last fifteen yrs to pay for abysmal education in the government schools, my daughter's education costs approximately $4000 in a private school

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

   This is where my tax dollars are going more and more towards. Somedays I am so glad I don't have kids. I would have bought some lawyer 2 cars and a garage to put them in by now. I know that there a lot of teachers out there doing what they can to teach our future, but I think your profession has been hijacked. I'm sorry, but if you blew shit up, you don't get to teach my kids anything, I don't care what your qualifications are.

Mike

P.S. If you get your news from the NYT, you don't get to chap my ass where I get mine.

Here's is a fascinating look at real data from the Department of Energy.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And if you have the bandwidth to download a big report, this one has everything you could ever want to know about energy consumption and production in the US:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Too much Shawn, you crack me up.  


But with the fascinating election results to take in Tuesday night...


Energy consumption and elections, they both are a lot of gas.