It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil companies say huge profits ''no big deal''

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
According to the Washington Post, the huge oil companies, who are raking in HUGE profits never before seen in corporate history, shrug it off as ''no big deal''

www.washingtonpost.com...

The nerve! What are they doing with all that money? Burning it? Why not help solve this worlds problems. 4,000,000,000 people live in poverty. 100,000 children people die every day from hunger.

These people have more money then they could spend in 10 lifetimes, and they still want more and more and more.

The greatest addiction in this world is the addiction of wealth...it isnt drugs. It is wealth.



[edit on 5-2-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yeah, there could be some greed going on. Being rich is fine, but it's greed that makes wealth bad. When you have folks who are on the lower end of earnings, you can't just say "to hell with it, we want more profit," and proceed screw those folks who have a hard time making ends meet. Well, you can, but it's highly unethical. I would say there are a whole pile of "big wheels" in the oil industry who do nearly nothing and collect huge profits.

Is there a legitimate reason to profit at the cost of your less wealthy customers?

I say invest some of those profits into future energy technologies, that are cleaner and safer. Are they doing this?

Troy



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I'm not to surprised that the big oil think that obscene profits aren't a big deal. They have no idea what it's like down here with the ordinary citizens of this country, When you hang out on yachts and country clubs the "rabble" are the farthest thing from your mind.

They don't even have to watch the numbers whirling by on the gas pump. They have someone to fill the chauffered limousines up for them.

It's not gonna change cause we believe in the the BS supply and demand song they sing.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
You people are a perfect example of why some people should not be allowed to vote. Exxon’s profit margin is 10%, by contrast McDonalds is %12+ and Microsoft’s is %30. To discuss a company’s profits in terms of raw dollars is both stupid and deceptive.



[edit on 9-2-2006 by ElTiante]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I don't want to butt in, but insulting people may not be the best way to get your message across, Tiante. You also may want to explain the profit margin system to people who are not read in economics as well. I happen to know about profit margins, yet have my own opinion on the oil profits.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
You people are a perfect example of why some people should not be allowed to vote. Exxon’s profit margin is 10%, by contrast McDonalds is %12+ and Microsoft’s is %30. To discuss a company’s profits in terms of raw dollars is both stupid and deceptive.



[edit on 9-2-2006 by ElTiante]




You're conveniently leaving out the fact that Exxon-Mobil has just broken the record for single quarter earnings of ANY American company in history. Oh, but that "little" 10% profit margin ain't much, is it?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
People who don't understand what a profit margin is should go learn before they venture an opinion on this subject.

Exxon only made "record profits" in unadjusted dollars; a meaningless metric. It's created by stupid journalist for stupid readers. Do you know how much they spent to make those “record profits”? Oh you don't? Of course, that's because you're a dolt..

If my company made $10 million profit, you might say "that too much." But without know how much I spent to get that 10 mill, your opinion is stupid.

If I gave 100 million to Exxon, they'd give me back $110 mil. However that same $100 mil given to Microsoft would get me $130 million.

Which company is gouging consumers?

[edit on 9-2-2006 by ElTiante]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The Microsoft argument doesn't really apply so much in this case. I spend far more money on gasoline than I do with Microsoft products. You can't make a "necessary" product out of reach for some of your customers. As much as I hate oil, many of us still drive to work in Petrol machines, to put food on the table, and I just haven't seen a stream of electric vehicles become affordable or widely available yet. Yes, many of us want a change in fuel, but we haven't made the transition yet.

Is oil a necessity (in terms of using it as fuel)? Yes, in the short run, until we actually start using something else. And no, because I feel we may have better options.

Troy

[edit on 9-2-2006 by cybertroy]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Sadly (for you) your parents did (or do) not care for you enough to insure you receive a proper education and thus you are left with whatever leftist dreck the public schools pour into your little brains. Additionally, I am not possessed of the time, patience or inclination to correct all of your misimpression.

However, please try to understand the following: Oil exploration is very expensive and risky proposition. Investors deploy their dollars so as to garner the greatest return. If those dollars generate an insufficient return, they will be deployed elsewhere and you and I will walk. I would rather pay than walk.

Additionally, in FY 2004 Exxon paid nearly %40 percent of its REVENUE (not PROFITS) in taxes. I would regard that as confiscatory. If you believe otherwise, than you are either stupid or a communist. In either case, you might consider moving to Cuba.

If you wish to participate in Exxon’s “record” profits, then buy their stock.

Lenin, offering additional proof that even a stop clock tells the right times twice a day, observed that one may ration a resource by money or time. That is, if you don’t want to wait, you’ll have to pay and if you don’t want to pay, you’ll have to wait.

So, if one were to regulate oil company profits, there would be extensive gas lines, since investor would invest their dollars elsewhere. I, for one, would rather pay than wait.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Are you saying I somehow have a weak mind, or I'm incapable of understanding the words you are typing or something?

If so, I assure you that you aren't speaking to an illiterate.

I respect the dangerous jobs of those who work out on oil rigs, I'm sure it is dangerous work, and I now part of the price of oil is because of their salaries, and the salaries of those who work in the refineries and such. But I'm not so sure that the oil execs were in some financial ruin, and just "had" to jack up the prices, by 80% or whatever % it is.

Maybe the oil companies are scared of new technologies that could replace their spot in the fuel game. I think the oil companies need to join the revolution, not fight it. I'm sure there is money to be made in new fuel technologies. If they can't make significant coin there, I'm sure they could invest the money somewhere.

Troy




top topics



 
0

log in

join