Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You were right that Standard Oil WAS a monopoly till the Sherman Anti Trust act. It was both a Vertical and Horizontal monopoly. That has long since been shattered. They don't call them 'The Seven Sisters" in Houston and Fairbanks for nothing.
#2) The fact remains that Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies after Standard Oil was broken up for being a monopoly.
#3) Who vote the shares is the most material thing on Earth!!! Who votes the shares CONTROLS the company.
This is the thing about CON$ervative willful ignorance, no matter how much you expose them to the truth, it never sinks in.
Exxon will be getting all of my business for SURE now!
ThinkProgress » Exxon Makes $30.5 Billion, So GOP Votes Unanimously To Give Them Tax Breaks
In typical lib fashion, the article never gives any specifics about what the bill actually does. Instead, it offers all kinds of value judgements completely unsupported by any facts.
In percentage terms, Exxon's profits are not that spectacular.
Your article is a hatchet job, just like all leftwing journalism.
Viva la Exxon!
Glad you're on board with them too!
Got Gas?
We've had this conversation before.
They paid approximately 40% of their operating income in income taxes around the world.
And that doesn't count the excise taxes glommed on at the pump. Government taxes on a gallon of gas are higher than Exxon's profit margin.
I'd like to see those numbers if you don't mind.
I SUSPECT that most of that 40% is really them paying a fee to the governments for the OIL they take out of that nation's ground.
That's not really a TAX, then, is it?
Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies AFTER Standard Oil was "busted."
Again, banks are immune to antitrust laws.
For example, say the police put their pension fund in a bank. The bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund who now own the stock, but the bank votes the stock proxies.
All Rockefeller did was transfer control from Standard Oil to Chase National Bank and his fund and foundation "charities."
Charities that the Super-Rich control are also another means to control a monopoly. The "charity" owns the stock it is endowed with, but the head of the charity votes the proxies. The Rockefeller Family has over 2000 such "charities" that they control, so very small amounts of stock, well below any SEC reporting requirements, can be spread out among them.
The advantage banks have over "charities" is with banks you get to use other people's money.
There is a whole chapter in The Rich And The Super-Rich on the cleverness of the rich.
Rockefeller's "competitors" were companies he secretly bought out and who then pretended to be competitors.You were right that Standard Oil WAS a monopoly till the Sherman Anti Trust act. It was both a Vertical and Horizontal monopoly. That has long since been shattered. They don't call them 'The Seven Sisters" in Houston and Fairbanks for nothing.
No it wasn't. Standard Oil was never a monopoly. It always had competitors.
You simply don't know what the definition of monopoly is. You've been bamboozled by propagandists on the government payroll who call themselves "economists."
Rockefeller's "competitors" were companies he secretly bought out and who then pretended to be competitors.
Dang you are willfully stupid.Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies AFTER Standard Oil was "busted."
Your language isn't very precise, which indicates you know little of the subject. Did he vote 60% of the shares, or did he vote 60% of the proxies? If the later, proxies the privilege to let someone else vote your shares. Proxies can be a small percentage of the total vote or a large percentage. Saying he voted X% of the proxies is meaningless if you don't know what percentage of the votes were proxies.
Again, proxies are permission to let someone else cast your vote. They can be revoked at any time. In fact, anyone wanting to cast your vote has to ask for you permission explicitly. Someone who casts a proxy vote doesn't "control" that vote.
Again, banks are immune to antitrust laws.
ROFL! Where did you learn this non-fact?
How does that indicate banks are immune from antitrust laws?
Rockefeller couldn't transfer anything he didn't own. he setup trust funds like the Rockefeller Foundation 1) to avoid paying taxes on his earnings and 2) to continue his charitable work after his death. You obviously don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
Again, the Rockefellers can't transfer any stock they didn't own to any trust or charity.
The advantage banks have over "charities" is with banks you get to use other people's money.
Banks are not charities, and you can't "transfer" stock you don't own to anyone.
There is a whole chapter in The Rich And The Super-Rich on the cleverness of the rich.
Judging by what you have posted here, the author is obviously an ignorant poltroon.
These are well known facts that are easily accessible to everyone.Rockefeller's "competitors" were companies he secretly bought out and who then pretended to be competitors.
ROFL! What brand of conspiratorial horse manure have you been reading?
don't get hung up on big numbers EZ, of course they grossed 30 billion, the price is high. no one cares when it bottoms to $1.90 or so....their profit margin has not changed, its s till around 8-10%.
if tax breaks make sense at $1.90 they make sense at $4 bucks too
So? Their profit margin is still less than 10% that of a hedge fund. Less than 30% that of Software development.don't get hung up on big numbers EZ, of course they grossed 30 billion, the price is high. no one cares when it bottoms to $1.90 or so....their profit margin has not changed, its s till around 8-10%.
if tax breaks make sense at $1.90 they make sense at $4 bucks too
Did you even read? They didn't gross $30 billion, they NETTED $30 billion in profits.
Since most of the tax breaks come in the form of amortizing equipment expenses and depreciation value of hard assets, shall we do the same for all businesses? How about forcing that mom and pop to not be allowed to write off the company truck or office furniture? Maybe we can stop that local small cheese factory to not be allowed to write off a semi trailer or curd vat.Keep the tax breaks for big oil coming! They need the help!
So? Their profit margin is still less than 10% that of a hedge fund. Less than 30% that of Software development.don't get hung up on big numbers EZ, of course they grossed 30 billion, the price is high. no one cares when it bottoms to $1.90 or so....their profit margin has not changed, its s till around 8-10%.
if tax breaks make sense at $1.90 they make sense at $4 bucks too
Did you even read? They didn't gross $30 billion, they NETTED $30 billion in profits.
Do you have a point, other than class warfare jealousy and anti-capitalism, Comrade?
Google = 28.43%
Microsoft = 31.76%
Exxon = 9.53%
So? Their profit margin is still less than 10% that of a hedge fund. Less than 30% that of Software development.
Like last year, Exxon was edged out as the largest company in the U.S. (that crown again goes to Wal-Mart), but it can boast about being the most profitable. With the recession past it, Exxon boosted earnings 59% thanks to rising oil prices driven by a recovering world economy. Oil isn't everything to Exxon.
After its 2009 mega-deal for XTO, natural gas now accounts for half of Exxon's global production. But even amid sluggish natural gas prices, Exxon remains in a league of its own on our list: its $30.5 billion in profits are a staggering $10 billion more than its closest oily competitor, Chevron, and more than 52 times the size of the median profits in the 500.
Exxon Mobil reported a first-quarter profit Thursday of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent jump from the year before as higher crude oil prices, fatter U.S. oil refining and marketing margins, and a revival in global demand for petrochemicals boosted earnings.
Royal Dutch Shell also reported higher profits. Excluding one-time items and inventory gains, Shell earned $6.3 billion, up 30 percent from the first quarter of 2010 even as production dropped 3 percent.
Higher crude oil prices were the overriding reason for the increase in profits. Exxon Mobil produces 2.4 million barrels a day of crude oil and natural gas liquids, and the average price Exxon received for every barrel was $25 higher than the year before, David Rosenthal, vice president of investor relations, said in a conference call with analysts.
No, it means Orangeman Boner is in bed with the oil monopoly. They know he will protect them by blocking anything the Dems try, so they jacked up the price of gas more than a buck in the few months he's been in power.so now that Bush is gone, and gasoline is over $4.00 once again, does it mean Obama is in bed with the oil companies?
The point is we should not be giving oil companies tax breaks that are not available to other businesses, both small and large in the US. For example, oil companies can deduct from their taxes up to 22% of the of the value oil pumped from their wells as a depletion allowance. The depletion allowance is suppose to compensate the producer for the depletion of oil pumped from the well. A 22% rate assumes the well will go dry in less than 5 years. However the average well is good for 10 to 15 years of production. Deduction of intangible costs of operation of older well is another give away. All these special deductions for oil companies are in addition to deductions for the normal cost of doing business. It's just not fair to allow these giant multinational corporation to have these tax breaks while small businesses can only deduct their operating expenses.We've had this conversation before.
They paid approximately 40% of their operating income in income taxes around the world.
And that doesn't count the excise taxes glommed on at the pump. Government taxes on a gallon of gas are higher than Exxon's profit margin.
They can also get a credit for all foreign taxes paid.
