Oil Companies Defend Profits To Congress

[AllieBaba]

Again.

You're forcing them when you deny them access to the affordable resources they have. When you take something away and substitute something else for it, that's know as coercion...or force.

 

[Paulie]

Right now, you simply don't have a choice beyond driving a gas-powered vehicle or being told too fucking bad.

No, there are other choices. The Prius, the Echo, etc.. But those cars are what most people would consider to be super ugly. People's pride keeps the masses from going out on a hybrid car binge when those cars look like something out of an 80's cartoon.

I mean, Civics are very popular among all kinds of age groups. Yeah, they're good one gas, but they're still DEPENDENT on gas. Why can't a hybrid look as cool as Civics did for the longest time (not so much anymore)?

Better yet, why don't people just say screw it and ride a bike? How many people drive their cars for a trip of less than 10 miles? How many of those trips didn't involve needing a car to carry something that couldn't be carried on a bike, or even carry anything at all?

There are so many ways we as consumers could change things, but alas, we'd rather sit back and let CONGRESS figure it out for us. That way, we're not inconvenienced, and we have someone to blame when that ultimately and inevitably fails as ALWAYS.

 

[Shogun]

there is more to the hybrid tech that needs to be ironed out. I have a neighbor that is a mechanic and he wont touch em. Besides, we can look back at sport car models and see what the industry REALLY looks like when it's not dragging it's feet to get a product to the consumer. Not to mention, what is the average price of a prius? It's probably not all that tempting if it's still the same range of cost as a small suv or sedan.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief, Priuses are all over the place over here. (Pri-i? What's plural for Prius?)

They look comparable to any other little car. I hate driving them, though. The one we use doesn't have a rear window. It's more like a sky light. And it's hard to see out of the windshield....the dash is funky, lights reflect up and it's so low to the road....

 

[Paulie]

They look comparable to any other little car.

Hardly. There are plenty of gas cars in their class that look MUCH better.

I hate driving them, though. The one we use doesn't have a rear window. It's more like a sky light. And it's hard to see out of the windshield....the dash is funky, lights reflect up and it's so low to the road....

This pretty much proves the point. The effort put into enticing the masses to purchase this car is laughable.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, well, tell that to the state of Oregon. We have a whole fleet of them.

And that pretty much proves my point about denying us access to the resources we DO have and forcing us to use less economic resources.

 

[Paulie]

And while there may be Priuses "all over" in your area, they aren't "all over" everywhere. I suspect they are more prevalent in areas that are economically suffering more. Where I live, the economy is doing pretty well. It's a rich area, and no one here cares about Priuses and saving us from our dependence. They want the best, because they can afford it and that's all that matters.

 

[AllieBaba]

And here, because we're actually affected by the idiotic limitations put on us by rich libs, we are stuck buying inferior cars at jacked up prices because otherwise, we can't eat or heat our homes.

 

[TopGunna]

Well, it's not BECAUSE of capitalism. The "high price" happens to be a product of a capitalistic free market, mixed together well with a dose of detrimental monetary policy.

The price of oil is not going up, per se, the value of the dollar is going down. It now takes more Dollars to buy the oil, because the dollar is worth less. You'll notice that on a day when the dollar rises, oil, gold, and other commodities drop. It's because the market is seeing money move from commodities into cash.

The price of oil will be "lower" if we change our monetary policy and stop printing money to fund an empire that quite frankly, is on the brink.

Until people become aware of the situation in this regard, nothing will change. Prices of goods don't go "up". They adjust with inflation. You can still take the same amount of gold today and purchase the same amount of goods that you could with that gold 50 years ago. That's because the value of gold holds steady. It's "price" goes up as more dollars are necessary to own it, but it's still worth what it will always be worth. Everything you buy has the same price in dollars as people paid 50 years ago, the only difference is that when adjusted with inflation, it now takes more of those dollars to buy it.

That may seem like it doesn't make sense. But it does. If we were to yank 500 billion dollars out of the system, your dollar would be worth more, and therefore the prices you see on goods will drop. But they didn't really drop, they stayed the same. It just took less dollars to buy it. Those goods are still worth the same intrinsic value.

I agree with the basic premise, but I don't think intrinsic value stays the same. Goods' prices shift in relative value all the time - new generations have different tastes and preferences, and improved technology reduces the relative value of older goods. It's all about demand.

The price of tobacco products hasn't risen as fast as other market prices since 1950, despite increased taxes. Why? People have realized the long-term dangers of the habit and don't value it as much.

I hear you can get a great deal on VHS tapes and 8-bit Nintendo too

I do think your basic premise is true. But as far as oil prices, I would suspect that the legions of new drivers in the East who all need gasoline, are in fact what is "driving" the price of crude over $100/barrel.

 

[Paulie]

Arguments/Discussions like this are seriously skewered when the "it's the libs!" "It's the cons!" shit gets thrown in.

Can you even say that there are any real conservatives left in government? If there are, they're in hiding and they're voting liberal in the meantime.

Partisan jabs are so boring. There's no substance behind blaming a side for what you perceive as a problem.

 

[AllieBaba]

But hey, let's not use our OWN oil. Sitting under an empty wasteland. While the poor people freeze and starve, and the rich people boo-hoo about the quality of hybrids.

 

[Toro]

An interesting justifcation, but wrong all the same.
You cut off a resource, even though it "forces" us to use other resources, and you're going to hurt the economy, somewhere. It never works out. And I'm telling you straight up, when people who are dependent upon excess grain stores to feed welfare recipients and starving people of other countries begin to use those stores for frivolous purposes, taking that food out of circulation and causing what's left to skyrocket, you're asking for a melt down.

It's pretty basic.

Are you kidding? What I described was the basic economics of supply and demand.

Ethanol - if that is what you are referring to - hardly makes a dent in American energy demand. Thus, all the finger-pointing at "libs" is merely dogmatic rhetoric and isn't a serious argument.

Its all about supply and demand for oil. The simple fact is that demand has grown and supply has not. Thus, oil is at $100. Full-stop.

 

[AllieBaba]

The basic premise of supply and demand is NOT that you withhold necessary resources from the masses in order to FORCE them to accept a substitute. The basic premise of supply and demand is that you MEET the demand, instead of restraining people from doing so.

 

[Paulie]

The basic premise of supply and demand is NOT that you withhold necessary resources from the masses in order to FORCE them to accept a substitute. The basic premise of supply and demand is that you MEET the demand, instead of restraining people from doing so.

Did you learn this from your stint as an intern at the Federal Reserve bank of Bumblefuck, for college credit back in the 80's? You know, back when you were transporting women to abortion clinics, working in agriculture, and writing papers about hemp?

 

[Toro]

The basic premise of supply and demand is NOT that you withhold necessary resources from the masses in order to FORCE them to accept a substitute. The basic premise of supply and demand is that you MEET the demand, instead of restraining people from doing so.

Even if you included ANWR - which at its maximum would produce, what, 500k bbl/d? - it still would be a blip.

Demand is rising, supply is not. Full stop. It has nothing to do with "libs."

 

[Gunny]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344193,00.html

In other words, "We know that rising fuels costs are hurting consumers, especially the poor and those on fixed incomes, but tough shit; deal with it."

Our mighty American energy companies doing what they do best.

I'd put them out on their asses. Oil is one natural resource that IMO should not be left in the hands of unscrupulous capitalists who don't care who gets hurt, to include this Nation, so long as they make their profit.

 

[onedomino]

I'd put them out on their asses. Oil is one natural resource that IMO should not be left in the hands of unscrupulous capitalists who don't care who gets hurt, to include this Nation, so long as they make their profit.

But oil companies make less percent profit on revenue than most other industries; about eight percent. Shareholders have a right to expect at least that much return on their investment. Energy companies are easy to criticize but they are not the principle reason that oil is more than $100 per barrel. Government over-regulation, the depletion of easily developed oil reserves, increased world energy demand, and the declining value of the dollar are important reasons why oil is $100 dollar per barrel. Energy companies are making eight bucks per hundred. What if we slashed the profit in half, what effect would that have besides reduce the capital available for energy development and decrease shareholder investment?

 

[jillian]

But oil companies make less percent profit on revenue than most other industries; about eight percent. Shareholders have a right to expect at least that much return on their investment. Energy companies are easy to criticize but they are not the principle reason that oil is more than $100 per barrel. Government over-regulation, the depletion of easily developed oil reserves, increased world energy demand, and the declining value of the dollar are important reasons why oil is $100 dollar per barrel. Energy companies are making eight bucks per hundred. What if we slashed the profit in half, what effect would that have besides reduce the capital available for energy development and decrease shareholder investment?

That fails to take into account that Exxon/Mobil had the highest profits of any corporation EVER two quarters (I think maybe three quarters now) in a row... all the while when people can't afford to heat their homes or buy gas.

This is a public trust issue and shouldn't be left to a behind closed doors policy that suited Cheney and his buddies.

 

[onedomino]

That fails to take into account that Exxon/Mobil had the highest profits of any corporation EVER two quarters (I think maybe three quarters now) in a row... all the while when people can't afford to heat their homes or buy gas.

This is a public trust issue and shouldn't be left to a behind closed doors policy that suited Cheney and his buddies.

You discuss Exxon-Mobile as though it was something other than owned by investors. Do you have a 401K? Do you have a mutual fund based retirement plan? If so, then the chances are very high that you own some of Exxon-Mobile. My remarks do not fail to take into account energy company profit. Let me repeat: the energy companies are making about eight percent profit. They are not the reason oil prices are high. The other factors that I mentioned in the post above are much more important. What is Exxon-Mobile suppose to do? Be contrite that demand for energy is high? Just because people buy a lot of what they offer, Exxon-Mobile should offer its shareholders (that would be you and I) less than eight percent ROI? That makes no sense. The media and others demonize "record oil company profits;" that Exxon-Mobile makes "billions." But they fail to mention that hundreds of billions were transacted to obtain what amounts to eight percent ROI. Let's slash the energy industry's relatively weak eight percent ROI and thereby kill investor incentive. That will produce more oil.

 

[jillian]

You discuss Exxon-Mobile as though it was something other than owned by investors. Do you have a 401K? Do you have a mutual fund based retirement plan? If so, then the chances are very high that you own some of Exxon-Mobile. My remarks do not fail to take into account energy company profit. Let me repeat: the energy companies are making about eight percent profit. They are not the reason oil prices are high. The other factors that I mentioned in the post above are much more important factors. What is Exxon-Mobile suppose to do? Be contrite that demand for energy is high? Just because people buy a lot of what they offer, Exxon-Mobile should offer its shareholders (that would be you and I) less than eight percent ROI? That makes no sense. The media and others demonize "record oil company profits;" that Exxon-Mobile makes "billions." But they fail to mention that hundreds of billions were transacted to obtain what amounts to eight percent ROI. Let's slash the energy industry's relatively weak eight percent ROI and thereby kill investor incentive. That will produce more oil.

Why subsidize the corporations with the highest profits? Why give them tax relief?

Profits aren't the only issue. Corporations, especially those dealing with public trusts, don't necessarily have unlimited, and unregulated profit. Nor should they be price gauging.