Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Who are you addressing here? The op? If 6.7% is the return on Exxon, then I agree thats not THAT good. Are you talking about those that want to nationalize?
That is the average profit margin for Exxon corporation. 6.7% is far from being "extortion". Exxons dollar profit is so high because the average sales price has tripled, meaning their total dollar profit has tripled.
That is the average profit margin for Exxon corporation. 6.7% is far from being "extortion". Exxons dollar profit is so high because the average sales price has tripled, meaning their total dollar profit has tripled.
Oh, yeah. All "BIG OIL" have low profit margins, although, and I can't cite my source and don't wanna dig through the financials, I thought Exxon was closer to 22 or 23%. At any rate, most people need an external enemy. 17 year old boys need the high school across town, 20 year olds need to demonize the frat down the street, Republicans need them thar' terrrarrrists, and Dems need those evil, greedy corporations. Its all good.
Another thing is this. A lot of people are calling for more extensive oil drilling in the United States. One thing is I don't like the idea of using up all of our resources unless we HAVE to. Another thing is, that companies would be making a huge profit from land owned by our own people. We would be paying them to charge us more for it. Then if we nationalize them, how in the world would we ever know if the national entity that is responsible for their overseeing is in fact legit? Its not like government cant be bought.
Bah. Its a lose lose situation because the US people are intent on ignoring subversive and divise political networks operating in our government. If somebody said we're going to make a watchdog group to oversee the nationalized oil drilling efforts, to ensure its purest integrity possible is upheld, i'd be all for it. At least there would be a chance our nations resources wouldn't fall in to the wrong hands.
At the same time, it seems like a defeatist strategy. Its a bandaid fix. I'd rather see a national initiative and grants given to universities to find a fast alternative, that doesn't create pollution, and is much more affordable than gasoline.
I'd LOVE to know WTF is going on with people these days. Where in the world does it say we can not create a massive university fund, and prize plate, to try and find viable alternatives asap from the private sector? Nobody is going to convince me that alternatives are hard to come by. You cant honestly believe that we can go to space, and see molecular particles, and realize changes in atomic structures but we cant find another way to propel an engine? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME RIGHT?
I'm going to level with you guys. I think kids in middle school could probably come up with a viable alternative. If universities cant, they might as well just close up shop. That's beyond pathetic. Why even bother to go to a university if the university is teaching a fourth grade cirriculum.
Thanks for your non partisan input. There's the presumption that I am anti capitalism/anti business because I know for fact that monopolistic practices are happening, which hurts honest business throughout every sector and consumers alike. Monopolies are not free market, and people using free market defense reasoning are dining on dogma. OP question is deliberately slanted to presume any regulation of a deregulated industry is communism, and that's complete BS.
I think a better illustration of what's been going on in business trends the past 100 yrs will give you an idea of why other alternatives have been hamstrung in what should be free market, and by our own govt. We started out the industrial revolution with higher profit margins for the haves and a base level job for the have nots. The upside to it was that business itself created infrastructure with their funds that were for public domain use, and they also floated many boats as ancillary business thrived equally (tires for ford cars, electrical systems of delco, etc). The downside to it was anti trust situations stacked on top of anti trust situations influencing our political representation to the point where We The People are marginalized into oblivion. Are conservatives willing to admit this? Will the left refrain from profiting in their own way through corporate sponsorship paying their lunch?
Powerhouse corporations like standard oil, ford motor company, firestone, westinghouse, boeing etc form industry coalitions that steer politicians into encouraging oil dependance to keep them all fed with lions share of the peoples dollars. That means that if technology comes along that relegates oil use to go by the wayside the way coal and steam engines did, they'd be out of a job entirely because their expertise is industry specific. Computer technology being operated in such a fashion would keep us stuck on stupid the same way as these related industries are because they've got $$$$ to invest in influencing a sheople cornering of the market that they don't want to lose.
Corporate influence being banned from washington DC, we would have had alternatives available in the free market more than 30 yrs ago when oil embargo became a political tool to punish america. As things stand, the limiting factor of our economic abilities is limited to how much oil is available to us because our world revolves around an oil dependance infrastructure.
Do I wholesale condemn industry? Heck no! Do I think our founders were correct in stating their grave concerns about corporations, monopoly, and banking shenanigans? Hell yes! I think if people were completely honest they'd see this whole mishagosh for what it is- a disturbed imbalance of power forcing everyone into oil even when they'd rather not participate in oil. A truly free market would have solved this long ago, and can solve it now, if people would stop defending/protecting the perpetrators, and quit villifying the real heros in the equation. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of perpetuating the real problems, and financially we're now in less of a position to do something about it due to monetary abuses ongoing for decades.
Big oil does deserve a punch in the nose the same way automotive industry got theirs with lost market share. There should be no corporate welfare for them. They, like any other business, should be responsible enough to invest in the technologies that advances & keeps them competitive, not encouraging inbreeding of family cactus. How we implement that punch in the nose is a cat of another stripe.
I think it might be too late for GM and Ford who've amassed so much debt milking old/flawed paradigms and shunning new technology for so long- their excuse being shareholder yields. Makes it harder for me to reward them as an investor myself when they're making half assed efforts in their quality product availability. Mostly I've seen them playing to lose as if they mean to prove renewables as a dead end. Maybe renewable sales will pay off the debt of gas engines? Time will tell, but insincerity and low quality will likely put them out once and for all (which I find sad, but fair, in context of their historic behavior).
As for the next technology down the pike, I'd caution all americans to rethink dependence relationships of any sort. This includes hydrogen infrastructure investments where the market can be cornered to prevent people from having their own hydrogen generation systems. The more spread out and diversified we are, the less chance for market abuse and concentration of powers. Cornering of the market is the problem, not the market, and not honest business practice. The reluctance of big oil to get involved with advancing anything other than oil is all about losing their economic hostage type situation. Some of them are guiltier than others. Reward those oil companies who planned ahead for diversity. Let the rest compete for the limited applications only oil can solve, and see who is left standing in the end.
I favor nationalized oil only for as much time as it takes to level the playing field in the market place which the industry enjoyed plowed in their favor for over a century. Restoring a true free market should be our objective for long term health. This means especially not allowing the fox to write hen house rules the way enron did on the left coast.
Thanks Harbor Lady. Finally the voice of reason prevails. I agree that Big Oil needs a punch in the nose. If Ford & GM had of got one maybe they would not be on the ropes
today. And thisis my fear in all of this. I am not anti business in any sense, but businesses that continue to get away with greed on steroids will put themselves out of business in this country because of the great innovation power of Americans.
Also, hydrogen technology has the ability to be made so that each American homeowner could have a hydrogen production unit that sits in their garage and powers the home electricity while it also makes hydrogen for the next days car ride. Big Oil would be shaking in their boots if a guy like Bill gates comes along and makes units like that and it is closer than you think.
How many years have we watched the ads form big oil saying how they are investing in alternative energy sources. Unless you count what they spilled in Valdez, Alaska as
an investment. Attorney fees cost a lot.
Thanks for your non partisan input. There's the presumption that I am anti capitalism/anti business because I know for fact that monopolistic practices are happening, which hurts honest business throughout every sector and consumers alike. Monopolies are not free market, and people using free market defense reasoning are dining on dogma. OP question is deliberately slanted to presume any regulation of a deregulated industry is communism, and that's complete BS.
I think a better illustration of what's been going on in business trends the past 100 yrs will give you an idea of why other alternatives have been hamstrung in what should be free market, and by our own govt. We started out the industrial revolution with higher profit margins for the haves and a base level job for the have nots. The upside to it was that business itself created infrastructure with their funds that were for public domain use, and they also floated many boats as ancillary business thrived equally (tires for ford cars, electrical systems of delco, etc). The downside to it was anti trust situations stacked on top of anti trust situations influencing our political representation to the point where We The People are marginalized into oblivion. Are conservatives willing to admit this? Will the left refrain from profiting in their own way through corporate sponsorship paying their lunch?
Harborlady, you put a lot of effort into these posts. I applaud that. While the op's original poll may indeed assume that any regulation equals communism, your favored nationalization IS communism. For government to own the means of production of our MOST important industry, well it doesn't get any clearer than that.
Quote:
Powerhouse corporations like standard oil, ford motor company, firestone, westinghouse, boeing etc form industry coalitions that steer politicians into encouraging oil dependance to keep them all fed with lions share of the peoples dollars. That means that if technology comes along that relegates oil use to go by the wayside the way coal and steam engines did, they'd be out of a job entirely because their expertise is industry specific. Computer technology being operated in such a fashion would keep us stuck on stupid the same way as these related industries are because they've got $$$$ to invest in influencing a sheople cornering of the market that they don't want to lose.
See, this doesn't make ANY sense. While any corporation lobbies for Federal dollars, are you saying that Fed bucks are what keep these corps. running? If indeed a VIABLE alternative comes along, there isn't anything oil or anyone else can do to stop it. They can legislate all they want, but if the solution is real, the people WILL find a way to harness that technology. Oil would die.
Quote:
Corporate influence being banned from washington DC, we would have had alternatives available in the free market more than 30 yrs ago when oil embargo became a political tool to punish america. As things stand, the limiting factor of our economic abilities is limited to how much oil is available to us because our world revolves around an oil dependance infrastructure.
No arguments here. Very sensible.
Quote:
Do I wholesale condemn industry? Heck no! Do I think our founders were correct in stating their grave concerns about corporations, monopoly, and banking shenanigans? Hell yes! I think if people were completely honest they'd see this whole mishagosh for what it is- a disturbed imbalance of power forcing everyone into oil even when they'd rather not participate in oil. A truly free market would have solved this long ago, and can solve it now, if people would stop defending/protecting the perpetrators, and quit villifying the real heros in the equation. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of perpetuating the real problems, and financially we're now in less of a position to do something about it due to monetary abuses ongoing for decades.
Again, you're somehow saying an economical alternative to oil EXISTED these past 30 years. No amount of posting water car links or anything else will change the fact that it hasn't yet been created. Doesn't mean its not there, it just wasn't economical with oil at less than $4.00 a gallon. Still might not be.
Quote:
Big oil does deserve a punch in the nose the same way automotive industry got theirs with lost market share. There should be no corporate welfare for them. They, like any other business, should be responsible enough to invest in the technologies that advances & keeps them competitive, not encouraging inbreeding of family cactus. How we implement that punch in the nose is a cat of another stripe.
Semi-good idea. If oil cannot innovate to save themselves, they go the way of the Dodo. No corp. welfare. But punitive measures? C'mon. Who's gonna pay for that now? They do have pricing power...We'll just feel it on the backend.
Quote:
I think it might be too late for GM and Ford who've amassed so much debt milking old/flawed paradigms and shunning new technology for so long- their excuse being shareholder yields. Makes it harder for me to reward them as an investor myself when they're making half assed efforts in their quality product availability. Mostly I've seen them playing to lose as if they mean to prove renewables as a dead end. Maybe renewable sales will pay off the debt of gas engines? Time will tell, but insincerity and low quality will likely put them out once and for all (which I find sad, but fair, in context of their historic behavior).
You've just found the answer for all this tail chasing. You yourself said above that GM and Ford will be punished for their lack of investment in alternatives. So be it. If alternatives for oil flourish, then the oil industry will too suffer. Unless the men in black are stealing patents...
Quote:
As for the next technology down the pike, I'd caution all americans to rethink dependence relationships of any sort. This includes hydrogen infrastructure investments where the market can be cornered to prevent people from having their own hydrogen generation systems. The more spread out and diversified we are, the less chance for market abuse and concentration of powers. Cornering of the market is the problem, not the market, and not honest business practice. The reluctance of big oil to get involved with advancing anything other than oil is all about losing their economic hostage type situation. Some of them are guiltier than others. Reward those oil companies who planned ahead for diversity. Let the rest compete for the limited applications only oil can solve, and see who is left standing in the end.
Again, if the average American has the ability to invest in hydrogen technology, then by all means do so. But 300 million people? Where will those in urban areas put their personal hydrogen infrastructure. As far as cornering the market, what are you talking about??? This is the aim of EVERY business. As for oil investing in alternatives, for gods sake why? There's a tradeoff between investing in whatever else, and reinvesting to find NEW oil. If mandates were placed on oil investing in alternatives, gas would still increase and no solution would be found. LET THEM DO THEIR JOB.
Quote:
I favor nationalized oil only for as much time as it takes to level the playing field in the market place which the industry enjoyed plowed in their favor for over a century. Restoring a true free market should be our objective for long term health. This means especially not allowing the fox to write hen house rules the way enron did on the left coast.
How will nationalizing oil ever bring about a freer market?? That is the most...insane solution anyone could devise. What are the feds gonna do with the profits from oil? Reinvest it? In alternatives? They can't even run a restaurant. Do they really need to run at a loss? That would just facilitate racking up more debt...AND you'll still pay more. Great solution.
How many years have we watched the ads form big oil saying how they are investing in alternative energy sources. Unless you count what they spilled in Valdez, Alaska as
an investment. Attorney fees cost a lot.
Some of them in earnest are diversifying into renewables. Others are mouthing the part trying to appear green or are only seeking green tax credits for minimal efforts but not really implementing new technology. Read the shareholder reports (availble to public by merely requesting) and see what they're investing in, and also how much. That's how you can tell them apart.
We cannot agree on definitions. You've already established that you don't believe me, and that's your right. I have no idea why you'd bother making commentary on things you didn't research out, then tell me I'm wrong. Again, do the homework. Don't take my word for it.
Some of them in earnest are diversifying into renewables. Others are mouthing the part trying to appear green or are only seeking green tax credits for minimal efforts but not really implementing new technology. Read the shareholder reports (availble to public by merely requesting) and see what they're investing in, and also how much. That's how you can tell them apart.
Good tip. I'll check it out.
Off hand, do you know if Exxon is for real or just "mouthing the words" ?
Oh, yeah. All "BIG OIL" have low profit margins, although, and I can't cite my source and don't wanna dig through the financials, I thought Exxon was closer to 22 or 23%. At any rate, most people need an external enemy. 17 year old boys need the high school across town, 20 year olds need to demonize the frat down the street, Republicans need them thar' terrrarrrists, and Dems need those evil, greedy corporations. Its all good.
As long as you dont mind admitting that you thought Exxons profits were higher, and you dont state it as fact, I have no problem with you admitting you were wrong.
We cannot agree on definitions. You've already established that you don't believe me, and that's your right. I have no idea why you'd bother making commentary on things you didn't research out, then tell me I'm wrong. Again, do the homework. Don't take my word for it.
No. It really irritates me when people trot out the same tired conspiracy theories as fact. It makes no difference to me what you believe. Your grasp of economics is weak and your alternative ideas are feeble. I'm sorry if this is the first time that anyone actually wades through your gargantuan posts to refute that junk. We don't simply disagree on definitions; we disagree on reality. If you sleep better at night because you "understand" the dark forces of industry that conspire to make you pay more at the pump, knock yourself out. If you have secret knowledge that the illuminati is teaming with the oil services to rake you over the coals, well somebody get you a book deal. This idea though that industry should be punished because they make a profit is the most retarded idea, ever. Period. Where does it stop? I guarantee you would like the results of nationalized oil less than you do now. But it won't matter then, because they have more guns than you. Once you cede control to the feds, you don't ever get that control back. They're not benevolent and they don't care about you. They want control and if their own citizenry is naive enough to gift wrap it for them, they'll take it, no questions asked. I won't ask what position you held in the oil industry but it certainly wasn't ANYTHING in the financial realm. Please, pick up a introductory economics text and dive in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
