Exxon Mobil Sees Record Profit for U.S. Co.

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: KentState

Originally posted by: Aisengard
4) Gas prices take away spending money from hundreds of millions of Americans = less money being spent in the economy, bad for economy

Conclusion: The bad outweighs the good

How do you get hundreds of millions of Amercians having their money taken away? Hundreds of millions pay higher prices, but that money is invested directly into many of their retirement plans, stocks, funds, 401ks. Yes, I'm paying more, but my 401k to begin with is doing very well because of companies like this. Heck, if it really bothers you, you could have invested your money directly into Exxon and would have made more than you lost by higher prices.

This is bullshit logic. And really, totally irrelevant to the point.

The people whose spending money is affected by this are the people who are in the poorer percentile of the population. An extra $2000 a year is not going to affect someone whose household income is $70,000+ It's going to affect the poorer people, whose gas cost actually cuts into their spending money, and who also don't necessarily get things like stocks in oil companies and 401ks, and can't afford to invest in the non-guaranteed stock market.

It's still a direct correlation: Higher gas prices = less spending money

Yours is tenuous at best, and only for the 25% of the population whom it might affect.

 

[bctbct]

I find it amusing that some in this thread compute what they pay at the pump equating into higher profits from their investments.

 

[BarneyFife]

LOL@the oil shortage and all the excuses. We are getting raped by the big oil companies and I laugh at all of who believe that crap about China consuming more oil. The joke is on you with these record profits. Double LOL@the person claiming how its good for the economy that oil prices are high. I guess he isn't smart enough to figure out that EVERYTHING goes up in price because of it. Did anyone expect any different with Bush being president? The republicans are giving the oil companies free reign. This is worse than communism. This is government by corporation.

 

[blackllotus]

Yet another example of how big oil companies are extorting american citizens just to make money

 

[CSMR]

This issue seems to bring some of the most stupid comments on AT P&N. Why in general do people here think they have the authority to talk about economic issues when they know next to nothing? Why is it economics that brings this out, rather than engineering or theoretical physics?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: CSMR
This issue seems to bring some of the most stupid comments on AT P&N. Why in general do people here think they have the authority to talk about economic issues when they know next to nothing? Why is it economics that brings this out, rather than engineering or theoretical physics?

Oh, people here blather on about those things as well. That just gets noticed less because there are a lot more economists here than engineers or physicists.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CSMR
This issue seems to bring some of the most stupid comments on AT P&N. Why in general do people here think they have the authority to talk about economic issues when they know next to nothing? Why is it economics that brings this out, rather than engineering or theoretical physics?

Oh, people here blather on about those things as well. That just gets noticed less because there are a lot more economists here than engineers or physicists.

There's one Engineer here! 😀

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JS80
1) Exxon employs 105,000 people = good for economy
2) Millions of direct shareholders = benefits individuals, good for economy
3) Thousands of funds hold Exxon = Millions of indirect holders who's pensions, 401ks, etc benefit, good for economy

Conclusion: This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Number of people who buy Exxon gas >>>>> Number of people who own Exxon stock

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Engineer
There's one Engineer here! 😀

Make it two! 😛

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Engineer
There's one Engineer here! 😀

Make it two! 😛

lots of "engineers" here...only one

<---- Engineer

😛

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Engineer
lots of "engineers" here...only one

<---- Engineer

😛

P'shaw!

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: CSMR
This issue seems to bring some of the most stupid comments on AT P&N. Why in general do people here think they have the authority to talk about economic issues when they know next to nothing? Why is it economics that brings this out, rather than engineering or theoretical physics?

It's because economics is something people can relate to, and the basic principles seem to make perfect sense, right? One of them being

Less money being spent = less products being sold = presumably bad for the economy

Then you go on and derive your own principles from those, whether they be right or wrong, and you form an opinion.

 

[XMan]

36.13 billion profit on 371 billion in revenue?

That's only a 9.7 percent profit margin. Much of that was probably due to inventory profits on oil that they paid 40-50 dollars a barrel on that they were able to sell for much more.

To put it into perspective, McDonald's made a 2.6 billion profit on 20 billion in revenue in 2005. That's a 13 percent profit margin. Does that mean McDonald's is gouging? They're certainly making more profit as a percentage.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: X-Man
36.13 billion profit on 371 billion in revenue?

That's only a 9.7 percent profit margin. Much of that was probably due to inventory profits on oil that they paid 40-50 dollars a barrel on that they were able to sell for much more.

To put it into perspective, McDonald's made a 2.6 billion profit on 20 billion in revenue in 2005. That's a 13 percent profit margin. Does that mean McDonald's is gouging? They're certainly making more profit as a percentage.

Does anyone know what the historical profit margins are for the oil sector? Comparing the profit margin of McDonald's to the profit margins of Exxon makes about as much sense as comparing Exxon's to a grocery stores profit margin of around 2%. They're in different industries so there's going to be a huge difference in what profit margins are usual.

On the topic of this being bad for the economy...well it is and it isn't. Energy related stocks have skyrocketed in the past couple years so that helps the economy but the fact that oil is more expensive really hurts poor people. So it really comes down to whether you want the money going to rich people or poor people. I think this will ultimately come back to bite the oil sector in the arse considering most people aren't too happy with them right now.

The higher prices were also better for the environment. You have people driving less overall and a higher investment into alternative energy. You may not like why those both happened but they are a consequence of the high prices.

But in the end, I guess it comes down to what we're going to do about it. Taxing oil companies more won't actually be helping the poor. The only thing we can really do is put more money into finding alternative fuel sources. Hopefully biodiesel and greener energies will be more prevalent in the years to come.

 

[raildogg]

Wow a full tank from near empty costs me more than $25. My car's mileage isn't great either.

As for Exxon, big thumbs up to them. We live in a free market and everything we do is voluntary. People chose to purchase their petroleum.

And yes, profits for companies usually translate into better conditions of employees.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Aisengard
4) Gas prices take away spending money from hundreds of millions of Americans = less money being spent in the economy, bad for economy

Conclusion: The bad outweighs the good

5. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 🙁

Well I guess the "poor" should have made better decisions during their lifetime.

not everyone is poor by their own fault..and if they are raised by dimwits or people who just have bad circumstances ..it is NOT their fault

that isnt to say they shouldnt do their best to correct the situation..but not everyone is capable of fixing the problem

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Wow a full tank from near empty costs me more than $25. My car's mileage isn't great either.

As for Exxon, big thumbs up to them. We live in a free market and everything we do is voluntary. People chose to purchase their petroleum.

And yes, profits for companies usually translate into better conditions of employees.

This isn't exactly the best PR for Exxon though. Their short term want for huge profits could very easily hurt them in the long run.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: X-Man
36.13 billion profit on 371 billion in revenue?

That's only a 9.7 percent profit margin. Much of that was probably due to inventory profits on oil that they paid 40-50 dollars a barrel on that they were able to sell for much more.

To put it into perspective, McDonald's made a 2.6 billion profit on 20 billion in revenue in 2005. That's a 13 percent profit margin. Does that mean McDonald's is gouging? They're certainly making more profit as a percentage.

Heh, you can try financial logic with these morons all day every day and they don't get it. Absolute numbers don't mean jack, relative numbers do. However, media outlets would rather get people pissed, grab more headlines, and add to the "brain drain" on America.

Anybody with a remedial economics or finance class would know that this isn't a huge deal. Anybody with a mid-level finance class that taught futures would know your statement is correct.

However, people would rather react like neanderthals than think.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: raildogg
Wow a full tank from near empty costs me more than $25. My car's mileage isn't great either.

As for Exxon, big thumbs up to them. We live in a free market and everything we do is voluntary. People chose to purchase their petroleum.

And yes, profits for companies usually translate into better conditions of employees.

This isn't exactly the best PR for Exxon though. Their short term want for huge profits could very easily hurt them in the long run.

Profits are always good and the more the better. In this case, it was huge. Why isn't this good PR? Because people think that just because an oil company had a great quarter and overall years, that means they cheated the people? A lot of people in power and people in the know have been saying that there will be a oil shortage in the near future, probably temporary. India's and China's and the world's consumption and dependency on oil has grown a lot.

We in America are looking at alternatives now. Maybe instead of 99.9% of our automobiles being dependent on petroleum, only 80% will be in 15 years. That is a wild prediction, but I hope that turns out to be true. We have to encourage the world to find alternatives instead of blaming the oil companies for their huge profits. And this is voluntary. Exxon didn't force people to fill up their gas tanks or drive huge SUVs.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: X-Man
36.13 billion profit on 371 billion in revenue?

That's only a 9.7 percent profit margin. Much of that was probably due to inventory profits on oil that they paid 40-50 dollars a barrel on that they were able to sell for much more.

To put it into perspective, McDonald's made a 2.6 billion profit on 20 billion in revenue in 2005. That's a 13 percent profit margin. Does that mean McDonald's is gouging? They're certainly making more profit as a percentage.

I don't need to eat McDonald's, I can make a low cost P&J sandwhich. I as a consumer do not have a choice when it comes to putting fuel in my car to drive to work or the store.


PS: $36.13 billion is more then $2.6 billion

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: raildogg
Wow a full tank from near empty costs me more than $25. My car's mileage isn't great either.

As for Exxon, big thumbs up to them. We live in a free market and everything we do is voluntary. People chose to purchase their petroleum.

And yes, profits for companies usually translate into better conditions of employees.

This isn't exactly the best PR for Exxon though. Their short term want for huge profits could very easily hurt them in the long run.

Profits are always good and the more the better. In this case, it was huge. Why isn't this good PR? Because people think that just because an oil company had a great quarter and overall years, that means they cheated the people? A lot of people in power and people in the know have been saying that there will be a oil shortage in the near future, probably temporary. India's and China's and the world's consumption and dependency on oil has grown a lot.

The people in power want to keep their power. If the general public is angry about how the oil companies are "gouging" them, don't you think there will be a call to raise taxes on them? I realize that isn't the best idea but your average Joe Sixpack isn't always the most logical person.

So what's better, high short-term profit or lowered long-term profit due to higher taxes and/or restrictions on pricing?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
I don't need to eat McDonald's, I can make a low cost P&J sandwhich. I as a consumer do not have a choice when it comes to putting fuel in my car to drive to work or the store.


PS: $36.13 billion is more then $2.6 billion

Sure you do. You can take the bus, train, or ride a bike - just like me!

PS: 36.13 billion / 371 billion < 2.6 billion / 20 billion

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: X-Man
36.13 billion profit on 371 billion in revenue?

That's only a 9.7 percent profit margin. Much of that was probably due to inventory profits on oil that they paid 40-50 dollars a barrel on that they were able to sell for much more.

To put it into perspective, McDonald's made a 2.6 billion profit on 20 billion in revenue in 2005. That's a 13 percent profit margin. Does that mean McDonald's is gouging? They're certainly making more profit as a percentage.

I don't need to eat McDonald's, I can make a low cost P&J sandwhich. I as a consumer do not have a choice when it comes to putting fuel in my car to drive to work or the store.


PS: $36.13 billion is more then $2.6 billion

You do have choice as a consumer on the amount of gas you buy. You can carpool, but a skooter or break the bank with expedition. You do have a choice.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Aisengard
4) Gas prices take away spending money from hundreds of millions of Americans = less money being spent in the economy, bad for economy

Conclusion: The bad outweighs the good

5. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 🙁

i believe the facts are in and the poor got richer too

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Aisengard
4) Gas prices take away spending money from hundreds of millions of Americans = less money being spent in the economy, bad for economy

Conclusion: The bad outweighs the good

5. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 🙁

i believe the facts are in and the poor got richer too

I believe the real wages for the poorest 20% have decreased over the past few years. If you have a link to back up your statement, I might believe it.