Does This Mean Gas Prices Will Go Down?
- Thread starter ExtremeDog
- Start date
- Status
$25,000,000
I thought of a few names for the new stadium expansion, but I don't want to be called ...
</p>
I thought of a few names for the new stadium expansion, but I don't want to be called ...
</p>
that Obama`s preacher for 20 years was giving Bin Laden props from his pulpit and Obama was apparently good with it until the videos came out. Many chose to overlook this crap the first time...I don`t think as many will this time.
Being the president under whose watch Bin Laden was killed is worth more than a few political points.
http://online.wsj.com/art...4576291350999515650.html
So there's your answer.
Exxon saw a quarterly profit increase of 69%, but the oil executives still think they are the victims, not the people at the pump.
So there's your answer.
And innumerate. A "quarterly profit increase of 69%"tells you nothing without further information. At the very least, you need to know what the previousprofits were,and really it needs tobe meausred in something like ROI or ROE.
Also, you think profits are too high, but the amount of taxes paid by oil companies exceeds their profits.Is it ever possible in your mind for companies/industries to be taxed too much???
Also, you think profits are too high, but the amount of taxes paid by oil companies exceeds their profits.Is it ever possible in your mind for companies/industries to be taxed too much???
as far as oil companies, they are pros at using shell companies to fudge their numbers. they like to claim high costs of oil that they 'buy' from their wholly owned subsidiaries, which of course isn't really 'bought' at all. The actual cost is of course what they spent pumping it out of the ground, plus costs to the land/mineral rights owners etc. And that number is much lower.
Bush Sr was fresh off destroying one of the largest militarys in the world in 1991 and freeing an occupied state and he didn't get re-elected.
It's the economy, stupid. If we somehow get to ~5% unemployment then yes we'll have 4 more years of Obama.
It's the economy, stupid. If we somehow get to ~5% unemployment then yes we'll have 4 more years of Obama.
GHW was fresh off getting caught with his pants down as, despite every possible warning sign imaginable, Saddam massed his army on the border of Kuwait. And indeed was fresh off pretty much destroying one of the largest militaries in the world (if that means anything - numbers? quantity not quality?) which was largely a paper tiger, and then getting weak in the knees Colin Powell advised finishing the job, as well as pumping up the Shiite's to revolt and then leaving them twisting in the wind.
All requiring us to gin up another round to clean up the mess that was left which distracted us from killing the dude we just finally double-tapped, but yeah, I get what you are saying.
All requiring us to gin up another round to clean up the mess that was left which distracted us from killing the dude we just finally double-tapped, but yeah, I get what you are saying.
Also, it's always funny to me with peoplewho support the democratic party (which I think you do if I remember previous posts correctly, apologies if I'm confusing you with another poster) bring up GE's tax rate.A lot ofGE's tax ratehas to do with the fact that they were heavy into extending credit during the bubble and I think still are carrying forward losses from that, but a lot of GE's tax rate also has to do with the fact that they have been so successful in climbing into bed with democrats to scam subsidies/breaks related to "green" technologies. It seems like democrats would try to distance themselves from the most egregious example of crony capitalism that they're involved with and focus more on things like ethanol, where republicans are at least as guilty .
They simply make money by whatever the market brings. Speculators and traders who have no interest in actually owning the commodities that they are buying and selling are the ones who drive the price up. Oil reserves are not any lower than they were a year ago yet the price keeps rocketing up. You can see the same thing in other commodities like soybeans, corn, gold, silver, etc.... People are in it to make money plain and simple and Exxon is in the oil business with high oil prices of course they are going to make money. Corn and soybean prices are very high, does that make me an evil farmer because I'm making money off of it? Price takers not price makers.
responding to this line:
"Is it ever possible in your mind for companies/industries to be taxed too much???"
i was giving a trite answer, as this isn't a poltical board. pm me if you'd like a more detailed one. just generally commenting on how American corporations have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, once deductions are taken into account. the sheeple like to ignore that last part, and focus on only half the equation: the nominal tax rate.
"Is it ever possible in your mind for companies/industries to be taxed too much???"
i was giving a trite answer, as this isn't a poltical board. pm me if you'd like a more detailed one. just generally commenting on how American corporations have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, once deductions are taken into account. the sheeple like to ignore that last part, and focus on only half the equation: the nominal tax rate.
...I blockquoted some ******* oil executive whining how the world is so cruel to him, & you attack me for not understanding what a 69% increase in quarterly profit is.
Gas prices are going to keep going up because ******* oil executives are so insane with greed, they actually think making excessive profit is somehow losing excessive profit.
Plus as I think has already been pointed out, ******* oil executives own so many politicians in congress, all kinds of laws have been passed in favor of Big Oil subsidies. Add to that so many tax loopholes laws have been passed, the greedy SOB's do literally nothing that contributes to the country at large. That's why gas prices are going to keep rising.
Gas prices are going to keep going up because ******* oil executives are so insane with greed, they actually think making excessive profit is somehow losing excessive profit.
Plus as I think has already been pointed out, ******* oil executives own so many politicians in congress, all kinds of laws have been passed in favor of Big Oil subsidies. Add to that so many tax loopholes laws have been passed, the greedy SOB's do literally nothing that contributes to the country at large. That's why gas prices are going to keep rising.
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; COLOR: #000000; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
From 2007 to 2008, Steven Chu, now Energy secretary, weighed in frequently on global warming and the desirable price of traditional energy. At one point, Chu asserted, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." </p>
</div>
From 2007 to 2008, Steven Chu, now Energy secretary, weighed in frequently on global warming and the desirable price of traditional energy. At one point, Chu asserted, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." </p>
</div>
Its rise and fall is dictated by speculators making and taking profit more than oil companies dictating the price. Oil companies by no means are perfect but they aren't evil either.
Look up how the oil companies have always collaborated and conspired to keep prices high.
I see no reason why it would be different now.
I see no reason why it would be different now.
I'm sure there is manipulation but there are so many people with hands in the commodity trading now that they probably have just as much of an effect on price as the oil companies.
...they raise or lower the price from a higher set point than if there was no illegal collaboration. and speculators may temporarily cause higher prices, but they also temporarily cause lower prices. for the most part it cancels out. higher prices from anit-competitive collaboration is constant.
as a way to spur research into alternative fuels which would enhance our national security and reduce the cost of securing national interests abroad.
The President obviously disagreed with that method and said that the additional tax would place, "additional burdens on American families right now." That's the right stance, and position the government has taken. The tax rate has not changed since 1993.
Implying that the Obama administration is somehow enacting secret measures to increase the price of gasoline is ludicrous. Recovering global demand and political instability coupled with speculators are what is driving the price of gasoline back up. Speculation is returning to the market as money is becoming available for investment again. Check out other commodity prices. Do you think Obama is driving up the price of corn?
Watch less Fox News.
The President obviously disagreed with that method and said that the additional tax would place, "additional burdens on American families right now." That's the right stance, and position the government has taken. The tax rate has not changed since 1993.
Implying that the Obama administration is somehow enacting secret measures to increase the price of gasoline is ludicrous. Recovering global demand and political instability coupled with speculators are what is driving the price of gasoline back up. Speculation is returning to the market as money is becoming available for investment again. Check out other commodity prices. Do you think Obama is driving up the price of corn?
Watch less Fox News.
(1) You implied that Exxon's quarterly profits somehow had something to do with causing the price of oil going up. They don't, but even if they did, knowing a quarterly increase wouldn't tell you anything about whether they a significant contribution to oil prices going up.RonnyAtmosphere said:
(2) Gas prices are going to keep up b/c demand is increasing and the gov't is artificially limiting supply by prohibiting drilling in many places. Volatility is also increased by the gov't making it damn near impossible to build a new refinery. I guess it's theoretically possiblefor an oil company with asignificant portion of the world's oil reserves tonot produce and thereby drive up price. The problem is this would mostly benefit the oilcompanies that were producing. Meanwhile, they'd be sitting ondrilling rights that cost them money to purchase, thereby drivingdown their return, only promising their shareholders that sometime in the future they'd reap monopoly profits. I guessthis is more likley to the extent thatan oil company was able to procure long term drilling rights for little to no upfront royalty or bonus payment, but it still seems a little far fetched.And if it is happening, politicians (mainly democrats)are aiding and abetting any collusion by keeping so many areas off limits to drilling (thereby makingmanipulating supply much, much cheaper).
(3) What subsidies do Oil companies receive? Other than depletion tax breaks, whichI thinkgenerally apply to any companies in the business of extracting natural resources, what tax breaksdo oil companies get that other industries don't receive?I'm genuinely asking. I always hear aboutthis but have never had anybody point to a specific subsidy oil companies receive.
"Gas prices are going to keep up b/c demand is increasing and the gov't is artificially limiting supply by prohibiting drilling in many places."
The areas prohibited from drilling represent a tiny amount of supply compared to global production. And it would take a decade to complete them, so current gas prices are completely unaffected by that.
"Volatility is also increased by the gov't making it damn near impossible to build a new refinery."
I would like to see some restrictions lessened, but why would Big Oil want to bring more refineries on line? It's not like there's shortages. Excess capacity is wasted capacity. Besides, this ignores that existing refineries have majorly increased their capacity over the last couple decades. It just got cheaper to add capacity that way (less of a regulatory burden), so that's what they've done. But capacity is right where Big Oil wants it. Lessening regulation won't change that.
"I guess it's theoretically possiblefor an oil company with asignificant portion of the world's oil reserves tonot produce and thereby drive up price. The problem is this would mostly benefit the oilcompanies that were producing. Meanwhile, they'd be sitting ondrilling rights that cost them money to purchase, thereby drivingdown their return, only promising their shareholders that sometime in the future they'd reap monopoly profits. I guessthis is more likley to the extent thatan oil company was able to procure long term drilling rights for little to no upfront royalty or bonus payment, but it still seems a little far fetched."
What is actually being asserted is that all the major companies are colluding to sell gas at inflated prices, as they have done in the past. No individual company would be under-producing. None would have anything to lose (other than government action, and that's a joke). They have as much to gain, and as little reason to fear govt, as the banks, and see how they act. In fact, look how theyact: they're not competitive in any way when it comes to gas. They all share pipelines. They share markets. None of the major companies EVER tries to upits profits by undercutting the others.
"And if it is happening, politicians (mainly democrats)are aiding and abetting any collusion by keeping so many areas off limits to drilling (thereby makingmanipulating supply much, much cheaper)."
Again, it's too tiny a supply to have that effect. And besides, why would we want to sell OUR oil to the globe now, when we could save it and keep it when global oil runs out? And besides besides, i live on the coast, i don't want them drilling in deepwater until the industry has had the time to study what went wrong the last time and react to it. At the least, BOP designs should be updated before new drilling occurs. And BP should be outright banned from drilling in the US, they have consistantly been the worst offender of all the companies.
On subsidies, here's a couple links that popped up on google. they are probably not exhaustive on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-26-what-oil-subsidies-is-obama-targeting
The areas prohibited from drilling represent a tiny amount of supply compared to global production. And it would take a decade to complete them, so current gas prices are completely unaffected by that.
"Volatility is also increased by the gov't making it damn near impossible to build a new refinery."
I would like to see some restrictions lessened, but why would Big Oil want to bring more refineries on line? It's not like there's shortages. Excess capacity is wasted capacity. Besides, this ignores that existing refineries have majorly increased their capacity over the last couple decades. It just got cheaper to add capacity that way (less of a regulatory burden), so that's what they've done. But capacity is right where Big Oil wants it. Lessening regulation won't change that.
"I guess it's theoretically possiblefor an oil company with asignificant portion of the world's oil reserves tonot produce and thereby drive up price. The problem is this would mostly benefit the oilcompanies that were producing. Meanwhile, they'd be sitting ondrilling rights that cost them money to purchase, thereby drivingdown their return, only promising their shareholders that sometime in the future they'd reap monopoly profits. I guessthis is more likley to the extent thatan oil company was able to procure long term drilling rights for little to no upfront royalty or bonus payment, but it still seems a little far fetched."
What is actually being asserted is that all the major companies are colluding to sell gas at inflated prices, as they have done in the past. No individual company would be under-producing. None would have anything to lose (other than government action, and that's a joke). They have as much to gain, and as little reason to fear govt, as the banks, and see how they act. In fact, look how theyact: they're not competitive in any way when it comes to gas. They all share pipelines. They share markets. None of the major companies EVER tries to upits profits by undercutting the others.
"And if it is happening, politicians (mainly democrats)are aiding and abetting any collusion by keeping so many areas off limits to drilling (thereby makingmanipulating supply much, much cheaper)."
Again, it's too tiny a supply to have that effect. And besides, why would we want to sell OUR oil to the globe now, when we could save it and keep it when global oil runs out? And besides besides, i live on the coast, i don't want them drilling in deepwater until the industry has had the time to study what went wrong the last time and react to it. At the least, BOP designs should be updated before new drilling occurs. And BP should be outright banned from drilling in the US, they have consistantly been the worst offender of all the companies.
On subsidies, here's a couple links that popped up on google. they are probably not exhaustive on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-26-what-oil-subsidies-is-obama-targeting
Obama wants the price of gas to go sky high so Americans will all drive electric cars and ride the rail... He is doing this by using the EPA and his stance against any new oil exploration and/or drilling in the US. That is a fact. We need an all of the above energy policy, oil, natural gas, coal, solar, wind, and nuclear. It will take decades for our economy to become less oil dependent, our President is just hoping that the price of gasoline will expedite the process.codeDawg said:
The price of corn is artificial inflated due to the demand for Ethanol for additives to our gasoline. The bad thing is that we don't need it and in turn are subsidizing the corn farmers and Ethanol producers. Ethanol actually harms most automobiles engines. Why not use sugar-cane or other bio-fuels. I just don't see why we went the corn route..$$
- Status