Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Is Profit a Dirty Word?
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


At a recent press conference Sen. John Kerry was upset as he snarled, "Oil companies in America are reporting record profits. Record profits."

When did profit become a dirty word?"

I wish the oil executives would face the media. They could say something like:

"What are you complaining about? What do you think we do with our profits? Buy fancy cars and homes? Well, we do, actually, but nearly all the money goes to looking for more oil and following environmental rules that you want us to follow. You should want us to make more profit. Anyway, we make less profit per gallon than your beloved government takes in taxes."

But Big Oil never shouts back at the reporters. I guess I can't blame them, given the hostility of the economically ignorant media.

This month the media claimed that gasoline prices had reached a "new record."

"Filling up is more expensive now than it's ever been." That's Julie Chen of CBS.

"A record high." -- Brian Williams, NBC

"Another record high." -- Charlie Gibson, ABC

" ... [R]ecord high of, get this: [ka-ching] $3.18 a gallon." -- Jon Scott, Fox

No, Jon, get this: It's not a record high. It only looks that way if you don't adjust for inflation. And that's just silly. It's like saying the movie "Rush Hour II" out-earned "Gone with the Wind." The media should quote prices in real dollars, but when they get excited, they don't. As the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) acknowledges, once you adjust for inflation, it turns out that gasoline cost more 25 years ago, in 1981. When the 1981 price is converted to 2007 prices (not 2006 prices, as originally used at the EIA website), last week's average price of $3.22 was seven cents below the record, $3.29, which, by the way, was a monthly average.

Even if gasoline prices set no record, Congress surely set a record for inanity. What else are we to say about an anti-"gouging" bill passed last month by the House that would make it a crime to charge "unconscionably excessive" prices, "tak[e] unfair advantage of unusual market conditions," and "increase prices unreasonably" during an emergency?

Please. Lawyers will get rich debating vague words like those. Laws are supposed to be clear so we'll know in advance what's legal and what's not. But there's nothing clear about those "crimes."

That's not legislation. It's legislative posturing. Considering the perverse incentives of electoral politics, I'm amazed this bill got only 284 votes.

And Congress should know better. After Hurricane Katrina, Congress had the Federal Trade Commission investigate price gouging, and so the FTC studied price spikes going back years. But it found "no instances of illegal manipulation."

If the politicians do enforce anti-"gouging" rules, it will be akin to capping prices, and we tried that before. It was a disaster. Drivers had to wait in long lines, and some couldn't get any gasoline. Only when price controls were lifted did supplies rush in, and only then did prices go back down.

Markets don't work? That's a myth.

Why did prices spike in recent weeks? It's just supply and demand. Demand is up 3 percent, while supply is up just 1 percent.

And gasoline is still a bargain. Think about what it takes to bring it to us: Drills must bend and dig sideways through as many as seven miles of earth. What they find has to be delivered through long pipelines or transported in monstrously expensive ships, then converted into three different formulas of gasoline, moved in trucks that cost more than $100,000 each, and shipped to gas stations that have to have lots of expensive equipment to make sure we don't blow ourselves up filling the tank. Even after all that, gasoline is still cheaper per ounce than the bottled water gas stations sell.

There's no dirtier word in English than "gouging." But we've had enough unpleasant experience with price controls to know that all they do is create shortages.

Who, but the politician, benefits from that?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Not Quite Germaine to the Column, but --
-- the reason "profit" is a "dirty word" is our religious background, where selfishness is supposed to be at the root of all evils.

We lionize people like Mother Theresa, who, as wonderful a human being as she undoubtedly was, did not raise a single person out of the permanent cycle of poverty. Then we villainize people who start businesses, bring in business, create jobs, create wealth, improve the economy, and through these kinds of actions, all obviously done for their own selfishness, actually *do* lift people out of poverty.

Self-sacrifice is supposed to be the goal of every good, holy person. Selfishness is supposed to be some shade of evil. However, when all is said and done, one "Robber Baron," with his selfishness, has probably done more for humanity in one year than a dozen "Mothers Theresa" have their entire life.

It is not about profit
I don't think anybody is talking about profit,
even big profit. But first let's admit that
gasoline is not like the latest toy. We need it.
We may need less than we use, but almost all of us need a car to get the work, go the to grocery
store, take the kids places, and so on.

So, the price is well up about $3.00, which is
not outrageous considering what the rest of the
world pays, but it is considering what we have
been used to paying.

And then the company pays the CEO's and other
high management people the most completely
outrageous salaries and benefit packages. So
much so, it takes your breath away. Mr. Raymond
from Exxon could buy one or two of our smaller
states with his buy out package.

This is what is obscene about our corporations,
and it is pretty much "only in America."
CEO's around the rest of the world just don't
come close to that sort of compensation and some-
how they seem to survive in spite of it.

Profit and "Self Interest"
This is the inherent danger of allowing bureaucrats to determine what "just compensation" is, as well as what prices of products and other commodities should be. Only the marketplace understands what the true COST of goods and services are and are engaged in a balancing act as to how they set consumer prices to recoup that hit to their bottom line and still profit; too high or too low and you won't be in business too long.

The economically ignorant and politicians have this flawed thought that all you have to do to control costs is to simply alter the price. But there are numerous factors that go into determining prices, one primarily being the value placed on the labor by the professionals/entreprenuers to deliver goods and services to the consumer.

This is called self interest. Many of you would not continue working in your chosen professions for the slightest reduction in compensation, especially under the subjective "common good" rationale. That doesn't necessarily make you evil!! Why should people in any profession accept compensation less than what they feel is deserved for their labor and specialized level of expertise?

Another factor is the product itself. Prices are a governor against excessive consumption. If the consumer is allowed to buy artificially reduced-price goods, the supply will likely dry up because supply outlets can't keep up with the demand. This invariably leads to the thing that price controls were intended to avoid; price spikes and strained supplies.

History has spelled it out for us, if we just pay attention, and consider market oriented solutions that would benefit everyone(EXCEPT bureaucrats) instead of looking for boogeymen to sick them on, we can continue to enjoy a vibrant and stable economy for years to come.

On Profits
The likes of John Kerry only tolerate profits made by the wives who support them, enabling them to go through life without making a decent day's work.

Stossel
You can always expect Stossel to make it clear...
Teachers should view his website fro information so our youth get a better understanding so that the media doesn't affect them like it affects the adults of today.


Entitlement?
Just because most people "need" it, does that mean they are entitled to it? This is making me nuts already. The idea that somehow somebody HAS to produce something at a cost to the comsumer at some arbitrary price is dangerous. "I want cheap gas, so YOU have to work for less." "Everyone is entitled to medical care." This sense of entitlement that the craven politicians, and no they are not that ignorant, play to is basically saying "if you have the ability, you will be the slave to those who don't."

In order to have a right to something or be entitled to something, someone somewhere has NO RIGHT whether to produce it on their terms or not. They MUST produce it. That's slavery pure and simple.



Always, when gained through lies
John writes:

At a recent press conference Sen. John Kerry was upset as he snarled, "Oil companies in America are reporting record profits. Record profits."
------------------------------------------------
As a Vietnam era Veteran, I detest John Kerry,but even traitors know when someone rips them off.




John writes:
When did profit become a dirty word?"
--------------------------------------------------

Always and always will be when gained through lies and decietful practice, and supported by "law".

No such thing as a shortage of oil, only refineries.

When the supply is intentionally restricted as it is today, the oil companies make record profits and its dirty.

Surely you understand how thieves make profits too and is hardly clean.

Right John?


The issue is not profits but subsidies
Congress Sold You Out to Big Oil

Oil industry lobbyists visited Congress and all we got was $3.00 gas and more lousy deficits.

The 2005 Energy Bill is another shameful example of government of, by, and for big-money lobbyists. Rep. Tom Price and most of the other incumbents in Congress passed it because of lobbyist campaign contributions. Business as usual: say one thing and do another.

Congress said, “The United States needs to end its dependence on foreign oil.”

Congress said, “We need to develop alternative energy sources.”

Congress said, “We need to reduce the budget deficit.”

What does the Energy Bill do?—something entirely different. It gives HUGE tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies already earning record profits (because of ever-higher prices at the pump). In reality, the Energy Bill does very little to advance any of the above bulleted “goals”. It is indefensible as energy policy and inexcusable as spending policy.

John Konop’s Solutions


Assuring adequate and affordable energy is a complex problem requiring creativity on both the supply and demand sides. What follows is a sensible start:

Strictly enforce anti-trust laws to encourage greater competition. Both the energy market and Americans will benefit from more competition, not less.

In theory, a free and competitive market should steer prices down and spur innovation. But the recent reality is that mergers have reduced the number of major oil and gas companies down to a non-competing handful. The father of free-enterprise thinking, Adam Smith, warned that the benefits of the “invisible hand” are lost when monopolies reign. There is a direct correlation between soaring fuel costs and the continuing “consolidation” of oil and gas companies.

Eliminate tax giveaways to Big Oil and instead offer loan guarantees to emerging, alternative-energy companies. Tax breaks don’t change a company’s behavior; they just make their existing behavior more profitable. Loan guarantees inject free-market energy into the development process when they’re awarded to entrepreneurs who are investing their own money in ideas that have already attracted substantial private funding.

Loan guarantees don’t rely on empty promises from oil companies about some vague or future innovation. Rather, they create the kinds of innovative energy technologies America needs to foster competition within the energy industry. This loan guarantee program will help entrepreneurs create new jobs, increase wages, and establish global leadership in this vitally important technology.

Lawmakers has not demonstrated courage—to stand up and vote no on embarrassing legislation like the 2005 Energy Bill. Votes should be cast based on how well legislation meets the needs of Americans, not on the perks and rewards being offered by lobbyists and short-sighted party leaders.

READ MORE

http://www.controlcongress.com

A question
Whenever people begin railing about the profits that the oll companies make, I ask a simple question. Unfortunatelly, I always get the same answer. The question is, "How much does that profit add to the price of a gallon of gas?" Of course, the answer is always, "I have no idea."

How can we rail about "excess profits" if we don't actually know if those proifts are really "excess." The same goes for CEO pay. It is a handy complaint to claim that CEOs are overpaid, but unless you can show where their salary significantly adds to the cost of a gallon of gas, it is a silly argument. For instance, when the CEO of Exxon-Mobil retired with his $400 million retirement package, people howled because of the high cost of gasoline at the time. SOme quick research showed that, if the entire package was paid out in one year (which it was not), it only added 0.04 to the price of a gallon.

The price of gasoline is an emotional issue more than an actual real problem. I still want to know how adding a windfall profits tax is supposed to make the price of gasoline go down.

talent scout
You wrote:
No such thing as a shortage of oil, only refineries.

When the supply is intentionally restricted as it is today, the oil companies make record profits and its dirty.

Who is it that restricts refineries? Excessive Government regulation lobbied for by environmental activists who seek to destroy capitalism under the guise of protecting an environment they are ill-suited to comprehend much less protect.

Oil companies could make as much profit per gallon with abundant refining resources as they do now with artificial restrictions and they would be heroes in the public mind instead of pariahs. Which do you suppose they would rather be?

Use of oil could be significantly reduced if a large portion of our electricity came from nuclear power plants - another fine idea that the environmental terrorist have virtually banned because of the supposed dangers. The only nuclear power disasters occured under totalitarian regimes. More people have died riding home in Ted Kennedy's car than have died from nuclear power plant accidents in the United States and yet they are banned.

Stossel's artcle postulates that markets work better than government controls. All of the environmental regulations and market controls imposed by an over-weaning government only prove his point.

talent scout
No one is "ripping you off". Oil companies charge a stated price for their product. If you choose to buy some, all you have to do is fork over the asking price. If you don't want some, then ride the bus or find some alternative mode of transportation (maybe a SEGWAY, they're everywhere now aren't they?).

Now, if you pay for gas and instead you get kerosene (bottled water wouldn't make much sense, would it?), then you've been ripped off.

Congressional price gouging
If we want to talk about obscene prices, Congressional salaries are now $165,200--plus benefits.
Perhaps we should restrict salaries of Congresspersons to the median US salary.

Unca Alby writes: June, 06, 2007 12:39 A
the reason "profit" is a "dirty word" is our religious background, where selfishness is supposed to be at the root of all evils.

We lionize people like Mother Theresa, who, as wonderful a human being as she undoubtedly was, did not raise a single person out of the permanent cycle of poverty. Then we villainize people who start businesses, bring in business, create jobs, create wealth, improve the economy, and through these kinds of actions, all obviously done for their own selfishness, actually *do* lift people out of poverty.

Self-sacrifice is supposed to be the goal of every good, holy person. Selfishness is supposed to be some shade of evil. However, when all is said and done, one "Robber Baron," with his selfishness, has probably done more for humanity in one year than a dozen "Mothers Theresa" have their entire life.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

It is not religion, but maybe the ignorance of such. I suspect it is envy, populism and Marxism that have us conned by “profit”. The Bible is quite clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with enormous profit or enormous wealth. God's believers include Solomon, the richest man in the world has ever had. So let us look at the misquoted verse and see what it says.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Notice the operative words, “love”, “coveted” “some”, and “erred”.

Simply said there is nothing wrong with being the richest man in the world, or wanting to earn the biggest profit or to become the Solomon of our times. It is not money that is evil, it is loving money more than God.

I agree with Unca that the “Robber Baron” provides more material good than the most pious do gooders. Of course this may not save as many souls as Mother Teresa, but maybe Robber Baron Solomon may have saved even more souls building his temple to God.

The Robber Baron, be it Bill Gates or other demonized wealthy folks provide more material value to the world that folks are happy to buy because his deal is the best in the market place.

There is an excellent speech given by George Gilder, a Catholic, to the Vatican one the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum and printed 5/1/1991. He pointed out that the church had lost its way being influenced by Marxist constructs such as profit being a dirty word. His point was simply that the “greedy” “selfish” in fact are not the rich but rather the poor.

Certainly, Bill Gates could have simply retired a millionaire with Dos 1.1 back in '82. However, the rich are driven by finding new and better ways to serve their fellow man. They often never spend a fraction of their fortunes, often giving it to charity as Gates and Buffet will give all theirs to charity. So why are the two richest men in AmeriKa working so hard to give all their fortune to charity? Because it isn’t about the money it is about serving man.

However the selfish are the poor who refuse to provide little of value to their fellow man because everything is about themselves. They aren’t going to work because it interferes with them sleeping late, drinking beer and watching Opera. Or they won’t work more than 20 hours a week, just enough to buy food to make it to tomorrow. They aren’t going to travel if the company asks them. They aren’t going to work Saturdays if asked. They aren’t going to …………

I remember Eddie came to my office 10:00Pm on a Saturday night, I still working as I did my entire career at 105 hours a week. He needed his weekly charity and I was on his list of 3 that supported him. I said, Eddie I give you money and you never offer to do anything for me. Eddie how about I give you the money, but you come over to my house for a couple hours and rake my yard. He said, no way man, I don’t do that, not me, what do you think I am. I pointed out that I am working at 10:PM on Saturday night to make the money to help support him and I otherwise could be doing the raking myself.

Who is more selfish, a billionaire who works day and night making life better for mankind or Eddie.

Mr. Right
One can add to what you've said that if the supply is intentionally restricted because of the limited number of refineries, then the price should always be high.

Instead, it is high only in comparison with what it was a couple months ago.

By the way, there's now a HURRICANE in the Persian Gulf, and that's going to push oil prices even higher.

big oil vs big auto
I've heard the "big oil is deliberately trying to throttle oil/gas supplies so they can make more profit" argument on other threads, and expect it to show up more explicitly here. The nearest comparison I can make is the auto industry: we "need" them in our daily lives, only a few companies are big enough to be viable players in the business, and to the little guy the players all seem alike.

The main difference is that Toyota just became the number 1 car producing company in the world. If the "big oil/throttle back" analysis were right, they should have stayed back in #4, because there would be more profits to be had by deliberately reducing supplies and/or hiking prices. If it's not true for cars, why assume it's true for gas?

big oil
As much as I don't like paying high prices for gasoline, the whole argument against big oil reads very much like the classic book "Atlas Shrugged".

Another interesting thing as noted somewhere above, is that the greatest portion of the cost goes to our government...so, why would they want to do something to jeopardize that?


Isn't it ironic...
that the same people who are howling in protest over high gas prices are the very same ones who stridently oppose any and every attempt to develop domestic oil supplies. See Walt Williams' column today to learn about the moral superiority of capitalism.

Do the math
To John Konop, Talent Scout and the others who will no doubt soon post on this list, railing against Stossel & "BIG OIL"; when you post, please also answer the following questions: (Steve L's is an excellent place to start, so I'll repeat it with thanks) 1) how much does BIG OIL's profit add to the cost of a gallon of gas? 2) Are the "excessive profits" being discussed gross profits or net profits? (my guess is they're gross profits, the better to demonize) 3) What is the profit margin for BIG OIL? 4) Has that profit margin changed during the period of "excessive profits?"

Then there's the question of how much taxes add to the cost of a gallon of gas, but that's a whole 'nuther subject, so we won't go there just now.

After you answer those questions, then the discussion can begin. And it can begin with a few more questions like: what happens to the 401Ks of all the citizens who have oil company stocks in their portfolios if we take away those "excessive profits"? (Not just for "the rich" you know, as about 50% of the working population currently have some sort of stock option plan.) And, what happens to all the US workers in the oil industry when those profits are taken?

Of course, I'm just being silly with all this, because the posters who want to froth about "BIG OIL" will probably simply ignore a serious discussion of the business economics involved. Better to rant & vent.

dairyfarmermom

Restricting "salaries of Congresspersons to the median US salaries" -- what a SUPER idea!!!

We shouldn't kvetch

Last year petrol was selling in Europe for about $7 A LITER! Heaven only knows what it goes for now, but I'm willing to bet that the price hasn't come down.

viruddh writes: June, 06, 2007 1:45 AM
…And then the company pays the CEO's and other
high management people the most completely
outrageous salaries and benefit packages.

This is what is obscene about our corporations,
and it is pretty much "only in America."
CEO's around the rest of the world just don't
come close to that sort of compensation and some-
how they seem to survive in spite of it.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

Exxon is the largest company in the world. Therefore Raymond should have made the highest salary in the world. Of course this was far from the case as many movie stars, movie producers, athletes, singers and others have made far, far, far more than Raymond. Yet the US was critically dependent on his success, the army of hundreds of thousands of employees dependent on his success, are national security dependent on his success, and the mom & pop investors who’s pension plan was dependent on his success. So what did he get? Well after he put his salary away into a tax deferred pension plan and it compounded for over 40 years, and we count the increase in his stock options after he made it the greatest company in the world, plus add his future salary as a paid consultant, the value of the use of jet when working for Exxon in the future, and other items associated with future work he gets some $400M which if discounted back over the 40 years it was invested might be more like $200M in actual pay, not invested returns. But the big thing is that he agrees not to work for a competitor and settle for $1M a year income to work only for Exxon as a consultant. Tom Cruise makes $200M for part of a year, not 40 years. And Tom certainly isn’t the greatest actor but Raymond was the greatest oil man and impacting far more people and national security and so much more that it is hard to understand? Do we hear Cruise greed? No, because we only hate capitalist, but athletes, movie, TV, singers etc. who make far more are our friends. Why do we listen to Marxist, like Greenpeace with their daily screed against Raymond and Exxon because he refused to cave in like the other oils companies and pay their extortion demands.

Yesterday I was reading about Sumner Redstone who split his company. The MTV/Paramount division is run by Freston who MTV hired at its inception when he was a hippie. Sumner paid him $52M in ’04. Now Sumner is not known for his charity. So why is he paying him $52M a year. The answer is the guy is making money for Sumner and he can’t afford to loose him. Sumner has billions at risk and $52M a year is a small insurance policy to make sure his money is not lost.

The average tenure of a CEO is 3 years, except when working for Sumner when it is more like 1 yr. So they make great money for three years and then become damaged goods never to find another job in most cases. Would you take a job for double what you make now as these CEO’s have done when they moved up one level with the likely hood that your income will stop forever in 3 years?

If we weren’t so preoccupied by over evaluating our labor based on what the market place thinks we are worth and devaluing other’s labor based on what the market place is happy to pay for the great value received, but rather concentrated on our offering the market place the value it is hungry to pay a fortune for, why we could make millions with the time we spend condemning those who actually go out and do it.

The reason the US don't pay many foreigners these large salaries is they aren't able to fit the bill to run a company under the conditions that exist in the US. Yet foregin companies pay US division presidents large salaries to run those operations in the US mine field.

Get a clue Stossel!
Hey, John Stossel, investigative reporter extrordinaire, you might want to do some real investigating. You need to get past the oil companiy talking points and discover the real truth.

Sure the recent gas price increases are due to supply and demand. What you fail to understand is that the oil companies have shut down 24 refineries over the last twelve years. Two per year! In other words, they have been intentionally tightening capacity so that when there is a tiny spike in demand, or a tiny interruption in supply, prices go through the roof and oil companies reap huge margins.

And to blame this on environmental regulations, is the most cynical of lies. Environmentalists have not shut down one refinery! Not one!

By the way, congratulations to Mitt Romney for scolding the oil companies for not investing their enormous profits in their refining capacity. (I'll be watching to see if he continues that kind of talk. I have a feeling he's going to get some phone calls.)

Plus, do any of you oil company apologists ever consider the national security risks of having such a tight refining capacity? Do you realize how vulnerable this makes our economy?

There are profits, and there is manipulation of the market in order to reap huge profits. Some of us know the difference John. Apparently you don't.

You're proving yourself to be nothing more than another cheap Republican Party hack.

Phylo out.

Recommended reading
If you have never read "Atlas Shrugged," read it. If you have already read it, read it again.

The Word "PROFIT"
When the "ROBBER BARONS" came into existence the word profit was known only to the small business people,who came to know the word in the context of making a living!The "BARONS" gave Americans an opportunity to view the word "PROFIT" from a new and more generous perspective.Big Business was now,1880's,a real and productive force.However,the activities that engulfed "BB" was restricted to those who directly participated in same.Therefore,"PROFIT" had a limited meaning and therefore a limited field of view.But,when we fast forward to the 1960's,when companies began to practice dirty tricks,which they disquised as "ADVERTISING",consumers became involved in the defining of the word "PROFIT".Today,the elderly are constant victims of false advertising and deceptive practices.The "ELDERLY"!!!Therefore,when we seek to understand why the word "PROFIT" suffers from a bad reputation,blame it on "MODERN BUSINESS"and the PRACTICES THEREOF!!

the "free market" shell game
I've posted on this before, but it still kills me to see conservative columnists and posters actually ROOTING for higher and higher gas prices while scolding the rest of us for actually questioning the practices of the omnipotent oil companies.

Oil commerce is NOT a true "free market". The lack of competition among the oil companies is the biggest sign of this. How else do you explain why gas stations in the same area ALWAYS charge EXACTLY the same price for gas? I notice that issue has not been touched by Stossel, Elder, or any of the other big oil apologists.

Gretchen...
...the cost of gas in Europe is primarily taxes by their governments.There is oil in Europe off of Scotland,Norway,and in Russia,and they are closer to the Middle East than we are.But like us,it is their own governments that make the price of gas so high.

John Konop and Talent Scout:You guys STILL haven't told me how many shares of Oil company stocks you own.You do believe in what you write,don't you? Or is it that you just don't want to take advantage of the American people?

What great humanitarians you are!

wbheff
Ayn Rand is philosophical idiot. She operates from a profoundly flawed metaphysical base of understanding.

Phylo out.

Oh, Phylo
You had some supposedly damaging quotes up last week about how the oil companies had purposely shut down refineries, which means (in your mind) that they were hoping to squeeze us with high prices.

But the quotes were from the mid-1990s. And anyway, the point of closing them down wasn't to squeeze us with high prices, but to make more profit for themselves because the refineries weren't being utilized at full capacity. It's like a company that has a bunch of half-empty warehouses around town. Keeping them open costs money, so why not consolidate? And consolidating wouldn't raise prices for their customers. It would just reduce costs for the company. That's all the oil companies were doing.

As for your complaint about blaming this on the environmentalists, yes the environmentalists haven't closed down refineries. But they've made it difficult to open new ones. Granted, they're not the only factor making it difficult to build new ones, but they are definitely one of the factors.

Phylo se Fyser -- on Refinery Shutdowns
Someone named "alopekos teumesios" had commented under Larry Elder's May 31st column that, although the oil companies have indeed shut down some refineries, the remaining ones have actually *increased* production. This is due to their extensive investment in infrastructure and other improvements, which simply were not economically feasible for many of the smaller refineries.

I.e., yes, there are fewer refineries, but there is more gasoline being produced.

I was waiting to see your reasoned response to his comment.

Steve L -- Profits in the Price
As I understand it from reading these columns and the postings beneath, oil companies profits consists of 9 cents per gallon.

So even if they were to be suicidally altruistic and give the stuff away at cost, the price of gasoline would *still* exceed $3.00/gallon.

response to Unca Alby
Yes, some of the refineries are producing more gas. But they could've been producing more had they kept those other refineries open.

And the increase in capacity has been at about 1% per year, while demand has been going up 2-3% per year.

Do you seriously think that the oil companies have been caught by surprise by this increase in demand?

Or is it more likely that this is all by design.


Phylo out.

Yo,Phylo...
...be sure to check under your bed tonight to see if their is an oil executive hiding there.You can never be too careful,ya know.

Our energy problems begin and end in Washington,and no where else.

I received
one of those letters the sender asks you to send to 10 other friends. It was suggesting that we boycott Mobil-Exxon for the next year to force down prices. Aside from the fact this kind of thing has been tried unsuccessfully in earlier times, I was shocked that the sender was a degreed Industrial Engineer who before retirement had achieved a high position with GM. Wouldn't you expect him to know better?

16 million barrels per day vs 20 million
That's what's happened to refining capacity since the mid-70s. If oil companies are going to ACT like a monopoly, perhaps they should be regulated like a monopoly. Zone pricing is tantamount to price fixing. Reducing refining capacity in light of expanding consumption is gaming the system.

JFP
JFP: "Keeping them open costs money, so why not consolidate? And consolidating wouldn't raise prices for their customers. It would just reduce costs for the company. That's all the oil companies were doing."

Phylo: Keeping refining capacity tight relative to demand raises prices for consumers because, when there is an interruption in supply, or a spike in demand, gas prices go through the roof. If there was some excess capacity in the system, we wouldn't be seeing these spikes.

You're right that excess capacity is a drag on profits. And it's easy to see why oil companies would want to keep refining capacity low. But don't you think it's bad policy to have such a tight supply. Do you realize how vulnerable this makes our economy? All terrorists would have to do is take out a couple of big refineries and we would be paying 5$ a gallon, or more, which would have a serious impact on our economy.

Who's side are you on here anyway; the country's, or the oil companies?

Phylo out.

GoodOnPaper -- on Prices
If you believe that all gasoline stations charge the same price, you obviously haven't been shopping around for the best price.

In my experience, the price can fluctuate as much as 25 cents between stations as close as 2 miles from each other, even back when the price was still under $2/gal.

Besides, similar pricing is a very natural effect of the marketplace. A loaf of bread has a very similar price no matter which grocery store you shop at, but you're not accusing the bakers and grocers of collusion are you?

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
All you folks that know so much about the oil industry - and business in general - should get together and do it right! And when you get your company started, pay your CEOs less than they could get elsewhere - because it's best for America. Don't worry about pricing the oil, or other silly, capitalistic notions like supply and demand - oil is an unlimited commodity! Just run your company the way the know-it-alls tell you. For the good of Americans. You'd last 2 days before you'd go belly-up and then go back to telling other folks how to run their businesses.

Good on Paper
Gas stations don't always charge the same at least where I live. One of the reasons though the prices are close though is they all pay the same price per barrel. I agree that there is a lack of competition and I point my finger directly at Congress!

Mr. Stossel
Good question. Why is it such a dirty word? More importantly why was it such a dirty word in last night's Rep debate?

Phylo - - -
"All terrorists would have to do is take out a couple of big refineries and we would be paying 5$ a gallon, or more, which would have a serious impact on our economy."

DON'T GIVE 'EM ANY MORE IDEAS!!!!

Allow me
To go into a bit more detail so the ones here who have concluded I am against Capitolism, Stossel, Profits, Riches etc.

I like Stossel, he does seem to have his feet planted on the ground for most of his reporting.

I love American Capitolism, making a profit and all prosperity for the hard working people who EARN it.

What I am against is this:

Manipulation of the Markets by the Greedy Corporations and Politicians.

John did not even address this part of the "profits" and is what I called dirty profits.

It has always been considered as underhanded and rotten to the core to FIX the market to the adavantage of one person or group over another.

That is not Free Market whatsoever.

And for you who think we have a real free market in America, well, ok.

Just go along with that thinking and accept your station in life the politicians and corporations have planned for you, Mr Serf.

Access to the ears of the lawmakers is out of reach for any one who really would like to see the government be broken from its partnership with big business.

Of course without that access, the oil companies and other major corporations could not be in control of the markets todayas they are.


Phylo
Yes, it turns out that reducing the number of refineries was a bad idea. But did the oil companies do this by design, or was it just stupidity? Based on what I've seen in other parts of corporate America, it was stupidity.

As for your question about whether I want to support America or the oil companies, naturally I'd opt for America over the oil companies.

But I don't want to scapegoat anyone, either. And when I see so many people buying the largest vehicles they can find, driving way faster than the speed limit, or refusing to sanction drilling for our own oil, I find it hard to blame the oil companies for our current prices.

John Konop failed to take my advice....
...and is still looking like a fool because of it.

"What does the Energy Bill do?—something entirely different. It gives HUGE tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies already earning record profits (because of ever-higher prices at the pump)."

Even were that true, you do realize that increasing the tax burden on oil companies would do nothing to stem their profits, and would only cause them to raise their prices even more, right?

"Strictly enforce anti-trust laws to encourage greater competition. Both the energy market and Americans will benefit from more competition, not less."

Uh huh. You do realize that if you lump the several dozen, or more, private oil companies operating in the Unites States all together, that would only still be less than 10% of the entire oil industry, right? 90% of the world oil industry is owned and operated by government agencies. What, are you going to tell your boy Hugo Chavez that he needs to break up his own government because you feel that his monopoly on Venezualian oil is naughty? Yeah, let's see how that one works.

"But the recent reality is that mergers have reduced the number of major oil and gas companies down to a non-competing handful."

Dozens is hardly a handful, especially when you are talking about an industry that has such huge capital overhead. There's no such thing as a "mom and pop" oil company because there aren't too many moms and pops that have $50 billion to invest in oil exploration, wells, and refining.

"Eliminate tax giveaways to Big Oil and instead offer loan guarantees to emerging, alternative-energy companies."

And this will reduce costs and increase supplies how?

Like I advised you yesterday, take a course in Economics 101, and return when you have the slightest inkling of what you are talking about.

Profit & Oil Co.s
The word "Profit" got to be perjorative basically as a result of decades-long subtle Marxist propaganda campaigns. "Profit" was always connected to illegal monopolies and collusions, criminal activities, evictions and foreclosures, and other unpleasant things. If "profit" is good news (as in, public shareholders will et something) it's called "return" or "gain" or the like.

The plain ffact is, the oil business has been structured for many years so that oil producers and refiners make more money when the market price of oil is high, & less when the market price is low. Period. We have just emerged from a period of low market prices. Back in the '80's and early '90's the oil companies (read that, institutional stockholders such as pension funds, mutual funds) were making much more modest profits, & nobody wrung their hands over it. Any ideas for how to make it profitable for oil co's to keep DOWN the market price, if they can?

Supply bottlenecks such as refineries, pipelines, & to a lesser extent oil field development v. increased demand mainly from Red China & India created the present price situation. If you want the prices to go down or at least not spike, start bulding & exploring.

Of course, the elite Left wants us to take the "ration & do without" route by buying into the "climate change" dogma & shutting down our economy.

Think about it
The motto of a monopolist

"Politics is the best Business of them all."

Our government is NOT responsive to "we the people", cause we are the serfs instead of their bosses' as this government was designed for service to us, not be the major partner of businessmen as it is today.

Any individual citizen in America feel as if he has the access the lobbists of K Street have to government?

The CFR?

Trilateral Commission?

Bankers? (as in the Federal Reserve Rip-off Corpration)

OR
Take the super rich men who buy the offices of the politicians today by paying their bills that it takes to run for office.

You cannot see (who it is) who owns America today with this sort of sordid access to powerful political positions is controlled from behind the scenes?

As just one of the individuals in America, I do nhot have one ounce of faith in the "leaderhip" the major corporations decide who "leads" me.

Spiritual retards run the nation into what we have today, no longer a government for and by the people, but there to promote the "bottom line profits" of the merchants who own them.

RE: Phylo
"Yes, some of the refineries are producing more gas. But they could've been producing more had they kept those other refineries open."

But the problem your tiny brain fails to realize is that keeping those refineries open cost too much, and environmental regulations and the cost prohibited them from making necessary upgrades. Oil companies shut them down because to keep them open would have increased costs further, and they've been trying to build new, modern, refineries for decades, but morons like you have stood in their way at every turn.

Its too bad
Americans of today will NOT listen to the voices of the Founders.

Such as this adlibbed quote from T. Jefferson:

"If the American people ever allow banking institutions to control the issue of the money supply, the corporations that will grow up around them, will own the very land their fathers fought and died for".

Welcome to that very day Jefferson forwarned was to come.

Drive down any main street in America and take note of who owns the business world today.

Corporations, no longer individuals and close to a real Free market.

From hamburgers to building supplies.
Electronics to groceries
Gasoline to utilities
Transportation to clothing.
News to entertainment(very little difference between the two today)

In fact any maketable item known to mankind is CONTROLLED by big business in and including our Own Government.

March on to the music they have you dancing to you "free" American citizens

Nam65-66

Your point about high European taxes is well taken. MY point, however, was that @$7/litre, a US Gallon of gas would have cost $11.37. Now THAT is something to kvetch about!

Economic illiteracy
I always wonder if people like Phylo are naturally stupid or if they have to work at it.

It is absolutely staggering how idiotic these people's comments are regarding how business works and what they perceive as the problems with free markets. Kind of an expose demonstrating why public schools need to be shut down.

Oil companies have probably provided some of the greatest benefits to our society of any industry ever. They give us cheap and clean energy that enables us to live like no one else ever has in history. Yet idiots like Phylo, who I imagine has never done a thing for himself or anyone else, sits in judgment of the oil companies and tries to pretend that he has a brain.

I'll take the oil companies any day over green-eyed idiots like Phylo.

talent scout
These items are controlled by big business because we chose it to be that way. We (you) quit going to the mom and pop stores in favor of the 7/11. We started going to Lowe's instead of the local hardware store. You can paint us as victims if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is - we make our own beds.

invisible, indeed
Considering how ignorant many people are of the basic functions of economics, it's a wonder that commerce operates as well as it does. Some of the basics are as plain as the nose on your face or the hands that hang from your sides, yet many people prefer to resort to demonology, convoluted exploitation theories and bizarre conspiracy theories. Yet operate it does, most of the time. Maybe that's what Adam Smith meant by the "invisible" hand.

to beowolfe
beowolfe: ...the problem your tiny brain fails to realize is that keeping those refineries open cost too much, and environmental regulations and the cost prohibited them from making necessary upgrades. Oil companies shut them down because to keep them open would have increased costs further, and they've been trying to build new, modern, refineries for decades, but morons like you have stood in their way at every turn.

Phylo: It costs too much? What does that mean? Are you saying they don't have the money to build new refineries or expand and upgrade old ones? Or are you saying that expanding refining capacity would stop the price spikes thereby eating into their enormous profits?

If it's the latter, I agree with you. From their perspective, expanding refining capacity is not in the best interest of their bottom line.

And there is nothing preventing oil companies from upgrading refineries that are older. They just don't want to have to pay for making the refineries cleaner and more efficient.

By the way, are seriously opposed to regulating the pollution from refineries? Do you want them to be able to pollute as much as they want?

(Notice I didn't need to resort to name calling. Just sensible argument is all I need.)

just make them pay more taxes
I know - let's just force oil companies to pay more taxes - and get rid of any tax breaks they already have! That will teach them to make so much money.

Of course, that will only seem plausible if you don't understand that only "REAL HUMAN BEINGS" pay taxes, not corporations (that means US).

OhioGuy
If you believe in the free market no industry or segment should be given subsidies over another. What you advocating is socialism. If the oil companies make big profits great! As long as they are not given subsidies at tax payer expense and granted monopolies.

Adam Smith the father of fee market economics was clear on both points!

FROM ADAM SMITH WEALTH OF NATIONS!

Monopoly:-

§ "A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate." (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 7.)

§ "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice." (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 10.)

Politicians:-
§ "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers [read politicians] to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs." (vol. I, bk. II, ch. 3.)

READ MORE

http://www.controlcongress.com




Hey PV
Rather than just calling me names and telling me that I don't know anything about market economics, hows about offering some specific examples of my idiocy.

I'll be back in a couple of hours to read you words of wisdom to me.

Phylo out.

All the while
The socialist God hating left manufactors fear of this or that, as in the Seperation of Church and State.
The Bird Flu (Asian, etc.)
Global warming
African sexual dementia and AIDS
Host of other manufactored fears and/or concerns, they work hard to combine business and government as they blessed Mother Russia with in the old days.

We have become victims of idolatry to the State.

Communism is not dead buy alive and well in America with a new stage name, calling itself "democracy".

A sellable word to the dumbed down American Public and successfully used by the "Madison Avenue" salesmen of government and business.

That is where we need the seperation for true free markets and liberty for all.

CEO salaries oil company profits
For virrudh:

If you took took the entire compensation package of Exxon's CEO, for his entire career, and divided it up among 300 million Americans we would each get a one-time payment of about $1.50.

If I send you a buck-and-half will you stop complaining about it?



In general:

Oil company profits are used to pay for all of the following.

Corporate income taxes at 35%. That means that when Exxon EARNS $40 billion the feds get to skim $14 billiob off the top for doing ... nothing. And this is IN ADDITION TO the excise tax the feds get on every gallon sold. When Tony Soprano does this it's called "racketeering", and is punishable by up to 20 years in the can. Right now I think 20 years for the clowns in DC who made this mess sounds just about right.

Dividends to stockholders. You libs remember stockholders, don't you. They were the ones you were all bragging about making rich when Clinton was Prez. They're the same ones you were condemning Bush for impoverishing when the dot-com bubble broke. But I guess they don't matter now that they're getting rich with Bush in office. To admit this would be to admit something good was happening with a Republican in the White House, and we can't have that, can we?

Capital reinvestment. This goes to maintain and/or upgrade existing facilities, and build new ones (if the government will let them). Maintenance and upgrades are needed to maintain supply and quality. New facilities are needed to increase supply and improve quality.

Exploration and development of new sources.

Research and Development.

It always disgusts me how the left takes all of these functions for granted and then complains that the price is too high. And no, you don't HAVE to buy gasoline. There are plenty of places you can live (New York City and Chicago come to mind) where you don't need a car.

And as so many others have pointed out, alternative sources of energy are available, or at least they would be if the environmentalists hadn't succeeded in getting them effectively outlawed.

Blaming Big Oil is a watse of time and cyberspace. And further regulation and government controls will only make the situation worse, not better.

This is just one more aspect of life in which the left has gummed things up with their compulsion to control everything and are now proposing to fix what they broke with more of the same policies that broke it.

What?
Does anyone really have a question about hiow wasteful the American government has become?

quote:

Politicians:-
§ "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers [read politicians] to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs." (vol. I, bk. II, ch. 3.)

Thanks for this quote John Konop but it is consistantly skated over by the serfs minded public, thinking we have a "free market", ha ha.

Just part of it Buck
BuckBean writes: 10:57 AM
talent scout
These items are controlled by big business because we chose it to be that way. We (you) quit going to the mom and pop stores in favor of the 7/11. We started going to Lowe's instead of the local hardware store. You can paint us as victims if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is - we make our own beds.

-------------------------------------------

No sir
We were led this way by the partnership of business and government as sheep are led.

The America of pre 1913 is/was never to be seen again, once..... the bankers were placed in charge of the money supply and the economy by setting its value.



exxon
Is not the largest oil company in the world.They are #5.look at how much it cost to build one of those offshore oil stations.Take a look at an oil refinery and try to imagine how expensive to build.Look at all the good paying jobs the oil companies provide.If the U.S. does not protect the free flow of oil who will?How much profit did the Kennedy families oil co. make in profit last year?

Profits are profits
One thing that hasn't been said by any of the so-called market experts on this site is that profits are just that---profits. Oil companies like to say that they are investing huge amounts of money in research and exploration. But research and exploration are expenses. Any two bit accountant can tell you that profits are: revenues minus expenses = profits.
Now someone explain to me why 2--count em--2 refineries magically reopened a week after memorial day and then tell me that there is no manipulation going on.
Look, I'm not for government subsidies, government taxes on profits or any of the other government bs. But to say that the outrageous profits being earned are not suspect is dangerous thinking.

My prediction came true
Re Phylo, Konop, Talent Scout et al. You make me feel so prophetic! Maybe I should go out today & play the lottery!? None of the complainers have even attempted to answer the questions I posed about basic business economics as it relates to BigBadOil. As I suggested, it's easier to rant & vent than dissect a complex issue.

And JohnK, what exactly in my posts relates to Socialism? Fascinating. All I did was pose a few questions about the math of oil profits, hoping you critics of GreedyBigOil could give us the answers. Actually, I didn't even take a stand for or against BigEvilOil (except maybe by my tone), just made a request that if we're going to rant against the American branch of SelfishOil that we base those complaints on some understanding of the math involved.

Also, before I get the usual ad hominem attacks, no, I don't work for BigOil, don't have any friends or relations who do, don't have any stock or mutual funds in BigOil. Just call me curious.

DeskJockey...
We learned a long time ago that there were not altruistic motives in the book, "How to Serve Man." It was a cookbook!!

Rick...
...How dare you introduce common sense to this thread! You some kind of communist or something?

Phylo:You have been accused of many things on this site,but sensible was never one of them.

Wiseone
Taxes are expenses. They are not paid for out of profits. Dividends are paid from profits. Take some time to actually learn accounting.
I agree with someone else on this thread. Let's get BIG GOVERNMENT to cut their expenses and stop trying to redistribute wealth. Then maybe, just maybe we can all breath a little easier. They're the real ROBBER BARONS of our time.

Oil corporations is
Just part of the partnersip Ohio Guy.

Look deeper

I forgot...
...Gabby; didn't mean to diss you by not mentioning you, guy. Not sure what your post had to do with my questions either. Maybe you posted my username by mistake when you meant someone else? My questions were about business economics, not international politics. Kind of like the teacher asking Johnny "What is 24 divided by seven?" and hearing Johnny answer, "The Louisiana Purchase!"

BTW, thanks Wiseone for actually bringing some facts & figures into this thread.

RetMSgt
Corporate income taxes are NOT expenses. They are taxes on corporate profits. Profits are what is left of revenues AFTER expenses.

Further, Uncle Sam insists that corporate income taxes be calculated and paid on the amount of profit that exists BEFORE it is used for things like dividends, capital reinvestment, and R&D.

Excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and payroll taxes are expenses.

Liberal Nonsense - Redundant?
Tinhats to The Left of Me!
Tinhats to The Left of The Tinhats!

John Kerry in against Profit! When did he & Theresa start giving away ketchup!

One Moonbat says there aren't enough refineries!
Other Monnbats protest if you try to build one!

Other Moonbats say we went to war for oil. WHERE IS IT!

Exxon profits were 10% of revenues, VERY reasonable in the retail market.
Moonbats accuse them of gouging!

Question: That Liberal Icon, Starbucks, if they sold coffee by the gallon, The CHEAPEST would be $12.00 a gallon. Are The Liberals going to boycott Starbucks?

What a bunch of Morons!

Rob
Good post. I have two comments I'd like to add to it.

1. The price of gasoline could also go down if, as you suggest, the government would not continue to cave to environmentalists and allow us to build more refineries and drill in more domestic sources.

Most of us DO think about how much gasoline we are using when we start our car to go somewhere when the price is $3.49/gallon. And as a result we use less of it and there is no shortage.

And this happens all by itself, without any help or guidance from pols like John Kerry, or even experts like Phylo and Gabby.

Ay Yi Yi!
Know how you feel, Georgetwin! This is going nowhere fast!

TalentS: that still doesn't get anywhere near my original questions. Being told to look deeper into an economic topic (with political overtones) before the math is even done is like telling someone to look deeper into a frozen pond before any ice is broken; can't be done.

If you, or anyone else, can answer my basic questions and THEN connect them to you particular viewpoint, I'll be glad to listen. I have no particular ax to grind except the financial truth of the situation, which seems to be ignored for the most part.

Stossel
Thanks for the commentary.

One voice of reason that I always look for on TH.

Where have you been all these years?


Rob and Wiseone
What you are saying is big government paid by tax payers dollars should subsidies multi-national oil companies to protect capitalism.

WOW Are you sure you are not from CHINA?

Rob and Wiseone
What you are saying is big government paid by tax payers dollars should subsidies multi-national oil companies to protect capitalism.

WOW Are you sure you are not from CHINA?

I love American gas prices
... and oil company profits.

They enable me to have 17 gallons of gas readily available whenever I need them, while simultaneously:

- Sparing me the offense of having to see the oil being pumped (it's done in Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Oklahoma, Texas -- and not-by-golly off the coast of California, where three dozen drilling leases have expired without renewal in the last four years)

- Sparing me the anguish of smelling the oil being refined (and having spent a number of years in Tulsa, I can assure you: IT STINKS)

- Sparing me the horror of seeing America's wild and scenic environmental heritage intruded on by oil wells and pipelines

- Sparing me the sorrow of air pollution from internal combustion exhaust, not only on average but calibrated to local and seasonal specifications

- Sparing me the unthinkable irresponsibility of burning gasoline unmixed with ethanol

- Sparing me the social train wreck of thousands of oil and transportation industry employees being unprotected by expensive insurance and state-mandated wage and welfare guarantees of various kinds, just like all American workers

- Sparing me the brutish consequences of businesses at all levels of the industry being untaxed by federal, state, and local government

- Sparing me both the melancholy and the indigestion that would result from seeing the gas go to higher bidders in India and China. I'm Number 1! No one can outbid ME on a gallon of gas.

Of course, this is just what the base price of a gallon of gas is paying for. Then there's the nearly 60 cents of the $3.35 that is going to the feds, the state of California, and Riverside County. I'm not entirely clear on what that's doing for me, but I'm sure it's something good.

What's not to love? Gas is about 27 cents a gallon in Saudi Arabia, and amazingly, I'm not even a little tempted to move there...

RE: Phylo
"And there is nothing preventing oil companies from upgrading refineries that are older."

Nothing....except environmental regulations and the cost to do so.

Before you read further, please turn your brain to the "on" postion. I'll wait.

Is your brain on yet? Ok:

Current environmental regulations actually prohibit certain upgrades that would make older refineries to operate more efficiently. That is a fact, and no matter how many lies you repeat, you can't chage that.

Second, the cost of some of those upgrades is too high for it to be worth it. If they would just ignore the costs and upgrade them anyhow, gas wouldn't be $3 a gallon, it would be $5 a gallon, and you'd just find some other excuse to complain.

"By the way, are seriously opposed to regulating the pollution from refineries?"

Nope, but everything has a cost. Until you understand that basic fact, I will continue to point out how illiterate you are on this subject.

"(Notice I didn't need to resort to name calling. Just sensible argument is all I need.)"

You don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about, so how, EXACTLY, can any "argument" you make on the subject be anything remotely resembling "sensible"?

What a bunch of whining!
1. Who/what are the oil companies?

They are not monolithic entities, they are publicly owned corporations, with stock holders and employees.

2. Oil is traded publicly on the market.

Why can't one of the business genius's whining on this board put together a business plan where you only make a 10% profit, find investors, build some refineries, buy or lease filling stations purchase a fleet of tankers and put Exxon/Mobil out of business by charging only 1.50 a gallon for gas.

Just maybe all of the socialist crybabies here don't have a friggin clue what they are talking about.

3. Don't think you can make it in the oil business, why not get all those smart liberal brains in gear and come up with an alternate fuel that is capeable of powering a ford explorer loaded with 6 fatass adults up black mountian without down shifting more than once, and is cheaper than gasoline.

If you whiners are so friggin smart why not do something productive instead of attacking working folks who are doing something to make the commerce, the country, and the world run.

RE: John Konop
"What you are saying is big government paid by tax payers dollars should subsidies multi-national oil companies to protect capitalism."

I don't think anyone is saying that. I know I'm not.

But your claim that charging more taxes to oil companies would somehow magically cause gas prices to drop is not just ridiculous, it is the exact OPPOSITE of reality.

Those subsidies you are quacking about are not "big government paid by tax payers dollars" anyhow. They are tax breaks. What you fail to consider is that the United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the modern world (we used to be in 3rd place, but both Japan and Germany dropped their corporate tax rates), and the ONLY way we can keep any industry in the United States at all is to offer breaks on these taxes. This is, of course, why nearly every industry has at least some sort of "tax breaks" written into the tax code (and also why the entire tax code ought to be scrapped, and rebuilt so that it is, at the very least, slightly more understandable).

Wiseone
Corporate taxes are not on profits. They are on taxable income. Where did you get your info? From the wikipedia? Try actually reading the tax code. Thats USC 26 SS 11. Look up corporate tax. The corporate tax rate for any C corporation is 35% of the amount over $10 million of taxable income.

Karl Marx tells us why....
....PROFIT is a dirty word:
"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Every politician operates according to this Constitutionally-sponsored tenet of Marxism.

The anti-federalist "Pensylvania Minority" warned how democracy would destroy liberty under the Constitution:
[The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments, whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed. By virtue of their power of taxation, Congress may command the whole, or any part of the property of the people. They may impose what imposts upon commerce; they may impose what land taxes, poll taxes, excises, duties on all written instruments, and duties on every other article that they may judge proper; in short, every species of taxation, whether of an external or internal nature is comprised in section the 8th, of article the 1st, viz., "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

As there is no one article of taxation reserved to the state governments, the Congress may monopolise every source of revenue, and thus indirectly demolish the state governments, for without funds they could not exist, the taxes, duties and excises imposed by Congress may be so high as to render it impracticable to levy further sums on the same articles; but whether this should be the case or not, if the state governments should presume to impose taxes, duties or excises, on the same articles with Congress, the latter may abrogate and repeal the laws whereby they are imposed, upon the allegation that they interfere with the due collection of their taxes, duties or excises, by virtue of the following clause, part of section 8th, article 1st. viz., "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The Congress might gloss over this conduct by construing every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the "general welfare", and therefore as of their jurisdiction.]


We are paying the price of our desire for intervention.

Glib and Deceptive
none writes, "You can always expect Stossel to make it clear...
Teachers should view his website fro information so our youth get a better understanding so that the media doesn't affect them like it affects the adults of today."

No. Keep Stossel as far away from the schools as possible. Notice how he portrays oil companies and gasoline prices strictly through the lens of the hallowed free market, sullied by the interference of pesky politicians? The reality is far more complex. Oil companies are huge, politically powerful, and able to wrest all sorts of goodies from dependent politicians. Hardly a sterling example of free markets at work.

Stossel isn't making it clear. He's been glib, selective, and ultimately deceptive. They only place he has in the school system is as an object lesson in deceptive presentation of ideas and information.

It isn't the profit
I wonder if the complaint from most Americans is more about other issues than the profit of the oil companies.

This is a commodity that the American public cannot choose to do without. Look at any type of public, or private utility. These are things that we all must have to survive.

How many times have you heard people TRULY complain about the profits that Bill Gates has made? At the same time, people don't feel that they need to buy computer software to survive.

Couple that with the fact that humans want to be able to CONTROL their environment. They don't want to feel that others are controlling them.

Realistically people are not going to go out tomorrow and start buying new cars to decrease the amount of gasoline that they buy. They might make that consideration for their next purchase, but not tomorrow.

Price control for gasoline or oil companies simply puts people back in charge of their lives.

Give people a feeling that they can have some type of impact, or that someone is helping control the situation and I bet you have a LOT less complaining.

johninoregon
Hmmm ....

You end your whining critique of Mr.Strossel with this nugget:

"Stossel isn't making it clear. He's been glib, selective, and ultimately deceptive. They only place he has in the school system is as an object lesson in deceptive presentation of ideas and information."

The same could be said for the socialist whinners whose only solution for everything is to get the government to take profits from people who earn them and give them to deadbeats.

Surely someone such as your self who has such a great understanding of the ins and outs of the oil business and international finance should have no problem putting together a group of like minded socialists to start your own oil company and compete with exxon, shell, or BP.

Any fool can see that if you sold your gas for 1.50 a gallon, you would have the big boys sucking the perverbial hind teat within a week.

I have plenty of confidence that you can find 50,000,000 folks to trust you with 5,000 each, and there you are with 250 billion dollars to put yourself in business.

I'll be the first in line to buy your gas.

Well, gasoline, .... I don't think I'll buy the gas that you have been passing here.

Phylo - - -
quoth Phylo: "[Building new refineries] costs too much? What does that mean? Are you saying they don't have the money to build new refineries or expand and upgrade old ones?"

It doesn't matter if they have the money. I'm sure they're flush with cash. But that's not the point.

The point is, if they invest a billion$ with an expected return of only 950 million$, they're wasting their money.

They're not charities. They're in business to make money. That means for every dime they invest this year, they want to see 11 cents next year. Anything less, and they might as well buy treasury bonds with a guaranteed return of at least 4.7%.

If upgrading an old refinery or building a new one to handle heavy crude and stricter environmental regs, plus years of red tape, protesters, and finding somewhere with a low NIMBY turnout, makes it so that it costs more than it's worth, they're not going to do it. Period.

They'd be smarter to bury their money in the ground. There's no return, but also there's no loss and there's no risk.

You're asking them to RISK their money (the price might go DOWN in the 15 years it takes to jump through all the hoops) and LOSE their money (it might cost $3.50 to produce a gallon that sells for $3.17, minus 34 cents in taxes) in order to prove to you that they're not doing something underhanded.

If you think building a new refinery is such a piece of cake, and all you have to do is sink a billion dollars into it and [[presto!]] you've pumping out gasoline, tell you what -- put together a business plan and take it to people with venture capital. These people are always looking for sure-fire money-making plans to offset losses from other sure-fire plans that back-fired.

to beowolfe (and other critics)
So I'm the one who doesn't have his facts straight, huh?

You (and others) have repeatedly said it is the environmental regulations that are preventing oil companies from building new refineries, right?

And none of you have ever given any evidence to back up your claims.

So, I did a little research and found the following:

"Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries."

Doesn't look to me like those oil companies are real eager to open up new refineries, does it.

So you know, the original source for this quote is The Committee on Government Reform Hearing 106th Congress Sept 20-21, 2000.

Boy, keeping you people honest and informed is a full-time job.

I'll be very interested to see if any of my critics will respond substantively to this post, rather than with childish name calling.

Phylo out.

Dogjudge
The dog judge misguidedly says:

"Price control for gasoline or oil companies simply puts people back in charge of their lives.

Give people a feeling that they can have some type of impact, or that someone is helping control the situation and I bet you have a LOT less complaining."

Apparently you weren't around when jimmah Cartah did this years ago. The repercussions lasted for years. It nearly ruined the economy, lines at gas stations, when you could actually get gas were sometimes miles long.

There is a fantasy world where socialists, and hippies live in harmony with the universe where peace will steer the planets and love will guide the stars, but that is just what it is, a fantasy.