From Boston.com’s Exxon Mobil 2Q profit sets US record, shares fall: “Exxon Mobil Corp. reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion Thursday, the biggest profit from operations ever by any U.S. corporation…Revenue rose 40 percent to $138.1 billion from $98.4 billion in the year-earlier quarter…Setting U.S. profit records has become commonplace for Irving-based Exxon Mobil. The $11.68 billion topped its own U.S. record of $11.66 billion, posted in the fourth quarter of last year. Right behind that was the $10.9 billion it reported to start 2008.” [Hat tip to Dovev for the link, who adds, "It is RIDICULOUS that oil companies are making record-setting profits and still receiving major federal subsidies."]
We Should Nationalize Big Oil
This entry was written by , posted on July 31, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Filed under Asides and tagged america, Business, money, oil.
Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
108 Comments
Really? You think we should nationalize a private company?
Tell me you’re joking, or explain further.
I’m not joking.
Why shouldn’t we? With all the subsidies, we already support Big Oil a tremendous amount. Early last year, the House passed a bill that would have taken away all those subsidies and used them to invest in clean energy, but in June of this year, the GOP successfully filibustered the bill from every receiving a vote in the Senate.’
This is from the Washington Independent:
“Under the bill, roughly $17 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry would be transferred to promote wind, solar and other renewable energies over the next 10 years. It would also take steps to punish price gouging by retailers and suspend purchases of crude oil by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of the year. In addition, large oil companies that don’t invest in new refineries and clean technologies would get hit with a 25 percent windfall profit tax.”
But that didn’t go through, so Big Oil is keeping its $17 billion in tax breaks. How do those tax breaks work? Well, our country charges Big Oil 11% in tax where we charge non-oil companies 18%.
Now you have to add in all the infrastructure and services that the oil business depends on, infrastructure that we’re paying for as a country, not them as a private business. This includes oil-shipping expenditures, R&D to improve oil production techniques, maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, oil-related services of the Department of Energy, and most importantly, the military expenditures related to the Persian Gulf.
Then you have to factor in the hidden costs that all of us pay for: environmental degradation. One report on data from 1991(!) estimated this cost to be between $52 billion and and $232 billion. And that was in 1991.
All of which is to say that, as a country, we have billions and billions and billions of public funds entangled in the oil industry, but all we get in return is higher prices at the pump, environmental pollution, and thousands of soldiers dead.
Why not nationalize the whole thing and at least reap the rewards?
Hey Kyle, I’m with you on this. Unfortunately, there’s zero likelihood on this actually happening, so maybe the next best thing would be to keep hammering away at their subsidies. It’ll be interesting to see what–if anything–Obama does about this, given that he’s supposedly so focused on rooting special interests out of the policymaking process. I actually have some faith he’ll make real changes, although it’s just as easy to see him ultimately breaking our hearts.
The question is what can he do? While obviously we need a president who would sign off on a new energy bill that would remove these subsidies, we first have to get it out Congress, which means electing the sixty senators we need to stop a filibuster.
Here’s the 3 basic things from the campaign platform…looks like the focus would be on transparency of political lobbying/funding (kind of like Bill Maher’s suggestion that candidates have to wear the logos of their sponsors on their suits, like NASCAR drivers):
1. Create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable
format.
2.Use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
3. Support public financing of campaigns combined with free
television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.
Would this fix the problem? Who knows, but it’d be a start, and certainly better than what we’ve got.
I am all for taking that 17 billion and putting it towards clean energy, but it is not that simple. The Democrats are as culpable as the GOP. They want the prices to go up. How do you think all of the programs get paid for? Unlike most products we purchase we do not pay tax at checkout on oil. It is embedded in the overall price.
The folks in California pay 63.9 cents a gallon in state and federal fuel taxes, the most in the nation. That’s just the base, though. Motorists there also pay an additional 6-percent state sales tax, with some paying another 1.25-percent county s ales tax plus applicable local sales taxes. Same in Illinois, where Chicago motorists pay 12.75 cents per gallon on top of the 57.9 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes. Some Illinois motorists also pay a 6.25-percent sales tax.
When prices double so do tax revenues. You’d think the gov’t would put a moratorium on the taxes since they are getting a “windfall” of tax revenue. But you’d be wrong.
What they should do is take a good chunk of the 17 billion away from the companies and put into research to make more efficient cleaner energies. Take some of the tax revenue from oil and do the same. Then stop the corn ethanol mandates that is a real waste of tax payers money, completely inefficient, and raises food prices at the same time. It is a gov’t trifecta of inefficiencies and speaks to why gov’t should not be BIG.
Utilize the corn ethanol mandates for cellulosic ethanol ethanol instead. It has a 20:1 input to output ratio compared to 2:1 for corn ethanol. Or other alternative energies like wind and PV.
unfortunately electing sixty senators isn’t enough unless we know for sure that those sixty senators are guaranteed to vote together on a new energy bill… - and taking away the subsidies wouldn’t do much to stop the big oil because the oil companies will just raise the prices again and use these new profits to pay for what their usually accustomed to getting from the government… - and what would the government do with the money if they no longer had to help the oil companies? - invest in clean energy? - pay off all of the car companies and all the machine making companies to start making clean automobiles and machines? - dismantle our military for slingshots? - pay for all the damage to the environment? - pay off all of the housing contractors and building contractors to build a structure that doesn’t depend on oil? - we’re so dependent on these oil companies in every facet of our society that all the money in the world couldn’t help turn the country green… - and we’re only talking about our country here… - not china… - not japan… - not germany or any other country that would gladly embrace exxon mobil or joe the oil pumper into their arms if the united states planned on chopping their heads off or exiling them from the country… - we’re more than addicted to oil… - the problem isn’t the oil companies… - it’s the entire civilization that’s the problem… - it’s the mind set… - yes?
While privatization can seem look a good idea when glanced at, it hasn’t worked out very well in any example I have seen.
“Why not nationalize the whole thing and at least reap the rewards?” This is a looter’s mentality. The fact that is not nationalized is what drives the profits it generates. If you were to nationalize a system like this, it would eat itself from the inside.
What would be the drive to produce and innovate anymore, when you are working for someone else?
Perhaps this is the way I should frame this:
Kyle, you have written an amazing book that is selling millions of copies. Great success, now your profits have grown ‘too big’ the league of underemployed writers has decided to nationalize KyleCo. You must now write your next book, generate the same profits and share it with the league. How motivated are you?
look at all the money that all the towns across our country fundraise for firecrackers for the fourth of july… - what about no more fourth of july? - what about collecting all of that money for useless red sparks in the sky? - the parades… - the giant concerts and sporting events… - the amusement parks… - fucking j.c. penny… - there is more than enough bullshit to go around and if we could only stop it for a set amount of years or siphon most of that money into more important things other than our own entertainment - we could clear our conscience… - but who’s going to siphon and distribute this money properly? - the government? - noone trusts the government… - at least the one we have now and have had since time immemorial…
what can be done? - what can we do?
Josh–
So you’re saying that oil companies are only motivated when they’re guaranteed a certain amount of profit? I think taking away their subsidies would induce them to work harder, since they’d now have to justify the price on their product without the help of artificial market controls like the subsidies they currently receive.
Also, if oil subsidies are removed and lead to higher-priced oil, then wouldn’t alternative energies like wind & solar become more price-competitive? And wouldn’t that be a good thing?
No I’m not saying guarantees are part of this at all. Changing the subsidies, removing subsidies are all options that should be on the table.
It’s only when you start talking about privatizing companies that the capitalist/libertarian/objectivist in me starts to get very worried.
Sure remove the subsidies and let em slog it out in the market.
I totally agree…subsidies can be really useful things, and should always be in the discussion.
However, aren’t subsidies supposed to be used for market corrections in capitalist systems? In other words, they’re designed to artificially prop up a good until it can naturally compete. With oil, it’s pretty clear that they’re not having any issues with turning a profit, so isn’t it arguable that subsidies have no place whatsoever here?
forget about the subsidies because if we’re only going to use that money to mop up the mess that the oil companies leave behind… - it’s like shoveling shit against the tide… - and considering that we need the machines which run on oil to do the job of cleaning up… - we’re still paying the oil companies something or we’re paying the companies who are contracted for environmental clean up jobs who then turn around and pay the oil companies to run their machinery to clean up the oil slicks or the demolished towns from a hurricane or whatever it is that needs to be built or cleaned up… - all of the major organs of our country pump oil through their veins - so to speak… - even the clean energy sectors rely on oil to run the factories to make the cranes and sculpt the wind turbines or pump out the solar panels… - the shit doesn’t just materialize out of thin air…
My understanding has always been that subsidies are in place in order to allow private companies to operate efficiently and at the same time to provide the greater public access to their goods at an affordable price. I would imagine these subsidies were put in place at at time when the OIL companies made the argument that without them, they would not be able to continue to operate, and invest in the necessary technologies, as well as charge a price for gas that that the government considered reasonable.
In order to maintain the drive and motivation to innovate and improve, the OIL companies have no cap on their profitability and thus they are incented to continue to expand at their leisure while taking advantage of the government subsidies. I think this system works when everyone can agree that they are paying a fair price for the goods and that the subsidized companies are making the necessary improvements to ultimately wean themselves off the subsidies (I’m not sure that’s part of the deal, but it would seem logical). I beleive that industries such as agriculture have benefitted from this for a long time. Now, as these companies begin to consolidate (and I’m guessing the subsidies consolidate with them) they are able to become more and more efficient and their reveneues grow and grow….since legislation is slow moving by nature, there is an overlap where the subsidies are still being provided, yet the revenues suggest that they may not be necessary….my guess is that we are in that situation now.
It should also be pointed out that what is driving all of these profits for the oil companies is not simply that they have raised their prices irresponsibly. It also has something to do with the financial markets. The futures market for oil is out of control with speculators continously “betting” on the price changes, I don’t know all the details, but all of this speculation (which is wholly unhealthy) is a result of the war and the devaluation of the US Dollar.
That being said, it certainly doesn’t sit well when you have three things combining - cripplingly high oil prices (although you could argue this is not the case YET), record profits, and continued government subsidies…..certainly doesn’t sit well and looks awful, but I think the simple answer is to consider pulling the subsidies - however the OIL companies would freak and would argue that when financial markets calmed down, the prices would drop, etc….the more likely is to just placate the public by reducing the subsidies (in lieu of the current profits) and put that money (whatever amount it ends up being) towards some sort of renewable energy intiative……
I mean if OPEC does something fishy (for whatever reason) the OIL companies would just come crying back to the government and demand more subsidies unless Obama wants to be the first president to have double digit per gallong gas prices….which I would imagine he doesn’t want to be….
Frankly, as long as my gas (and food, and filghts) are affordable and reasonable within my world view, I’m ok with subsidies…but the thought that these companies are posting record profits and I’m getting slammed with 100% price increase at the pump, certainly makes me sick….but Europe has been paying 4-5 times higher than the US for a gallon of gas for a long time…..
While trades are driving up the price somewhat don’t forget that China and India are going through what we called an industrial revolution at this moment. Given that the world population is 6,713,740,239 and they represent roughly 35%-40% that is a lot of supply that needs to be cultivated. The price of steel and other precious metals have went up in a similar fashion over the last decade along with oil and speculators. That is a lot of infrastructure being put up in those lands and it takes a lot of machines that run on oil to get it up and running.
We have been paying a fraction of the price of oil for years. Our funny neighbors to the north have been paying north of 6$ a gallon for a while. Maybe we should have hopped on the wagon over a decade ago when countries started putting out smaller cars, using flex fuels and overall electing people that shared their collective vision. Instead we let the flyover states and the crazy religious zealots/ neo conservatives who are hell bent on imperialistic marches and “saving”/ forcing democracy on all.
Food for thought… literally.
US light sweet crude……………..$130brl
Coca Cola……………………….$126brl
Milk……………………………$163brl
Perrier Water……………………$300brl
Budweiser……………………….$447brl
Starbucks latte………………….$954brl
Ben & Jerry’s ice cream…………$1,609brl
Tabasco sauce………………….$6,155brl
fitting for this conversation…..
Sheikh flies Lamborghini 6,500 miles to Britain for oil change
Whoa. What was a semi-whimsical headline has become an interesting thread. Nice job folks.
And fuck yeah, Zac. Way to come out swinging the big bats of facts and knowledge. I love it.
Now, let me see if I can understand what you’re saying, because I probably can’t.
Because there’s already a tax on purchasing gas, the various states and the Federal government are already benefiting from the oil industry, so in a sense, we’re already reaping a good portion of the reward, which means that while the oil industry isn’t nationalized, the nation receives the same financial benefits as its private investors (or if not the same, at least a significant share).
Is that right?
It also sounds like you’re in favor of higher taxes on oil. Now, you may not be saying this, but the bill the Senate failed to pass was (I think) structured so the taxes don’t get paid at the pump. That’s what that “windfall profits” tax was all about: i.e., the oil companies can only charge the American consumer more money at the pump provided that the extra money go into R&D and not into your executives’ coffers.
Now if that’s right, let me get this straight: we’re already, as a nation, a heavy investor in the oil industry (with both its rewards and costs), and we already, as a nation, determine (or are trying to determine) the rules by which the oil industry must operate its business, including the spending of its profits.
Doesn’t that sound like either a half-assed free market or a half-assed nationalization program?
And don’t we know that this system isn’t working for the American people?
Which means we could go one way or the other to fix it: we could try total free market, or total nationalization. Now, we know for damn sure that an unfettered oil market would lead to nothing but death and destruction. I think There Will Be Blood taught us that.
So if that won’t work, shouldn’t we try going full boar and nationalize the thing?
I mean, look at Russia. The sole reason they escaped the depression of the ’90s was their nationalized oil fields. They’re out of debt and reclaiming power on the world stage. Of course, there’s a lot of bad things about Russia, so I’m not saying we should strive to copy them in all they do, but in a country whose national debt boggles the brain, shouldn’t we be open to trying something different?
And Josh, if I’ve made enough money to live off those millions of copies sold from my first book, I’m more than willing to give away all my next books for free.
Kyle. Your heart is in the right place, but come on. You can’t really be serious when you say some of these things. You would give all of your money away from your second book? If that is the case then you are the exception to the rule. The majority of people work hard or extra hard to be rewarded for their extra efforts. Necessity while the mother of innovation wasn’t born out of pure necessity.
While the computer has proven to be a necessity (to us) you can’t say the last 10,000 years of human civilization were not successful due to the lack of a computer.., or innovation. Where there is a market and consumers there is a product that can be sold to the masses. We have depending on who’s vantage point integrated our lives so seamlessly with oil. driving, agriculture, transport, infrastructure build up …. that we have no choice but to pay the price until we can find an alternative. When we do that the price of oil will drop accordingly. We have no business nationalizing oil companies. How would that work? We tell Exxon who by the way is tiny relative to the other oil companies we are taking over. As an FYI they have sold off most of their gas stations to private owners.. Indians (slurpies not casinos to be specific)b/c there is no profit to be had there.
But Russia? Really? You wanna follow there lead? Do you know how many oil companies have been stolen from capitalists by the gov’t with the use of russian military… For the country!!! Is that the road we want to go down. Haven’t we already seen the result of the Russians policy? Didn’t we already see the outcome of this experiment when communist were pitching for socialism, only to find there is a line a mile long for a loaf of bread. It is a great premise, but without the follow through what do you have. Inefficient markets, lack of participation, fear of gov’t intervention. Not to mention the overflow of other industries afraid they will make to much money and be the next Industry ceased for nationalization purposes.
From a Press Release from the National Wildlife Federation:
“Just one day after President Bush renewed his demand for Congress to turn over more of America’s natural resources to Big Oil, Exxon Mobil reports the largest quarterly profit in America’s history, an amazing $1,485.55 per second. Let there be no mistake where that profit came from – the pockets of American drivers, the victims of a vicious circle. Our government gives America’s public lands and waters to Big Oil. Big Oil extracts the oil and consumers are forced to buy it because they have no other choice of alternative technologies or fuels – it’s buy what Big Oil is selling or walk to work. Big Oil takes that money and invests that money not in cheaper, cleaner renewable energy, but in stock buybacks and dividends.
“Now President Bush wants to start the circle again, asking Big Oil to bail us out of our energy crisis. If you’re trying to quit smoking, you don’t ask the Marlboro Man for help, and if you’re serious about quitting your oil addiction, you don’t ask Big Oil for help.”
Just want to point out that Russia is one of many countries who have nationalized oil production. Norway has also done this, and the result is a very lucrative revenue source for their citizenry:
From the CIA World Factbook: “Norway has been saving its oil-and-gas-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund, which is invested abroad and now is valued at more than $250 billion.”
Wouldn’t an extra $250 billion have been nice to have?
You know I really wanted to stop at 700 posts. Just when I think I am out you pull me back in.
Let me just point out that Exxon paid over 32 billion dollar in taxes in the 2nd quarter. Or for every 1 dollar in profit they paid 3 dollars in taxes. So it seems they are putting some of the money they are taking back into the till so to speak. Not even to mention the amount of money that 50+% of Americans make on owning stock in this company. If Exxon was a private company I would say that making them use the money on renewable sources of energy would be a great thing to do.
But because it is a public company it would be almost impossible. If there was even a hint the US was taking away the subsidies (of forcing to use the profits) the value of the company would drop (as people would sell the stock) and I am not sure that having an unstable Exxon is good for anyone.
Hey guys, cool thread, thought I’d opine for a bit here…
The US govt and domestic oil companies aren’t the only parties culpable. Foreign govts subsidize demand for gas in their countries by controlling prices. When countries like India set the price of gas at a lower price so its consumers can afford it, the demand for gas in those economies is artificially enhanced, which raises the worldwide demand for gas. And what happens when demand for a product increases? Yep, the price increases.
In this arrangement, however, since the price of gas cannot increase to a market-determined level in certain countries w/ price controls, it increases in other ‘more free’ markets, ie the US etc. I think alot of people would be very surprised to discover how many countries control prices to encourage demand: china, Thailand, India and dozens of others in the middle east and asia.
This is only one of many reasons the price of gas in this country has increased. Many of the other reasons have been mentioned on this thread (rapidly increasing car-ownership in so-called developing countries, speculation from the financial markets, gas-guzzling SUVs, geopolitical instability caused by a US-led war). Taking away the price controls by foreign govts will not miraculously make the price of a gallon go back to $1.09 at the Sunoco across the street from the Swampscott Treatment & Trauma Center so Susie B can fill up her Honda with a $20 bill. But, it ought to be mentioned as an actionable step.
I mention foreign govt control of gas prices for two reasons: 1. to cite an example(s) of govt intervention in the gas/energy markets as a policy that interferes with efficient operation of the market and compounds the problem. Think of the disjointedness / inefficiencies nationalizing ExxonMobil or the whole gosh darn sector would create. 2. I believe one of the biggest challenges an Obama/or/McCain administration will face is reviving and strengthening our diplomatic relations with some of these so-called developing countries and the world at large. We need to encourage and persuade these countries to move away from things like price controls. This is impossible to do with a lame-duck, lame-brain administration. So, nationalizing oil in the US is the exact wrong message, strictly from a diplomatic point of view… not even getting into what Josh B mentioned re: the economic repercussions of undermining competition and, therefore, innovation.
Nationalizing oil is not the action Washington should be considering. But there are plenty of incremental steps, some previously mentioned, that ought to be done. For example, encouraging investment in and use of more efficient sources of energy or erasing the lackluster 2007 reforms to fuel efficiency standards. Do you guys know how shitty the fuel efficiency bill that was passed in December is? Car manufacturers won’t have to hit 35 mpg for all passenger and non-passenger vehicles until the year 2020. Um, that’s 12 years from now… Josh’s kid will be freakin’ 5′10 by then. The recently announced reforms are a freakin’ joke and need teeth. Sorry if Detroit can’t hack it.
Besides, these reforms and other smaller steps are hugely more politically feasible than the government taking ownership over the most profitably sector of the economy. Jeez, people are crying bloody murder over the Fed’s intervention re: Bear Stearns, and that was in a time of financial crisis. I’m not defending or decrying the Fed’s play re: Bear Stearns, just saying that is small pah-ta-tuhs compared to nationalizing the oil industry. I can’t believe I’m even typing that.
I agree that when governments control the price of gas it increases free market price, pretty much goes without saying. I do think that if the controls were not there and prices reflected the actual world price a lot of these countries governments would be stormed by the masses.
Not sure if I understand. Justin you are against nationalizing oil companies.?.? At least your previous post sounded that way. Are you implying that if the govt’s didn’t control prices their citizenry would storm the bastille because prices were to high?… or if all the countries simultaneously stopped and the people realized what the actual costs were they would storm? or neither?
Please advise before I go on.
Shouldn’t these things reflect the actual world prices? Isn’t that a little bit of what the proposed carbon tax is all about–to include the ACTUAL cost of the product into the price of the product?
While I obviously have no clue what I’m talking about on the nationalization thing, I am HUGELY in favor of getting rid of the subsidies. I’m in favor of high gas prices because that’s the only thing that’s going to get anyone off their ass to fix the damn system. The threat of global destruction obviously isn’t doing it.
Will there be a painful fall out? Of course. My rent increases $50 during the winter months to pay for the rising cost of heating oil; additionally, the thought of having to fill that tank is a HUGE barrier to my wife and I buying the building we live in (we’re caretakers now).
But there should be a high cost to oil. Its price should include everything that results from its use: war, pollution, etc.
And Paul…great to have you on Fluid Imagination. Great comment.
let’s not forget that we’re talking about record profits and not just record prices… - let’s not forget that these oil companies make the prices and they obviously have the power to bend the rules and win the game…
i wish the oil would just dry up already… - after exxon sells the last cup for a billion dollars and retreats to their castles in the sky… - laughing… - swimming with mermaids… - choking on caviar…
Not to change the topic (but I am, a bit), but I was at the movie theatre the other day and saw a blatantly disturbing preview for a documentary coming out soon, called Flow.
Check out the trailer: http://flowthefilm.com/trailer
Here’s the ABOUT
About the Film
Irena Salina’s award-winning documentary investigation into what experts label the most important political and environmental issue of the 21st Century - The World Water Crisis.
Salina builds a case against the growing privatization of the world’s dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel.
Interviews with scientists and activists intelligently reveal the rapidly building crisis, at both the global and human scale, and the film introduces many of the governmental and corporate culprits behind the water grab, while begging the question “CAN ANYONE REALLY OWN WATER?”
if you own a water well you can own water… - yup… - if you cup your hands in the rain you can own water… - if you dip your balls in a puddle… - ?
Hey Adam, next time you want to change the topic, send it to me in an e-mail, and I’ll put it up as its own post. There’s no sense in hijacking a healthy thread.
thanks kyle, i feel welcomed. ;)
two comments, both refer to adam c’s previous posts:
1. i don’t support getting rid of subsidies entirely. like adam c said, they exist to ensure the efficient operation of companies/markets so that the public has access to the goods/services they produce.
2. regarding adam’s post re: owning water. There was a great article in BusinessWeek a few weeks ago about T. Boone Pickens and this subject. Pickens controls the largest private supply of water in the US and is investing millions and millions of dollars to build a pipeline to dallas, houston and other metros in Texas. That’s right, one of the most shrewd and infamous investors in the world is investing millions to build a pipeline to supply a commodity that, today, is almost as ubiquitous (in this country) as sunshine in August. What does that tell you?
Zac I am saying that if the governments in the countries where the gas prices are regulated(mexico, thailand, india,ect)did not do that there would be riots.
So are you indirectly saying that the US will riot if our government does not do something soon? Or simply that those “3rd world” countries need gov’t intervention, because… they are 3rd world like that?
Up until this point I was with you. I don’t feel like the gov’t is going to do anything to help us out. Our economy is predicated on capitalism and thus is privy to the byproducts’ things like efficiency and innovation. The gov’t is already screwing up enough things. No need to put more work on their plate. Oil can’t be nationalized. Neither should health care, but that is another debate for another time.
zb
The people here will not riot because we are for the most part rich enough to pay for the gas. In countries where people make 200 bucks a month need to have the government set the price for them. (Not to get off topic the government in this country sets the price of milk the same way these other countries set the price of gas.) Oil (or healthcare you missed that one I think I had 75 posts on that topic) in this country should be left alone so we are on the same page. Also to Dave, Exxon does not set the price for oil and to everyone Exxon is actually making less profit per gallon of gas then they did 5 years ago.
Personally, I don’t care how much less profit they’re making per gallon of gas compared to five years ago if they’re making record-setting profits this year.
Basically, what it comes down to is that no one in the world — no individual and no company — should be this rich. Hoarding that much wealth or spending it frivolously should be — in some way — a crime.
If they were taking all those profits and committing it to R&D on alternative energy, then that’s fine by me. But they’re not. This is their profits AFTER they factor in the R&D.
It should be a crime.
ok… - but isn’t it peculiar that the ceo of exxon gets a juicy retirement package of around 400 million dollars… - you know… - nothing out of the ordinary even though it’s about 20 times more than any other ceo of any other company… - the poor guy… - i guess that’s what happens when your company is making less profit per gallon of gas than they did five years ago…
Again Kyle, you are missing the point. This company is a public company so no one person or company is “this rich”. There are millions of shareholders (including 60% of everyone that has a 401k and this person right here). If they do not make money for the owners (shareholders) then the people who run the company will lose their jobs. (be voted out by the owners).
The point that there profits per gallon are down is just showing that they sell something that is in demand. You want to blame exxon for people buying a lot of gas?
CEO’s make a lot of money. If you, as a CEO, are in charge of a company during a time that the company makes a lot of money then you usually get a good package. I have no problem with that, I am sorry you do.
Kyle what does a sheik servicing his car have to do with exxon? Exxon buys oil and refines it, the sheik sells it? You have a problem with the amount of money the sheik gets take it up with opec.
the shareholders aren’t the owners man… - they make no decisions whatsoever… - other than maybe voting someone out… - but they can’t just vote out people whenever they want to… - they get a little email or a letter and are notified if they want to take part in a vote… - and this might never happen… - it only happens when the real owners of the company decide to do so… - the shareholders just put in the money and hope it doubles… - it’s the ceos and the top tier people who make all the decisions… - don’t fool yourself man… - the shareholders aren’t shit but a pocketbook… - they attend to no meetings… - they don’t talk to the bosses… - unless of course you own half of the company in stock… - but the little guy? - the guy with ten thousand shares? - he just crosses his fingers…
I am pretty sure the CEO gets voted by the board members the board members are elected by the share holders, the CEO has to answer to the board. Regardless if it the guy with 1 share of the guy with 100,000 they both want the stock to make money. The CEO’s responsibility is to follow the company’s mission statement and with that make money. Also like I said there is not one person or company that makes all that money, it goes to the preferred stock holders then the left goes to the common stock holders.
right… - and if the company goes bankrupt… - the shareholders are left with their dick in their hand and get nothing… - zero… - zip… - from the liquidation of the company’s assets while the ceo and his/her high ranking associates fly back to their mansions… - still rich as all hell…
yeah… - the shareholders have the power… - the power of investing… - that’s it… - that’s all… - they’re only there to give money to a company and hope that that company will make them money… - they’re not there to give a company money and be invited in to take part in any decision making that the company is involved with… - the shareholder finds out after the fact… - the shareholder is at his/her computer looking at the numbers from day to day… - reading the wall street journal… - reading value line and barron’s magazine and looking around online for little bits of information regarding their own decision of investment… - they’re not tipped off to all the secrets that ruminate through the heart of the company…
we’re slightly getting off the topic though… - the main point is… - f@ck exxon… - f@ck lee raymond and his netting of $6,000 an hour… - and f@ck rex tillerson… - f@ck’n a…
The share holders do not have any say? All they need to do is sell the stock, if enough of them do that (because of mismanagement from the ceo) then the stock price (and company value) and when that happens the CEO gets voted out.
We are off topic, the point was that not one person gets the profit money. It is split to the share holders. The CEO would get money because he is an employee not just an owner.
the shareholders are a pocketbook… - end of story… - they invest in a company that has been doing business long before they invested their money into it… - they don’t just invest in a company and all of a sudden come in and think they own the place and start redecorating… - they sit on their asses and consult with their stockbrokers and accountants and watch the numbers go across the bottom of the television screen and listen to jim cramer and the analysts…
stockholders only think they run shit… - but guess what… - they’re only pawns…
I am not saying they control what a company does just that the profits do not go to one person. That is it, arguing wether or not the share holders can control what a business does is irrelevant.
it’s not irrelevant that the shit rolls downhill… - where the shareholders are… - and the big money floats to the top… - where the ceo and his business partners are…
considering that you said that the shareholders are owners… - and maybe on paper they are… - but in actuality they don’t own anything but the money they put into the company and never ever get to see the kind of profits that these old men at the top of the oil industry get to see… - period…
For the amount of work (none it is only risk) they are doing they are seeing the same amount of return (per share) that the big wigs are. I am not sure what you are saying, that the people who work at the company and are responsible for making the company money should not make money? Or that it should be the same for johnny shareholder? Also take Lee Raymond who got a like 400 million (600 mill total) in his last year as ceo, seems high but during his time there Exxon paid out to its shareholders 67 billion in dividends. That is a lot of shit to be rolling down hill.
you’re right… - everyone makes money as a stockholder… - depending on how much they put in to it… - it’s a free market and everyone is equal depending on the size of your wallet… - lee raymond is a hard worker and deserves the averaged $144,000 a day he made as ceo of exxon… - everything is groovy…
because the lord knows that if i invest in oil i’m going to be rich! - filthy rich! - tell all of your friends… - invest in oil… - nothing wrong at all with that picture… - money baby… - green gold baby… - strippers and steak baby… - power baby… - the power… - i feel the power… - i feel like it’s my lucky day baby… - blow on my credit card - daddy needs a new fur… - daddy wants to anoint the young peaches with a golden bathing suit… - daddy wants a completely legal trip to the cayman islands baby… - vacation baby! - yachts baby! - the power! - the greed! - the goodness! - this is so sustainable i can feel the invincibility tickling my crotch and my ego… - i feel good baby… - money baby… - nothing wrong with it at all… - everyone is equal… - it’s america baby…
Its strippers and coke not steak, jeeze.
somehow… - the oil industry has figured out a way to stuff their pockets with the money of the american people… - and you’re basically saying… - those lucky bastards…
bananas and blow baby…
lee raymond getting a lap dance… - jesus christ… - i can’t even picture him hugging someone without going in their back pocket…
the stripper gets off raymond and notices five dollars missing from her g-string…
he divides the five spot with the stockholders…
and i’d also like to know how many people were included in that 67 billion dollars of dividend money… - i’d bet it isn’t that many…
It really does not matter how many people got money from the dividends the point was that his money is related to how much money he made for the owners of the company.
All companies stuff their pockets with the American public’s money. The ones that do not are not in business very long. I am not sure what your plan is? Give it away for free; divide everything up evenly to all the people in the country.
What I said about the profit per gallon being down goes to show that their profit margin (meaning how much money they are fleecing out of the American people’s wallet) is a lot less them most companies.
Bananas?
it’s a song… - bananas and blow… - by ween…
i don’t know what my plan is concerning oil… - i’m not in the oil business so all i can do is get pissed off… - and it’s apparent that the government can’t do anything about it either even when they bring all the ceos in front of a panel… - so… - i don’t know what can be done… - but… - there seems to be something terribly wrong and maybe it has nothing to do with how the oil industry runs their business but more to do with the fact that people can barely afford it and how the structure of our society is set up… - you know… - the rich and the poor… - it’s a tough nut to crack… - but it’s obvious that oil is a limited resource and our entire country is set up in a way where we rely on it and it’s not going to be here forever… - and you rarely hear a peep about alternative resources and what is being done to brace ourselves for the inevitable empty tank syndrome… - it just seems that the divide between the rich and the poor is getting bigger…
and it seems that there are more car and truck commercials on the television than there are any other product… - not that i watch television often… - but… - millions and millions of people do… - and everyone is still smiling in those commercials… - with all the new features and the futuristic sleekness of the current models… - wowwie! - i can take my family on a trip across the country and watch the wizard of oz at the same time… - and it’s not fast food - it’s wendy’s… - we’re definitely going to be in for a rude awakening…
Wow.. I missed a hail storm here. David. Shareholder’s are owner’s. By owning stock you buy ownership in a company. PERIOD. Whether you get it from a stock, a mutual fund, pension or an alternative investment. If you want more shit to roll down hill then you have to buy more stock.
While most of the time CEO’s are getting paid way to much you need only to look back at 2007 to see why the pay of a CEO is worthwhile to its shareholders.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein- $70 million in salary, options and bonuses. Did he get paid to much? I don’t think so. Is it an absurd number relative to what we think is a lot? yeah. That is not what they get paid based on though. Public perception isn’t a factor. His stewardship of the company is why he is paid so much, and thus accordingly.
One CEO said load up on sub-prime mortgages and lets make it over 70% of our portfolio. The other saw the end of the tunnel coming and decided to sell sub prime until they had less than 5% of their portfolio in it.
Which as a side note is why Goldman Sachs made billions of dollars last year and Bear Stearns went bankrupt and was sold for pennies on the dollar.
i realize that… - i meant to say that common stockholders really aren’t shit… - that was lost in translation… - the everyday guy who puts in his life savings in the market with hopes of doubling it… - they really don’t own anything but the money they put into it… - yes… - on paper - they’re part owners of the company… - but… - they’re really only a bunch of degenerate gamblers… - they don’t own assets… - they don’t own the right to make decisions within the company… - they own a little stock here and there and usually get the shaft and aren’t important at all to the big wigs of the company… - they’re a fucking pocketbook… - period… - so don’t go capitalizing words with me mr. bloom… - mr. smartie pants…
do you think that the top tier guys of any company are going to share their secrets when it’s time to bail out? - when they know that the company is going under? - do you think that they’ll give those other “owners” a heads up? - do you think that they give a crap about any of those “owners”? - do you think for one second that the ceos or the big wigs with tens of thousands of shares are going to bail you out when you put your life savings in the company and they lose three quarters of your money? - no… - they’ll just cash in themselves by selling their shares to more peasants of the free market before the numbers go down… - so much for being an owner…
I doubt they would give a heads up to the little “owners” for 2 reasons. 1- They don’t give a shit about the little “owners” and 2- it would be insider trading and illegal to do so. I don’t think anyone would say it is a perfect system, but is certainly one of the most successful to date.
Better than trading spices and using the barter system. Giving people the ability to get partial ownership is better than no ownership. I am guessing some of the people on this thread will disagree with this, but it is better than going around the village fire and everyone redistributing the wealth on a yearly basis or whatever frequency works best for that welfare system. =)
trading spices… - anyone remember the oregon trail computer game? - that shit was the balls…
“You have Died Of Dysentery”
hilarious… - i almost forgot about that…
http://www.80stees.com/products/Dysentery-Oregon-Trail-T-shirt.asp
from wikipedia…
“Dysentery (formerly known as flux or the bloody flux) is an infection of the digestive system that results in severe diarrhea containing mucus and blood in the feces. Dysentery is typically the result of unsanitary water containing micro-organisms which damage the intestinal lining. There are two major types of dysentery due to micro-organisms: amoebic dysentery, and bacillary dysentery mainly due to one of three bacteria. Dysentery can also be caused by certain medications; for example, some steroids can impact bowel movements.”
Not to come back to this but why would a company, who is the business of selling gas, give up money to help find ways that would hurt their business?
because it might feel good to not be a disgusting pig for once in their lives… - because it might feel good to concentrate on something other than hoarding the money and polluting the oceans… - because it might feel good to know that their hearts aren’t as black as the oil they pump…
In no way shape or form am I agreeing with David here, but oil companies (either will come to or get left behind)will change their business model of providing “fossil fuels” to power the industrial machine to providing “energy” to power the industrial machine.
As far as doing it to feel better about themselves? It hasn’t happened since 1973 when the renewable energy discussion started as a result of the middle east oil embargo and wont happen now. What needs to happen is the “big business” that you seem to hate, needs to put money into finding alternative ways to make energy. In the process their “black hearts” wil become “green hearts” like the thing they love most, MONEY.
Unfortunately, they’re making too much money selling oil right now, and since they don’t seem to care about future generations at all, and the inevitable decline in “fossil fuel” won’t happen (they suspect) in their lifetime, they’ll just keep wracking up the profits and advertising that they’re working on alternative energy solutions that will be on the market “soon” — until the day they die.
Which is what the whole windfall profits tax was designed to curttail. They wouldn’t be able to hoard their money. They’d have to either spend it on R&D and hope for a future payout, or lose it to the federal government.
But the bill that would have created the windfall profits tax was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 43.
But McCain and Obama abstained.
just because it wouldn’t happen doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen… - and you do agree with me in some shape or form because putting money into finding alternative ways to make energy is what i am talking about… - and considering that the oil industry is the most lucrative business on the face of the planet… - they have the money to spare… - but on the other hand… - i guess we’re stuck with the same people to monopolize the alternative energy sector which will never be taken seriously until their number one cash cow is good and drained out of the earth… - and by then they’ll have already missed their chance of redemption… - by then… - it probably won’t matter that joe the oil pumper turns mr. potato head… - by then… - the human race is going to need a little bit more than the generosity of a few wannabe green gods… - by then… - the damage of the earth from industrial machine is going to be beyond repair… - and even if it’s not… - if the industrial machine’s job is to cut down the trees and kill off a few more species… - i don’t give a crap if it’s powered by oil or manure… - we’re not the jetsons… - there’s no escaping this planet with fantasies about elroy helmets and outer space schools to whiz off to…
Zac I agree with you that they either need to adapt or eventually will die or are bought out. As a matter of fact I am willing to bet that Exxon goes out of business in 20 years as production of gas and oil decrease.(down 6% this year) But that should be for them to decide and not for the US government to force on them.
Kyle what money are they hoarding? I am pretty sure they pay out dividends every year (assuming they do) and have spent billions of dollars in new ways to get oil from the ground or refining it more efficiently. Also they pay more taxes then half of the countries individual tax payers. Are you saying that they should have to pay more then that? Also in markets that are unstable why would the US force companies to use money that they might need in the future?
On a side note the US is using 800,000 barrels of Oil less a day then this time last year. Seems we hit the market equilibrium.
What money are they hoarding? The record-setting PROFIT that started this whole thread,
That PROFIT already takes into account all the money they’re spending, everywhere. It includes payment of taxes. It includes R&D. It includes pensions and salaries and benefits and everything else. Once all that stuff is paid for, they still have record-setting PROFIT to divvy up and hoard.
I’m saying we take away their subsidies (all the ones I listed above) and institute the windfall profits tax.
I do not see what they paid in dividends there. And I have read that they paid about 8 billion buying back stock, and 2 billions given out in dividends.
Maybe Adam and his business knowledge can shed some light on whether or not Exxon spent some of the earnings after taxes (EAT) on dividends and stock buy backs or they put it in a big vault like scrooge Mcduck where they can swim around it in it. I am pretty sure that the (EAT) is before dividends are paid out to the common shareholders. I am not saying that they do not have retain earnings like all successful companies.
Isn’t paying dividends just the dispersal of profit?
Which would be the opposite of hoarding, no? It is hard to hoard the profit when you spread it out to the 5 million shares or when you use it to buy back outstanding shares.
Not necessarily. I mean, we keep using the term “they” but who is “they”? Is it the board of directors? The corporate executives? The lower level employees? The stock-holders? Who are “they”?
I guess I’m saying “they” are the stock holders, which would include the board of directors, the corporate executives, and (if stock options are an employee benefit) the lower level employees. The stockholders are the ones “hoarding the profits,” since they’re. taking the dividends instead of using whatever leverage they have to direct the company in a more responsible direction — where that responsibility is not directed to the stockholders, but to the planet.
Unless you agree with Dave, when he said the stockholders don’t really have any leverage, then “they” would have to the Board of Directors and corporate executives, the chief of whom made (as you said above) around $400 million in a recent year.
I’m pretty sure that you could swim around in $400 million…even if you took it all in $50s.
And by the way, that $400 million dollars is already accounted for when you start talking about profit. So yeah, I’d say that’s hoarding.
of course they’re hoarding… - when most people work just to pay off their car and heating bills… - we’re basically living to give money to the oil industry… - when every company in the world has to raise their prices because they can’t afford the delivery charges of exporting and importing… - everyone gets sperm in the ass except for the oil industry… - when people have to sell their homes because they can’t afford to heat it or pay taxes on it anymore to people who can’t afford to buy it… - something has to be done… - when this ridiculous war is bankrupting the entire country besides the oil industry… - something has to be done… - when it gets to the point where people are defending the most disgusting companies on the planet just because these companies are playing by the rules of capitalism… - something has to be done…
Kyle, the people who have stock paid for them (either with real money, or employment) are you saying that they should not be entitled to the money that comes from the success of the company? If you look at the rate they are buying back stock makes me believe that they are in trouble. They could be trying to become a private company which would give them the freedom to do the things you are suggesting, but because they have an obligation to the share holders to be profitable they are limited in what they can do. Or they are looking in the future at diminishing reserves and are seeing the writing on the wall.
Dave again, Exxon does not set the price for oil. You have a problem with the price take it up with Opec.
The 400 mill as not in cash and the guy earned the money.
Again they are in the business of searching for and refining oil let try to remember that.
I should also say that a majority of the shareholders for exxon are people with 401k’s, college saving plans, anc charities. And that exxon is like 6% of the total output of oil in the world.
Bah. Nationalize ‘em!
How about nationalizing an alternative energy program instead?
Your move
justin… - i’m not excluding opec when i’m talking about the oil industry…
and if you think that some fat pig in a suit earned 400 million dollars by sheer effort or his brilliant ideas… - dude… - you need your head examined…
i’m talking about right and wrong… - i’m talking about the mind set… - i’m talking about throttling the mentality that seems to be plaguing this country into submission… - just because wall street is hustling and bustling with their hands in the air… - and just because the government says that it’s normal… - doesn’t necessarily make it so…
Huh? The guy went to school busted his ass got a phd in chemical engineering started in the company in the 60’s worked his way up to become ceo the company did record business under his watch meaning he did his job and got paid, seems fair to me. Again he worked at the company for 40+ years.
If you are saying we should live in a place where everyone gets an equal share of the pie, and we all sit around the fire and toast marshmallows then sign me up. I am sick of working 7 days a week to make ends meet just like I have been doing for the past 13 years. Last time I checked the world, not country, world does not work this way.
justin… - the guy averaged a net worth of $144,000 dollars a day… - a day!!! - i don’t give a flying fuck who you are and what you went through… - noone deserves that much money…
you’ve defended george w. in the past… - you’ve defended the war in iraq… - and look at all the creamy unst. crunchity goodness that has resulted from those two obvious disasters… - and now you’re somehow trying to defend or justify the oil industry and the filthy rich cock suckers who are in charge of it all? - thumbs up…
Not sure if defending is an accurate term, I just point out that things are not all one way or another. I will wait to see what happens in Iraq before I pass judgment on that.
Who are you to say what a person is worth or is not worth? Obviously people disagree with your opinion because that is what he got. He was in charge and the company made billions of dollars end of story.
Justify the oil industry? What is there to justify? We use a lot of oil, we pay a lot of money for oil, and they get the oil so that we can power our trucks, and drink our starbucks, and buy our organic tomatoes at whole foods. We are the bad people here.
that’s also what i’ve been saying… - that it’s the mind set… - check my first comment…
and i’m sick and tired of talking about that fat pig at exxon… - he deserves it all… - smother him with kisses why don’t you… - he’s the champion of the world…
oil wins… - everyone else loses… - what a happy story…
and we’ve spent over 500 trillion dollars and climbing in the war in iraq… - and you want to wait to see how it turns out? - it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how that pile of shit is going to turn out…
Not saying he is the champion of anything, just that in the world we live in and its parameters then he did what he was supposed to do and by doing that he got what he “deserves”.
If you think that it would be better if there was not an apple like that at the end of a string then you are mistaken. Having the chance to make a shit load of money helps move industry and innovation. Just him developing (not him personally but him directing the research and putting money into) the process of freezing natural gas so that it can be shipped as a liquid saved Exxon and the whole industry tens of billions of dollars and made natural gas more affordable for the average Joe. But whatever anyone that makes money is a heartless scumbag. Got it.
500 trillion? Seems a bit high.
did i say that anyone who makes money is a heartless scumbag? - no… - i didn’t…
i think i understand what you’re getting at though…
oil was discovered… - or whatever… - and some oinked out fat fucking pigs hit the jackpot when the country decided to become addicted to it… - and noone gets richer than the dealer when it comes to addiction… - got it… - hail satan…
yeah… - maybe 500 trillion is a bit high… - but we’ve spent a shit load of money that we don’t have… - that’s for sure… - it’s definitely in the trillions though…
500 hundred trillion is way high… - what was i thinking? - you’re getting me to put my foot in my mouth with all this talk about oil and scumbaggedness… - you bastard…
i’m losing my street cred… - thanks justin… - thanks alot…
you know what? - fuck it… - i’ll stand by the 500 trillion mark because it might as well be… - what does anyone care if it is or if it isn’t the right number? - our government plans on reinforcing our military from here on out with money that they don’t have… - with all of the casualties and blood in the streets of iraq it doesn’t matter how much we’ve spent… - the iraqis don’t pay attention to the numbers… - they’re too busy picking their guts off of the streets and burying their relatives… - one dollar… - a zillion trillion dollars… - it doesn’t matter… - it’s fucking evil… - the damage is done and you can’t sooth a grieving father over the loss of his children and the loss of every other person that he’s known… - and he sure as shit isn’t sitting by a computer bitching about the statistics and cup size of some chemical engineer who saved everyone in america by freezing natural gas… - fuck it… - i’m done with this shit… - words are meaningless when it comes to defending or opposing this kind of wickedness… - thank you… - have a nice day…
Yeah shit was peachy in Iraq before we got there, regular Disney world where children held hands across the country and sang. The kids had a real rosy outlook with saddam and his sons ruling the land trading oil for food (oh wait it wasn’t food it was cash from the UN and France and Germany) So the UN and some other countries that were against the us going into Iraq (wonder why) were starving kids and empowering a maniac. But no we are the bad guys.
Maybe 5 years from now Iraq will still be a shit show but maybe in 5 years it will not be a shit show and maybe the people will actually have a better life then they would have had. Until that time I will not say one way or the other if the 500 trillion was worth it. But this has nothing to do with Exxon.
Wow you guys got off topic, no? To Kyle: some people call it “hoarding”, but people that have a stake in the business call it Retained Earnings. Profit whether net or gross are before taxes. So the $86 billion in gross profit becomes &70 billion net profit and then $40 billion after taxes. The $40 billion is what is available for distribution in dividends. That $40 billion less what is sent out in dividends goes back into the company for research and development. Which by the way.. a lot of the technologies from the R&D have benefited renewable energy companies specifically the geothermals.. in the way they dig and get access to renewable energy.
To Dave: From what I gather we agree on one thing. There is a need for renewable energies and they need to represent a much larger picture of the energy landscape than the paltry 3-4% they currently do. How we get to that end goal I am certain we differ on. Taking companies “hoarded” cash or telling them how much they can and can not make and decentivicing them is not only inefficient it will not get us to where we need. Letting the gov’t do it. Nope not gonna work either. They are slightly less corrupt and ten times more inefficient.
The only way this is getting done is with intellectual capital going into the green side of the business in addition to venture capital and investment bank money being poured into this field. Similar to what happened in the 90’s with Tech. Which ultimately produced a little company called google that unharnessed a previously held notion that Microsoft was untouchable.
Yes, Justin, in five years, Iraq may have better life. But it’s difficult to tell that to the 90,000+ Iraqis who are dead.
And Zac, maybe it all comes down to ExxonMobile being a shitbag company. I just can’t stomach a shitbag company making that kind of money. It seems criminal.
How can I talk to dead people?
How about let me know how many people would of died in iraq for the next 15 or 20 years because of Saddam and his sons and the ones that are alive I will talk to them instead.
Kyle you know that Sadam was committing mass genocide, and more people would have been dead if we didn’t go there? That doesn’t stop the fact that he was a mass murder killing almost 5x the 90,000 Iraqi’s we have in the last 5 years.
Once again I am not pro Bush/ Iraq. I was not for the war then and I am not. 5 years from now I think it will be better than when we started. That is neither here nor there though. We went because the neo cons had their own agenda.
In an offline comment, Justin said (referencing my “shitbag company” link above) that he didn’t trust Wikipedia as a source. Which is a fair statement, as a far as it goes. You shouldn’t trust Wikipedia uncritically. But you can use it to find the more authoritative sources Justin might trust. In the footnotes and references of the Wikipedia page, they link to the sources the Wikipedians used to justify their criticisms.
This is from an article on LaborRights.org:
“Media reports dating back several years have reported on the activities of Exxon Mobil Corporation and its predecessor companies, Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Oil Indonesia (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Exxon Mobil”) in Aceh, Indonesia. Exxon Mobil hired one or more military units of the Indonesian national army, known as the Tentara Nasional Indonesia (”TNI”), to provide “security” for its gas extraction and liquification project in Aceh. These troops were engaged in an ongoing campaign of systematic torture, murder, rape, and acts of genocide against the local population of Achanese people. Exxon Mobil never used its considerable power over its security force to demand that human rights violations against the local population be stopped [Footnotes removed].”
This from a page detailing enforcement against ExxonMobile under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:
“[M]erchant banker James Giffen…is alleged to have facilitated the payment of millions of dollars in bribes to senior Kazakh government officials in order to secure a deal between Mobil Oil Corporation and Kazakhstan under which Mobil would acquire an interest in the Tengiz oil field. The alleged bribes, made through the accounts of foreign “shell” organizations, were masked as brokerage fees to Giffen’s bank, a portion of which he in turn paid to government officials with the authority to influence the close of the deal with Mobil.”
This is from the Human Rights Campaign’s article on Equality at Exxon Mobile Corporation:
“ExxonMobil is…the only U.S. employer that has ever rescinded both a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation and domestic partner benefits, and is now the only Fortune 10 company that does not have a non-discrimination policy covering ’sexual orientation.’…Mobil Corp. offered such written protection to its employees, but this protection was revoked upon its merger with Exxon Corp. in 1999. Mobil Corp. also provided domestic partner health benefits to its employees; employees are no longer able to enroll in benefits after the merger with Exxon in 1999.”
All of which is to say: It’s a shitbag company and it doesn’t deserve to keep its profits.
Wait a company paid off a politician to secure a contract and they are a shitbag company. That has been par for the course before the US was even a country.
They have considerable control over another countries army? Right. Sounds to me like they were told they had to use these guys for security in the same way the Mob says that you have to use their union guys in construction. My point is just that it is not fact that they had any power of another countries army even if they were being used as security.
I do not understand why they do not offer a domestic partner benefits, seems stupid if you ask me. If there was discrimination against gay or lesbian people at Exxon I would be more upset then just not having it written in their discrimination policy.
With all this, and I am willing to bet there are more, to say that they should not be able to do what they want with the money they have made is silly.
Kyle. I agree with you that there are shitbag companies and people and I find them to be reprehensible as well. Just because I feel that way doesn’t mean that I am in favor of taking away their profits and fundamentally changing the makeup of our economy though.
Their ought to be checks and balances that tend to such matters. On a wholesale level to say that you “make” to much or have “earned” to much in profit and we the state are taking it and redistributing it as we see fit is not an answer that much sense.
Unless you have some case study that proves otherwise. I think Justin would agree that they are scumbags and make to much, but if the alternative is changing the capitalist system to a nationalized or socialist one it is not much of an alternative at all.
There are a lot of scumbags that make more money then me, being a scumbag does not disqualify a person from making a living.
I wonder is Exxon Mobil gave money to charities; created funds or programs in other countries or other such endeavors. That does not make their scumbag moves any less scumbaggy but I bet they have done some good things.