Exxon misses projections amid lower demand and sinking refining margins

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea..



I paid $57 to fill up my Camry the other day...

Depends on how much one drives, does it not?

Although I definitely agree with Obama, it's a pre-packaged band-aid meant to buy votes.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Depends on how much one drives, does it not?

Although I definitely agree with Obama, it's a pre-packaged band-aid meant to buy votes.

While that's why they said the average consumer because it depends on how much they drive and their fuel economy of course. Being from NY your taxes are double the take of the oil companies.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by JaJae

While that's why they said the average consumer because it depends on how much they drive and their fuel economy of course. Being from NY your taxes are double the take of the oil companies.

How do you even begin to statistically measure that is what I'm curious about. Gas mileage varies by 20-50 mpg across vehicles, and commutes go from 2 miles to 40. Seems like a difficult thing to interpret with any degree of certainty.

But yea, basically I agree.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

How do you even begin to statistically measure that is what I'm curious about. Gas mileage varies by 20-50 mpg across vehicles, and commutes go from 2 miles to 40. Seems like a difficult thing to interpret with any degree of certainty.

But yea, basically I agree.

Total gas consumption for following years/trends during the summer divided by the population.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Total gas consumption for following years/trends during the summer divided by the population.

There are a few reasons why that is going to be way off this summer. But I suppose it's the most accurate possible measurement.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Wouldn't it be a justifiable statement to make?

Absolutely not.

6 wants to make the claim that the oil companies are being "hurt" by higher oil costs. I would say, well, they still had the second-highest quarterly profit for ANY UNITED STATES CORPORATION, EVER. Who the fuck cares if it missed projections? They banked more than $10B in profits when oil costs are at their highest rates in years. There's nothing wrong with a company being successful, Mr. Libertarian. But when everyone in America is suffering (consumers, producers, "industry champions" and politicians alike), and XOM is yanking in record profits, it's ok to be annoyed. You said it yourself, oil costs are going to hurt your ability to commute to work. You don't have to roll over and accept that because it's "what business wants."

Cry me a fucking river, indeed.

No, it's NOT ok to be annoyed. This company being successful allows them to employ more people. It allows them to invest in more research, development, and exploration.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Obviously higher back-end costs are going to affect the company. I'm not a moron.

But at the same time, why is it not justified to be annoyed? Do you hold corporations as so sacrosanct that even when your cost of living, my cost of living, everyone's cost of living is gradually going up and up and up, they continue to line their pockets, and there's nothing no one can do about it?

You say this like it's an evil thing That's why they exist, the only reason. They don't exist to serve you, they exist to make their shareholders money.

What is XOM lowered their front-end retail price by $0.02? You know how much money that would save on the aggregate to US businesses and consumers, and it would hardly effect their profit margin.

You want to trivialize the impact of net income, which is something you can't do. They are obviously meeting all their costs and performing well above what they need to to be successful. That is an indisputable fact. I'm not advocating a "windfall profits tax," but there's no reason to want to defend XOM. I know you libertarians are all about theoretical optimal profit and what not, but they are making it more difficult for everyone else in America to be prosperous. It's not just poor people who use oil, you know--it's the poor, the middle class, the rich, the very wealthy, corporations, and non-profits alike.

They aren't making it difficult for anyone to be rich. Even if you drive quite a bit, the difference between $2 and $4/gallon isn't going to choke you - unless you're already living close to or above your means.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by thewise1

"cry me a river, they still made almost 11 billion".

QFT

[JaJae]

As odd as it sounds and as much as I hate the idea of taxing oil companies, Obama's plan is the least stupid. While taxing the oil companies would increase costs for the rest of us, it would help the poor families who can't afford it. The idea is to tax the oil companies so that the general population ends up paying for the assistance to the poor for the increased energy costs.

Hillary's idea won't really do anything at all. Hillary wants to just cut the tax. Which I'm not necessarily opposed to if it were permanent and not just a political pandering ploy. McCain's plan is to kill the tax for now, pay it back later. This comes in second behind Obama for me. It may make costs cheaper in the summer which would help the poor for now, but it they'll be back at square one come next season. It just spreads the costs out.

This is what factcheck.org says:

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are offering overburdened motorists a federal "gasoline tax holiday." But economists say that the proposal is unlikely to actually lower the price of gasoline. McCain's plan would essentially give federal funds to oil refineries, while the net effect of Clinton's plan probably wouldn't be much at all, although it would create a lot of new administrative work.

FactCheck.org: Gas Price Fixes that Won't

Hillary isn't being completely honest about the savings and won't respond to questions about where they got their numbers from:

Clinton campaign spokesperson Geoff Garin said in a conference call this week that the proposal would save each driver $70. The Clinton campaign did not respond to our request to clarify how it arrived at that figure. But the non-partisan American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that the total savings for the average American motorist works out to about $28; for a two-car household, that would be $54.

Clinton says each driver would save $70. The experts say $28. That's a huge difference to be off by. And again that's assuming that the full 18.4c tax would be passed on to the consumer.

With the supply of gasoline pretty much fixed (at least in the short term), the increased demand triggered by the price cut will lead consumers to bid up the price of gas. Len Burman, of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says eliminating the federal tax won’t actually lower the price of gas because “supply constraints will push pump prices near their pre-holiday levels.” He goes on to warn that “If that didn't happen, there would be shortages.” The libertarian Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor agrees that a short-term gas tax holiday will have "little impact on pump prices."

For all the legislative prowess of McCain and Clinton, we’re doubtful that either candidate can rewrite the laws of supply and demand. That 18.4 cents per gallon won't go to consumers. Instead, the proposal will simply shift that money from government coffers to the oil companies. We're willing to grant that if the laws of economics themselves took a holiday and the price did drop that much, the amount saved might be meaningful to many motorists, particularly those who are low-income and those who drive a lot. And there would likely be all kinds of ancillary benefits involving price reductions for food and other products that have to be transported, as well as airline tickets and the like.

FactCheck.org: Gas Price Fixes that Won't

So if your goal is to make gas more affordable for poor Americans who can't afford it, only Obama's plan actually works towards that end. Now am I completely against helping poor American afford oil? No, not really. However, until Obama presents how much those taxes would be, how he plans on getting the money to his target economic level and just in general gives more information on how he would implement his plan I can't blindly support it. He may have spoken more in detailed on it, but I haven't read it.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

As odd as it sounds and as much as I hate the idea of taxing oil companies, Obama's plan is the least stupid. While taxing the oil companies would increase costs for the rest of us, it would help the poor families who can't afford it. The idea is to tax the oil companies so that the general population ends up paying for the assistance to the poor for the increased energy costs.

Hillary's idea won't really do anything at all. Hillary wants to just cut the tax. Which I'm not necessarily opposed to if it were permanent and not just a political pandering ploy. McCain's plan is to kill the tax for now, pay it back later. This comes in second behind Obama for me. It may make costs cheaper in the summer which would help the poor for now, but it they'll be back at square one come next season. It just spreads the costs out.

This is what factcheck.org says:

FactCheck.org: Gas Price Fixes that Won't

Hillary isn't being completely honest about the savings and won't respond to questions about where they got their numbers from:

Clinton says each driver would save $70. The experts say $28. That's a huge difference to be off by. And again that's assuming that the full 18.4c tax would be passed on to the consumer.


FactCheck.org: Gas Price Fixes that Won't

So if your goal is to make gas more affordable for poor Americans who can't afford it, only Obama's plan actually works towards that end. Now am I completely against helping poor American afford oil? No, not really. However, until Obama presents how much those taxes would be, how he plans on getting the money to his target economic level and just in general gives more information on how he would implement his plan I can't blindly support it. He may have spoken more in detailed on it, but I haven't read it.

So do you think we need even more wealth redistribution in this country? The poor can't afford BMW's either and they can't afford moderate sized homes and their standard of living is worse than the middle class and the upper class....hence the word poor.

More taxes is the last thing we need and even less than that we need more wealth redistribution. How about increasing public transportation options? At least anyone can take advantage of that and its not solely a redistributive move by the government in an attempt to maintain the vote of the poor for specific political parties.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So do you think we need even more wealth redistribution in this country? The poor can't afford BMW's either and they can't afford moderate sized homes and their standard of living is worse than the middle class and the upper class....hence the word poor.

More taxes is the last thing we need and even less than that we need more wealth redistribution. How about increasing public transportation options? At least anyone can take advantage of that and its not solely a redistributive move by the government in an attempt to maintain the vote of the poor for specific political parties.

Well I'm not in favor of giving the poor BMWs...

And if someone lives in a moderate sized home and such I don't consider that poor. Which is why I said I can't support Obama's plan until I see who the money is going to and how it is going to get to them. But I do respect him for taking a stance on doing something to actually help the people who need help rather than engage in these illegitimate political games. Obama not supporting the gas tax holiday was a bold move for him to make. It wasn't the politically savvy decision to make, especially among the voter constituency he needs to take away from Hillary.

[A_C_E]

FactCheck.org is so amazing. I love their work.

Run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at UPenn. HOLLA!!!

Sorry, that was a shameless plug. Couldn't help it.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well I'm not in favor of giving the poor BMWs...

And if someone lives in a moderate sized home and such I don't consider that poor. Which is why I said I can't support Obama's plan until I see who the money is going to and how it is going to get to them. But I do respect him for taking a stance on doing something to actually help the people who need help rather than engage in these illegitimate political games. Obama not supporting the gas tax holiday was a bold move for him to make. It wasn't the politically savvy decision to make, especially among the voter constituency he needs to take away from Hillary.

Good post, I took a bit of an extreme on the BMW comment but I did it to make a point. That the poor will always have a lower standard of living and have trouble paying the bills when compared with the middle class, upper middle class or upper class. Thats the very definition of poor. Poor is defined as having little or no wealth or lacking resources...in this case oil/gasoline or money to purchase it.

I'm not saying dont help the poor but lets be honest here, they get quite a lot of help in this nation. They have an opportunity to succeed and due to personal choices they do not take full advantage of their opportunities. We need to help people but simply giving away fuel at the expense of the middle class really isn't the answer IMO.

I do agree it took balls for obama to come out and say what he said but I firmly believe this is the wrong thing to do, just as wrong as the gasoline tax holiday.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'm not saying dont help the poor but lets be honest here, they get quite a lot of help in this nation. They have an opportunity to succeed and due to personal choices they do not take full advantage of their opportunities. We need to help people but simply giving away fuel at the expense of the middle class really isn't the answer IMO.

I think its a false to say generally that helping the poor will be at the expense of the middle class and I also think its an unfair judgment to say, again in the general sense, that it is poor people's fault that they are in that situation.

In the first case our complex and highly connected economy depends on the nation as a WHOLE to be prosperous, one part gets sick, we all get sick, witness the ongoing housing debacle. Many people who were considered middle class or working class lost homes and the economic impact is affecting us psychologically as well as in matter of fact: we continue to lose jobs every month, the market is in flux and people are curbing their spending - if this continues, the reverberations will pull us down into a recession (if we are not already in one). Helping society as a WHOLE is common sense for the security and prosperity of all, call it capital investment, building our country to continue prosperity. For better or worse we are in this together.

In the second case you are not taking into account various social factors that come into play. Firstly, single parents raising kids will have lower net wealth compared to two parents because they don't have that second income coming in and as you know, the cost of living in this nation requires 2 incomes for most people if you want to raise a family.

Secondly, many of the inner city poor are only now starting to accumulate wealth that many other families had generations to do. As much as we like to pretend that the racism, segregation and slavery of the past has nothing to do with the present, we have to remember that such things inhibited education, wealth accumulation and the stable family unit that comes with it all the way through the 1960s. Our generation is the first not to have accepted and institutional racism.

And thirdly, many older Americans do not have the education to keep up with a rapidly changing society. They are seeing their jobs and skills die out or become less valuable. These are not lazy people, they are victims of their times

So what is the solution? Well I am not advocating handouts but instead capital investments in our people, education, skill development etc this will not only help them, but help us all to be more competitive in a global world where we need all the skilled people we can muster. After WWII the GI Bill (omg government subsiding education!) helped create the middle class, and brought about a golden age of prosperity - I guess we forgot about how we got here.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Good post, I took a bit of an extreme on the BMW comment but I did it to make a point. That the poor will always have a lower standard of living and have trouble paying the bills when compared with the middle class, upper middle class or upper class. Thats the very definition of poor. Poor is defined as having little or no wealth or lacking resources...in this case oil/gasoline or money to purchase it.

I'm not saying dont help the poor but lets be honest here, they get quite a lot of help in this nation. They have an opportunity to succeed and due to personal choices they do not take full advantage of their opportunities. We need to help people but simply giving away fuel at the expense of the middle class really isn't the answer IMO.

I do agree it took balls for obama to come out and say what he said but I firmly believe this is the wrong thing to do, just as wrong as the gasoline tax holiday.

I understand the definition of poor. Which is why I don't see too much wrong with helping them out under the right circumstances.

I think there's a big difference here between the candidates on this issue. Hillary and McCain just want to give away money. Which is why they keep focusing on dollar figures. You can tell it's an election year when politicians keep wanting to give away money. By Hillary's standards she wants to give back $70 per driver. How many drivers are there in America? 250 million or so? How much is that gonna cost? $15 Billion dollars?

We're already giving everyone back $300-600 this year. What does this solve? If their intentions are to get rid of the tax altogether and set up some other way to fund the roads that would be one thing. But the reality is that tax money is marked for transportation. Our roads are not suddenly going to go unrepaired or unmaintained. We're not going to cut jobs. We're going to move money around. So in the end we're going to be paying for it anyway.. one way or the other. It's a gimick. It's a charade. It's promising the middle class money in hopes of getting votes. Just think what it's gonna really end up costing the tax payer when Murtha and Obey and the rest of the Appropriations Committee has to repay that money... and then some... and all of their pet projects while they're at it. You can tack on a few billion more at least.

Obama had the brass to stand up and say "Hey, this won't work. All the economic experts who looked at it say it's a dumb idea. So why bother? If we're gonna do anything at all let's just help the people who really need it and let that be that."
To me that's a much better approach to the idea. It's more realist and shows common sense. The only caveat I have with it is I don't know who is he looking to target, how much he's looking to give and how he intends on getting it there.