I wonder if when the price of oil keeps dropping and their profits slip will the newspapers see fit to report that?
Are you kidding? It's an election year and the media has been bought and paid for. Funny how the fear card is Ok for some yet teh bad for others.
I'm sure you'd approve of the Chavez method, steal it and then make the money for yourself instead of letting the people who have invested billions in exploration and production make a buck for their troubles.
That doesn't make your claim true however. Now if you said, "And ye they'll claim that they had no choice but to increase prices at the pump." you'd be correct. But since you used the word have it means they will continue to increase prices. Of course you are wrong. As the price of oil drops all the stuff that comes from it drops as well. Words mean things. That said prices go up and down based on the price of the oil. Obviously if the price of oil goes up then the costs of gas and all the other chemicals that comes from oil will go up as well.
Zombie - Consider my phrasing corrected. It still remains that they chose to raise prices more than was dictated by the basic price of oil.
Yes they chose to raise prices. Their supply costs rose in price. Then they have to account for all costs that come after the supply cost. You really expect them to sell at a loss? That's a fast way to go out of buisness. Oh and let us not forget the biggest profiteers off of gas in America is the United States government and the State governments. They made a lot more money on taxes from gas then Exxon made in profits from gas. As oil drops in price and gas keeps dropping we are going to see Congress whining that not enough tax money is coming in from gas sales.
The oil industry recieves between $15 billion and $35 billion per annum from the US taxpayer in state subsidy, depending on how and what you count.
They chose to raise prices more than was demanded by supply costs. That's why their profits increased.
That's already happening. People are driving less, revenues are down. Surprise. Another example of unintended conciquences while trying to sell it to the public as them having nothing to do with it all.
http://media.cleantech.com/node/554 If you don't like that one a quick Google search will give you as many others as you like.
I attribute the whole thing to Azure's oil speculation. [yt=C'mon everyone, sing along, you know the words]m1DTp7FV4Qs[/yt]
No, you made the claims, you do the googling. Do people even contemplate for a minute that moves like this only stifle domestic production and keep us on the forein oil tit? Bolding mine. 700 million saved a year stated here, money that a fair portion of went to the development of alternative fuels and energy production, thereby stifling themselves and us to a longer wait to the solution at the expense of a feel good election year manuver to dupe the public. Speculation is what drove prices up, and you can bet that the Saudis et. al. were more than happy to jump on that train.
I did. I assume that you agree with the subsidies then. That's fine, but you can stop pretending that they're making "a buck" solely off the back of their own investment and hard work.
Dumbass, the "subsidies" are tax breaks for further exploration. All they want to do is take more money in, as per the norm for the Democratic party. You seem to think that the oil companies should produce oil at the price you see fit, not the price that it takes to make a profit and stay in business. You also fail to see the industry employs thousands of people, and have shareholders that need to get paid. Somewhere you have it in your mind that they're just pocketing it all and laughing all the way to the bank. You couldn't be more wrong.
No, I didn't say any of that, nor does it represent my views. I simply reacted to your portrayal of the oil companies as free market capitalists, risking their own money, when the reality is that they're heavily supported by the state.
"The legislation "amounts to a taking of private property" by forcing oil companies to renegotiate leases they view as valid contracts, he said." When did Hugo Chavez become Speaker of the House?
No, what you're failing to realize is it is their money to start with, deemed as tax income by the government given back as tax breaks. Now that the price has gone through the roof they want it back to punish them in an election year, and all they are doing is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Hell, they're holding renegotiations of permits for existing leases set to expire set there back in the Clinton years before they'll negotiate any new fields. Looks like a double dip to me, going back after the fact. The oil companies aren't the bad guys political putzes like Pelosi make them out to be, If it weren't for them the buggy whip industry would still be going strong.
Nope. It's not just tax breaks, as my link pointed out. But even those are distorting the market, since they result in an uncompetitive advantage for the oil companies when compared with suppliers of alternative sources of energy. If they reduced the tax rate for all, rather than these selective tax breaks for some, you might have a point.
Seeing that Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded company, I'm sure that they will... wether or not anyone other than investors will notice is the question. Again... how do you determine what a proper profit is for a business? You don't. You let people decide what they are willing to pay for a good or service and let the business will take care of itself. Getting pissed at Exxon will do you no good as long as you continue to fill up with their gas to get around.