Oil all Over the Voting Machine

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Let’s look at the cause of high gasoline and oil prices, clearly the oil companies are at fault, right? Wrong!

Do the words supply and demand ring a bell?

The world output of oil is about 85,000,000 barrels a day, the world demand is about 87,000,000 barrels. Much of that demand comes from countries other than the US, namely China. Surprise, it is not all about America. While speculators and traders play a role and the value of the US dollar against the Euro is a major factor, the driver is demand.

Notice I didn’t mention the big bad oil companies. I didn’t, but our politicians sure do. Clinton is going to take their profit and use it elsewhere; Obama has similar plans, so clearly profit is bad. The profit margin for Exxon is less than 10% so one can assume that any business earning 10% or more should have its profit confiscated by the Federal government. Do you buy into that thinking?;)

And as an aside, what percentage of the total world output of oil do you think is controlled by Exxon? Give up? It’s 2% so it seems obvious with that corner on the market they surely control the price of oil worldwide. Consider too that many countries own national oil companies and many, especially in the Middle East subsidize the cost of gasoline for their citizens further distorting the market.

In the last quarter Exxon earned $11 billion so that means that the Federal government collected about $5.9 billion in taxes. So perhaps profit is a good thing after all.

Representative Maxine Waters while grilling oil company executives made a statement to the effect that as a liberal she was going to try and have the government take over the oil companies and nationalize them. Such pandering, grandstanding and ignorance is an insult to the American people, especially considering that Ms Waters was named in 2005 and 2006] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

What’s the point of all this? Well, it would appear that you can place more trust in an oil company than in the people you elect to represent you in Congress. Who would have thunk it? :rolleyes:

[along-for-the-ride]

I am not against any company making a profit......that's business.

But "record" profits do make me squeam.

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

Representative Maxine Waters while grilling oil company executives made a statement to the effect that as a liberal she was going to try and have the government take over the oil companies and nationalize them.


If she does that she can hardly claim to be a liberal can she? closet socialist maybe.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

along-for-the-ride;873027 wrote: I am not against any company making a profit......that's business.

But "record" profits do make me squeam.


As long as you make them honestly there is no problem and besides isn't "record" relative? Somehow the politicians have no trouble giving farm subsidizes to multi-millionaire farmers when their profits are at record levels as well.

Your food costs are up largely from the fact that Congress provided incentives to grow corn for ethanol. Naturally people followed the incentive and are growing the corn so food growing has slipped, and yet Congress just approved more incentives, but at the same time wants to cut tax incentives for oil companies to explore for oil. Don't get me wrong I have no stake in any oil company, but it galls me that politicians say what they think the public wants to hear while ignoring the facts and the truth...sometimes painful for people to hear. :-5

On the other hand, who would vote for a politician who told the truth?:rolleyes:

Increasing the supply or lowering the demand is the only way to lower prices, but the long view answer is really lowering demand via alternatives.

[flopstock]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;873005 wrote: ......................

Representative Maxine Waters while grilling oil company executives made a statement to the effect that as a liberal she was going to try and have the government take over the oil companies and nationalize them. Such pandering, grandstanding and ignorance is an insult to the American people, especially considering that Ms Waters was named in 2005 and 2006] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

............................

What’s the point of all this? Well, it would appear that you can place more trust in an oil company than in the people you elect to represent you in Congress. Who would have thunk it? :rolleyes:




So when you make descriptive statements like 'as a liberal' as opposed to 'this member' you are in fact telling us here in the garden that we can attribute anything said by any conservative or liberal politician to all conservative or liberal politicians?

Or should our philosophy be more along the lines of 'each person should stand or fall on their own statements'.

I have no idea where the parties and wings of the parties stand on the issue of nationalization of our oil fields or companies. Have we seen any platform agenda leaks that we could objectively base an opinion on?

Rather then address the issue, you address sensationalism. How about giving party positions and party statements to back up your agenda? You may then be able to convince someone like myself who is more then willing to admit I am not up on this subject at the moment.

But if you are in fact interested in defending the oil companies rather then just bashing liberals, there are other references available to be quoted, don't you agree?

lookie what I found

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Ex ... ts/304485/

.............

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

-- Record first quarter net income was $10,890 million, up 17%from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Earnings per share were up 25% to $2.03 reflecting strong earnings and the reduced number of shares outstanding.

-- Spending on capital and exploration projects was $5.5 billion, up 30% from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Cash flow from operations and asset sales was approximately $21.8 billion, including asset sales of $0.4 billion.

-- Share purchases of $8.0 billion reduced shares outstanding by 1.8%.

.................

[Accountable]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;873005 wrote: Let’s look at the cause of high gasoline and oil prices, clearly the oil companies are at fault, right?
My beloved and I were just discussing this over a business TV show and breakfast.



There is only one place to lay the blame for high oil prices. It's the same place to lay the blame for any high prices: at the feet of the consumer.

[flopstock]

Accountable;873653 wrote: My beloved and I were just discussing this over a business TV show and breakfast.



There is only one place to lay the blame for high oil prices. It's the same place to lay the blame for any high prices: at the feet of the consumer.


I agree! I started riding my bike back to work at lunchtime rather then drive. First day I started this, I went out after work to jump on my bike to get home for the babysitter and I had a flat tire.... cost me $10 to get a new tire and it was in the shop for a week...:wah:

don't think I saved a lot there, but giving it another go this coming week!:rolleyes:

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

flopstock;873618 wrote:

So when you make descriptive statements like 'as a liberal' as opposed to 'this member' you are in fact telling us here in the garden that we can attribute anything said by any conservative or liberal politician to all conservative or liberal politicians?

Or should our philosophy be more along the lines of 'each person should stand or fall on their own statements'.

I have no idea where the parties and wings of the parties stand on the issue of nationalization of our oil fields or companies. Have we seen any platform agenda leaks that we could objectively base an opinion on?

Rather then address the issue, you address sensationalism. How about giving party positions and party statements to back up your agenda? You may then be able to convince someone like myself who is more then willing to admit I am not up on this subject at the moment.

But if you are in fact interested in defending the oil companies rather then just bashing liberals, there are other references available to be quoted, don't you agree?

lookie what I found

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Ex ... ts/304485/

.............

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

-- Record first quarter net income was $10,890 million, up 17%from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Earnings per share were up 25% to $2.03 reflecting strong earnings and the reduced number of shares outstanding.

-- Spending on capital and exploration projects was $5.5 billion, up 30% from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Cash flow from operations and asset sales was approximately $21.8 billion, including asset sales of $0.4 billion.

-- Share purchases of $8.0 billion reduced shares outstanding by 1.8%.

.................


YOU MISREAD THAT "AS A LIBERAL" WERE HER EXACT WORDS, NOT MINE

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

flopstock;873618 wrote:

So when you make descriptive statements like 'as a liberal' as opposed to 'this member' you are in fact telling us here in the garden that we can attribute anything said by any conservative or liberal politician to all conservative or liberal politicians?

Or should our philosophy be more along the lines of 'each person should stand or fall on their own statements'.

I have no idea where the parties and wings of the parties stand on the issue of nationalization of our oil fields or companies. Have we seen any platform agenda leaks that we could objectively base an opinion on?

Rather then address the issue, you address sensationalism. How about giving party positions and party statements to back up your agenda? You may then be able to convince someone like myself who is more then willing to admit I am not up on this subject at the moment.

But if you are in fact interested in defending the oil companies rather then just bashing liberals, there are other references available to be quoted, don't you agree?

lookie what I found

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Ex ... ts/304485/

.............

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

-- Record first quarter net income was $10,890 million, up 17%from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Earnings per share were up 25% to $2.03 reflecting strong earnings and the reduced number of shares outstanding.

-- Spending on capital and exploration projects was $5.5 billion, up 30% from the first quarter of 2007.

-- Cash flow from operations and asset sales was approximately $21.8 billion, including asset sales of $0.4 billion.

-- Share purchases of $8.0 billion reduced shares outstanding by 1.8%.

.................


What is your point with those facts? We all know about record earnings, but with only a small portion of the total world reserves someone else is making a lot more. Exxon sells oil to others and makes far more money doing that than at the pump. When the price of oil goes up, they make more money, duh.

So would you limit the earnings growth of every company large or small? Why do Americans use credit cards with usary interest rates when they don't have to? Why do they buy a cup of coffee for $3.00 when they could get one for $1.25 or drive a vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon when they could drive one that gets 25?

If you don't like Exxon, don't buy their gas and see if that helps. The point is simply that the cause of high gasoline prices is far more complicated that bashing the oil companies. That is as absurd as saying that health care costs are high because of the insurance companies. :-5

[flopstock]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;873722 wrote: YOU MISREAD THAT "AS A LIBERAL" WERE HER EXACT WORDS, NOT MINE
i didn't read anything quinn. i played the youtube link i attached to my post.

'this liberal' is what she says when i listen to it quinn. 'this liberal' identifies herself specifically and what 'SHE' would be doing. Changing your description to 'as a liberal' infers inaccurately that this is the all inclusive liberal stand on the issue.

it's not apparently or you wouldn't have felt the need to embellish, eh?

[flopstock]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;873734 wrote: What is your point with those facts? We all know about record earnings, but with only a small portion of the total world reserves someone else is making a lot more. Exxon sells oil to others and makes far more money doing that than at the pump. When the price of oil goes up, they make more money, duh.

So would you limit the earnings growth of every company large or small? Why do Americans use credit cards with usary interest rates when they don't have to? Why do they buy a cup of coffee for $3.00 when they could get one for $1.25 or drive a vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon when they could drive one that gets 25?

If you don't like Exxon, don't buy their gas and see if that helps. The point is simply that the cause of high gasoline prices is far more complicated that bashing the oil companies. That is as absurd as saying that health care costs are high because of the insurance companies. :-5


My point Quinn, was to support the argument that the oil companies aren't out of bounds here.

That in fact they've increased by 30% over this same period last year - capital and exploration projects.

That just because I don't agree with your biased- knee jerk attempt to turn this into a flag waving celebratory love fest with the oil companies at the expense of those damned liberal congressmen and women - does not mean that I don't agree with the basic premise that we are a supply and demand economy. We are driving up the price of gas, simply because we keep buying it at whatever new ceiling is pushed through today.

My point- is that you are so busy with your 'other' agenda, that you are forced to look for that trap - aren't you? It was apparently beyond your grasp that I may actually agree with what you said, I just didn't care much for the gratuitous liberal bash you felt compelled to tossed in. That I might be backing up your half ass-ed assertion, with facts...:rolleyes: