{OT} gasoline price gouging

That is NOT proof of anything.

That is a guy trying to sell some books....

Those laws are in effect to keep the big chains from driving the mom-and-pops out of business by loss-leadering gas.

And, if they could drive the mom-and-pops out of business, they'd do it, then jack up prices and then you'd pay.

I found the following data regarding profits for the 10 largest companies in the USA for year end of 2005, granted, the cost of gasoline has gone up quite a bit since then, but I don't know how much volume their selling as compared to Dec. '05.

Company Net Profit (billion ) Revenue (billion) Profit Margin Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5

As you can see, Exxon Mobile has the largest net profit of $9.9 Billion, but only an 11% net profit margin. Citigroup made net profits of $7.1 Billion, yet had a net profit margin of 33%. It's not that the oil companies charge so much for a market commodity, it's that we buy so much of the stuff.

These are probably the numbers for one quarter. Last year, ExxonMobil had revenue of $339 billion. I really doubt that ExxonMobil had revenue growth of over 250% from 2005 to 2006.

But that doesn't mean that a profit of $39 billion (last years) is a fair profit. Considering that well-run utilities have similar profit margins, I think it is. (The profit margin for last year was 11.65%.)

It should also be noted that these are the profits for a company. ExxonMobil is in the chemical business (e.g., Mobil 1), the business of getting oil from wells, shipping oil overseas, refining oil and distributing and selling oil products. The profits it makes from distributing and selling oil products (e.g., gasoline) may be out of line compared to its profits in its other businesses, meaning the profits it makes from say refining or distributing diesel fuel unfairly high.

So far, no one has been able to tell us what is a fair profit, although you did provide excellent information to suggest that ExxonMobil and Chevron's profit are not out-of-line with other companies.

I would also add that your state that we have to buy so much is also incorrect. We can conserve gasoline and other energy services and use alternative energy as well (like walking).

Jeff

Unproven speculation.

Did they drive mom and pop stores out of business in other places? Do those laws just apply to gas stations in Wisconsin or do they apply to other types of businesses, as well?

Jeff

What about the *other* 49 states?

And, thatr price in Wisc. doesn't matter, since the oil companies are

But, the other disturbing thing you left out is the Hilary has stated there should be a Windfall Tax on the massive profits of the oil companies.

Now, you know from my posts I have a lot of heartburn with the record profits posted by the oil companies.

But I have even BIGGER heartburn with Hilary and a Democratic Congrees getting ahold of the money! She says she wants to put the money from the Windfall Tax to Alternative Fuel research. Yeah, right. Like some guy in his garage in East Overshoe getting $100,000 to explore getting fuel from Sweet Potatoes (I made that up but you never know...)

If it comes down to that, I'd rather let the oil companies keep the money!

Probably, I grabbed the numbers pretty quickly.

I didn't say we have to buy it, I said we do buy so much of it. I think part of the problem lies with city planners and zoning laws. Most cities and counties have seperate zones for residential, industrial, agricultural, office, and retail use, thus forcing most people into some kind of commute. Where I live the bus service (the only mass transit option available) is pretty poor (it can take an hour to travel as far as it takes me to drive in

I would like to see more alternative forms of energy. Solar seems like a great idea. I talked to a company today, and without looking at my specific house, only going on what I told them, estimated a pay back of 10 years, excluding rebates and tax credits. That sounds pretty cheap to me in the long run.

Of course it doesn't, but in this case it does. They planned it and used 9/11 as an excuse, and fixed the intelligence to make the case.

Well, oil consumption has been lower or around the same level in the last few months, yet prices went up about 80 cents a gallon during that same period.

Jeff

The link doesn't work.

That law has to do with the amount of money store owners in Wisc. are making. Except for stores owned by oil companies and little difference in profit that they would make at those stores, it has nothing to do with oil company profits in Wisc.

What massive profits? They have a profit margin of around 10%. In line with other companies.

Why, did you sell your stocks of oil companies a few years ago?

Where's East Overshoe. We have an East Orange around here. I wonder if it is nearby.

Actually, it does not sound like a bad idea, except that it has not been shown that oil companies have a windfall.

Me too. I own shares of ExxonMobil and other oil companies.

Jeff

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time all intelligence reports from various communities pointed to Iraq having NOT deposed of his arsenal of WMDs as required by the aftermath of the 1991 war. Any critical thinking person who isn't blinded by hate would surmise he still had them and Hussein even refused to allow inspectors unfettered access to scores of installations.

Although no major WMDs were found afterwards, we all know where they were shipped to. Obviously the Administration strongly believed they existed otherwise they wouldn't have wandered around for months looking silly. If they knew none existed they would have made sure some turned up in order to justify the invasion. Just that they didn't shows the integrity of GWB and the maturity to not cover up anything.

The article referred to by Truckdude implicates Tony Blair as guilty of deception also. Why is it he is not being taken to the woodshed by their media as our President is by our media?

One man's price gouging is another man's capitalism at work. Oil companies aren't in business to promote to provide low cost transportation. If you think they are charging too much for their product, quit buying it, or buy less. And yes I understand that in the short run this might not be possible However, that is not an excuse for throwing up your hands and whining to the government. If you want the government to control the price, then you are supporting socialism at least in one area. If you are really concerned about oil companies making too much money, start making changes now to reduce your dependence on their product. Personally I support the imposition of new taxes on imported oil. We should immediately impose a $10 a barrel tax on imported oil, and escalate it over the next few years to twice that or more. I'll wager that the total price of an imported barrel of oil (cost + tax) will not increase by more than a few dollars. So instead of sending US dollars to the Saudis and Venezuelans, we can keep some of it here to fix social security, or Medicare, or to reduce taxes. If you are worried that the tax will raise the cost of gasoline and adversely affect working people, then lower the income tax at the low end and increase the earned income credit and make the tax revenue neutral.

It is madness to sit around whining about oil companies making too much money and do nothing. It is even worse to sit here and do nothing while sending billions to the whackos of the world who hate the US.

Ed

I don't agree. I believe the Bush Administration used Saddam's supposed threat as a pretext for starting a war. Look at Bush's team - it is full of people from the oil industry. I am not saying they are liars or evil, but they definitely have a different view of the world than the average American. Their priorities are colored by their background (like everyone else's).

If we were going to start a war because a country posed an imminent threat, don't you think we would have invaded, or at least bombed, North Korea by now? Or maybe we would have secured our own borders. If their was no oil in Iraq, we would not be there.

Ed

Actually, I agree with you. I was just being facetious.

Bush is trying to do what his daddy couldn't.

One reason why we didn't attack North Korea is that North Korea has no way to get its weapons to the US.

Of course, the same was true of Iraq, because Iraq didn't have any weapons.

One big problem with Bush is that he doesn't ask questions like, "Are these intelligence reports accurate?" and "If the rest of the world doesn't want us to attack Iraq, should we be going into Iraq by ourselves and about five other countries?"

Jeff

If his own advisors, cabinet members, head of the CIA say it's true, and there are documented memos saying it's true, what more proof do you need? Bush isn't going to come out and admit it.

Try this

According to the IRS site, because of the most recent across the board tax rate reductions, 49% of American families do not pay any taxes and 38%, of the 49%, get a larger tax refund check than the amount they had withheld.

Why not lower the tax rates even further so that say 79% pay no taxes and

The US could probably cut the cost of fuel by 50% or balance the current budget if they simply stopped giving Japanese corporations credits for taxes paid in Japan, and started to tax all of the millions of dollars of profits they take out of the US ;)

mike