TheShavingofOccam123:Maybe ExxonMobil needs to be broken up into smaller, more competitive companies.
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
stuhayes2010:TheShavingofOccam123: Maybe ExxonMobil needs to be broken up into smaller, more competitive companies.
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
Thank god it was just the one boobie.
/I would file an amicus curiae but I'd end up with unclean hands
stuhayes2010:TheShavingofOccam123: Maybe ExxonMobil needs to be broken up into smaller, more competitive companies.
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
And let us not forget the vigilant Congressmen who are even now battling the red menace that is socialized healthcare (as opposed to the red menace that is corporate bailout, which is A-OK).
So many campaign contributors, so many pro-consumer bills to defeat.
stuhayes2010:TheShavingofOccam123: Maybe ExxonMobil needs to be broken up into smaller, more competitive companies.
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
I'm just glad they put the kibosh on that Wild Oats/Whole Foods merger. We can't allowe overpriced groceries to be monopolized by one company. Where else will I go to pay too much for grapes?
TheShavingofOccam123:Maybe ExxonMobil needs to be broken up into smaller, more competitive companies.
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Too funny.
Anyway, what's the point? They'll just merge back into one giant company again, and then we'll have to break them up and that'll cost taxpayer money, and so on... better to just leave it alone. After all, the market has spoken.
loonatic112358:damnit no, how can i sell them stuff if they're losing money
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
AmazinTim:A candlelight vigil is in the offing here.
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
Fengen:loonatic112358: damnit no, how can i sell them stuff if they're losing money
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
Similarly, if you're making $50,000 per year, and then you lose your job and go work at McDonald's making $15,000 per year, you haven't lost any money either.
rmz:Similarly, if you're making $50,000 per year, and then you lose your job and go work at McDonald's making $15,000 per year, you haven't lost any money either.
What kind of oil company shill are you supposed to be, twisting numbers with no regard for facts?
Obviously a 68% drop in earnings means McDonalds is paying 16k a year...quit trying to spin it to make it look worse than it is!
Fengen:AmazinTim: A candlelight vigil is in the offing here.
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
I did not realize you could get a high school equivalency in one area of study.
doomfistinc:Fengen: AmazinTim: A candlelight vigil is in the offing here.
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
I did not realize you could get a high school equivalency in one area of study.
It's a fark meme. GED in law. Adapted to the situation.
rmz:Fengen: loonatic112358: damnit no, how can i sell them stuff if they're losing money
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
Similarly, if you're making $50,000 per year, and then you lose your job and go work at McDonald's making $15,000 per year, you haven't lost any money either.
It's net income. If you make $50k a year and have $35k expenses, your net yearly income is $15k. If you go down to $15k a year and still have $35k expenses, you have a net loss of $20k. Exxon's net income, after expenses, has fallen a bit more than analysts expected it to. People have made comments to the effect that they're losing money, ie operating with a net loss. This isn't true.
So, how does this not show that those massive profits came from the oil bubble and the cost of gas at the pumps? supply and demand aren't that diffeent.
I do know that demand in China and India, which was one of the major blames as to why oil prices skyrocketed, hasn't decreased to the degree to make supply/demand laws reflect the current situation of prices. They aren't using any less and according to the oil companies, they're using more. I don't see the US cutting back 20-30% of their usage.
AmazinTim
2009-10-29 01:53:28 PM
Fabric_Man
2009-10-29 01:56:51 PM
That's a funny way of describing a burning at the stake.
TheShavingofOccam123
2009-10-29 01:59:56 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
stuhayes2010
2009-10-29 02:03:56 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
TheShavingofOccam123
2009-10-29 02:06:36 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
Thank god it was just the one boobie.
/I would file an amicus curiae but I'd end up with unclean hands
GurneyHalleck
2009-10-29 02:08:49 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
And let us not forget the vigilant Congressmen who are even now battling the red menace that is socialized healthcare (as opposed to the red menace that is corporate bailout, which is A-OK).
So many campaign contributors, so many pro-consumer bills to defeat.
Rapmaster2000
2009-10-29 02:10:32 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Our governement would, but they're too busy cracking down on the Sirius XM merger (which took 2+ years) and still taking Janet Jackson's boobie to court.
I'm just glad they put the kibosh on that Wild Oats/Whole Foods merger. We can't allowe overpriced groceries to be monopolized by one company. Where else will I go to pay too much for grapes?
Dancin_In_Anson
2009-10-29 02:14:05 PM
Great news indeed.
Friskya
2009-10-29 02:15:27 PM
/why do I have this feeling of deja vu?
loonatic112358
2009-10-29 02:17:51 PM
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
TheShavingofOccam123
2009-10-29 02:24:15 PM
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
So, you're saying if we buy you a year's worth of TotalFark, we will bankrupt the oil companies?
Shenanigans!
loonatic112358
2009-10-29 02:27:37 PM
Shenanigans!
no it means if they go bankrupt i'll be here more
TheShavingofOccam123
2009-10-29 02:33:16 PM
Shenanigans!
no it means if they go bankrupt i'll be here more
I knew it would be too easy.
gilgamesh23
2009-10-29 03:30:48 PM
It's too bad there isn't some government probe into this spear-headed by a reformist Republican.
A hundred years ago.
Too funny.
Anyway, what's the point? They'll just merge back into one giant company again, and then we'll have to break them up and that'll cost taxpayer money, and so on... better to just leave it alone. After all, the market has spoken.
Fengen
2009-10-29 05:51:58 PM
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
AmazinTim: A candlelight vigil is in the offing here.
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
rmz
2009-10-29 05:54:40 PM
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
Similarly, if you're making $50,000 per year, and then you lose your job and go work at McDonald's making $15,000 per year, you haven't lost any money either.
eudemonist
2009-10-29 06:17:25 PM
What kind of oil company shill are you supposed to be, twisting numbers with no regard for facts?
Obviously a 68% drop in earnings means McDonalds is paying 16k a year...quit trying to spin it to make it look worse than it is!
Dancin_In_Anson
2009-10-29 06:17:25 PM
And it will speak again. How will you react?
doomfistinc
2009-10-29 07:29:10 PM
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
I did not realize you could get a high school equivalency in one area of study.
Fengen
2009-10-29 07:35:24 PM
Exxon didn't post this story to get sympathy from Farkers with GEDs in business. CNN published it to stir up reaction from people who don't understand what a drop in earnings means for a company. Solid troll, CNN. Good work.
I did not realize you could get a high school equivalency in one area of study.
It's a fark meme. GED in law. Adapted to the situation.
Fengen
2009-10-29 07:46:20 PM
and the auxilary companies
you people should want them profitable, the less the make, the less likely i'll be busy, which means the more likely i'll be on fark
A 68% drop in earnings means that if they earned $100M last quarter, they earned $32M this quarter. They haven't lost any money, they just made less than last quarter. In fact, they made over $4 Billion this past quarter.
Similarly, if you're making $50,000 per year, and then you lose your job and go work at McDonald's making $15,000 per year, you haven't lost any money either.
It's net income. If you make $50k a year and have $35k expenses, your net yearly income is $15k. If you go down to $15k a year and still have $35k expenses, you have a net loss of $20k. Exxon's net income, after expenses, has fallen a bit more than analysts expected it to. People have made comments to the effect that they're losing money, ie operating with a net loss. This isn't true.
mizchief
2009-10-29 08:13:30 PM
zarberg
2009-10-30 10:59:58 AM
How fast can a woman go?
68. Because at 69 she flips over and blows a rod.
TimeWaste
2009-10-30 11:14:22 AM
FunkyBlue
2009-10-30 01:48:32 PM
I do know that demand in China and India, which was one of the major blames as to why oil prices skyrocketed, hasn't decreased to the degree to make supply/demand laws reflect the current situation of prices. They aren't using any less and according to the oil companies, they're using more. I don't see the US cutting back 20-30% of their usage.