NFA: Yet they aren't.

Nope.

I'm picturing some CEOs/CFOs running around the boardroom screaming "HELL YES FREE MONEY!!"

I'm so excited!!!!! I can't wait to see how many jobs they create!!!!!!

NFA: By the same logic when profits go up 41% Exxon should be hiring like crazy.

Not at all. It's the uncertainty in the market that's stopping them from hiring new workers. They need to stockpile profits as a hedge against a potential economic crisis. If they don't do that, then they'll have to lay off more workers to keep profits up to protect them against a potential economic oh dear I've gone all cross-eye'd.

gilgigamesh: If people would or could stop relying on their cars to drive 4 blocks for a gallon of milk, the price of gas would go down and as a result their profits would go down.

Or, you know, not, considering that 1) a lot of people already walk to the grocery store for small things and 2) the suburbanization of our society has made it necessary to live 20-30 miles from where you work in order to afford a house.

gilgigamesh: If people would or could stop relying on their cars to drive 4 blocks for a gallon of milk, the price of gas would go down and as a result their profits would go down.

If the local store was 4 blocks away, most people wouldn't have to drive.

Bubba-work: I agree we need to cut their tax breaks, but they already employee ~82,000 people, how many more do they need?

I think that's another part of the counter argument against the tax breaks.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If the local store was 4 blocks away

You also have to consider "city blocks" vs. "suburban blocks". In the city, 4 blocks isn't much. In suburbia, it's a long damn way. I am lucky enough to have a grocery store in the lot directly next to my apartment complex, but I have to walk the equivalent of 3 city blocks to get there.

gilgigamesh: Yes, because Exxon is pulling these profits out of thin air and not as a result of our addiction to fossil fuel.

If that was in response to me, I wasn't saying it was out of thin air. I was saying that in response to gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon for premium, people like me have taken to walking to the corner store instead of hopping in the car every time. I generally have to gauge whether I'm "just getting a couple of things" or "really need groceries". I can't carry the amount of weekly groceries I get by myself, so I have to drive.

I'm sure they're create those jobs if we give them just one more tax break.

Not that I actually would walk places, but if I walk the equivalent of 4 blocks....I'm still in my own neighborhood. I'll get right on walking 2 miles to go to the grocery store.

NFA: Wait,
If tax cuts increase corporate profitability and create jobs...
By the same logic when profits go up 41% Exxon should be hiring like crazy.
Yet they aren't.

Hah

Supply-side economics. It just HAS to work eventually.

Actually in terms of price gouging Exxon is surprisingly non evil (offer not valid on environnemental concerns). We deal with fossil fuel companies a decent amount in the auto industry and they're all about bulk. Sell X hundred million of barrels of oil an make 10 bucks per barrel sold. Enjoy the billion dollar revenue stream, stay out of the news media, and keep the supply and demand chain in a nice balance. No one does weird stuff like drive less or start massive nation wide drives for mass transit. So their cash flow is nice, stable, and everyone is happy.

The reason to hate the fossil fuel energy companies is they're oil companies. Not energy companies and they have anti competitive business practices to other energy companies. Hell look at Conocco Phillips, their new rebranding is to say "Look we do natural gas too! We're so diverse and friendly to the environnent!". It's a major blind spot in the industry and annoying. Like with the Volt, oil companies were having fits. When we suggested "Hey you guys ever think of getting your toes wet in the battery side of energy stuff" we were looked at like we grew second heads. Same thing with biodiesel and the like. Those companies sell oil and are going to fark that chicken to death.

/actually the oil companies are creating a lot of jobs with the fracking, oil shale exploitation, etc

Exxon does what every other company strives to do...profit. Let's just say they mark up the fuel 10%. If they are buying for $2 and selling for $2.20 the gross profit is $.20. If the commodity price jumps to $3 they mark it up to $3.30 and make $.30 gross profit. Now gross profits are up 50%. Of course this is a over-simplified version. They pump it out of the ground and refine it. And sell billions and billions of gallons of fuel, oil, etc...

/They are bastards

Tinkle down economics. Somebody is getting pissed on.

Exxons net profit margin is still under 9%. Meanwhile Microsofts is around 33%. And yet we get all false outrage every time Exxon releases their numbers.

Sold my car a year ago, haven't looked back since.

I live in a city that has an awesome public transit system, and I laugh sometimes when I pass a gas station and see the farking price of gas here.

$1.36 a LITRE last I looked.

$72.00 for a monthly bus pass
vs
car payments, insurance payments, gas, garage fees

/SOLD

bravian: Exxons net profit margin is still under 9%. Meanwhile Microsofts is around 33%. And yet we get all false outrage every time Exxon releases their numbers.

Clearly, Exxon needs more federal subsidies.

bravian: Exxons net profit margin is still under 9%. Meanwhile Microsofts is around 33%. And yet we get all false outrage every time Exxon releases their numbers.

Have you done an analysis on the tax breaks on federal subsidies Microsoft gets?

when I found this at CNN it was right next to Oakland protesters getting tear gassed, it made me chuckle
/subby

I'm curious, subby. What do you think would be an appropriate profit level for a company the size of Exxon? Remembering that companies are in business to make a profit, and that all those pension funds out there are the largest holders of Exxon stock, and therefore benefit the most, of course.

sweetmelissa31: Lumpmoose: No, that's only the beginning. After plummeting their taxes (while keeping up the energy subsidies), then you have to deregulate the entire industry, let them drill wherever they want and give them a few more of their Constitutional rights as citizens, such as funneling millions into ad campaigns against your political enemies.

THEN the jobs will be rolling in so fast, it'll be like the 50s with Reagan as president.

That will only happen if we also cut funding to NPR.

And stop the State Department from buying Obama's book^.

bravian: Exxons net profit margin is still under 9%. Meanwhile Microsofts is around 33%. And yet we get all false outrage every time Exxon releases their numbers.

Galloping Galoshes: I'm curious, subby. What do you think would be an appropriate profit level for a company the size of Exxon? Remembering that companies are in business to make a profit, and that all those pension funds out there are the largest holders of Exxon stock, and therefore benefit the most, of course.

Quickly, children! Look over here at these shiny things! So pretty they are! For Heaven's sake, please pay no attention to the data which run contrary to the Holy Supply-Side Scriptures!

Humans have made huge strides in making themselves obsolete.

It's not that we need more jobs, people need to stop farking without condoms.

timujin: Bubba-work: gilgigamesh: Yes, because Exxon is pulling these profits out of thin air and not as a result of our addiction to fossil fuel.

This. They have a product we ALL need.

Which doesn't really matter a whit in this discussion. Yes, they have a product we need. Yes, they make enormous profits on it. But the current Republican mantra is that if we would just get out of their way and let them make these profits, then the result will be lot of new jobs. That's where the breakdown is.

Awfully generous of people to get out of the way and "let" them make these profits.

Dividends went up. YAY!

/shareholder

bravian: Exxons net profit margin is still under 9%. Meanwhile Microsofts is around 33%. And yet we get all false outrage every time Exxon releases their numbers.

Apparently one does not need to understand the difference between profit and profit margin to rant. This makes it convenient for the press to splash big headlines about record profits every quarter. Instant outrage.

GAT_00: WHAR Job Creation WHAR

See: Bakken Shale, North Dakota
See: Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania
See: Keystone XL Pipeline project
Research: WTI/Brent spread and why it matters in this context
Contribute: Something meaningful to the conversation
or
GTFO: back to your politics tab.

Not a single one of you whiners is going to listen to the conference call or read the transcript afterwards and I bet none of you looked at anything beyond the article before letting loose with your biatchfest.

How many of you whiny hacks caught the $81B they've paid in taxes over the first 9 months of this year? Or that 21.6B of their upstream earnings came from outside the US, vs 4B inside? WHAR job creation? PROBABLY THERE.

fark, if all you people are going to do is complain, seriously, go back to the politics tab and leave the business tab for people who are ready to have coherent conversations.

If "creating jobs" means "lining execs pockets with cash", you win....

companies profiting that much tells me two things...one, they dont' need the tax breaks they're getting to be viable. two, the price at the pump is inflated.

i'm all for companies providing a good or service and profiting from it, but when we're talking the stuff that literally RUNS THE COUNTRY, there should be far more regulation involved. We're not talking iPods or some gadget here, we're talking a major component of our our country (and the planet as a whole) runs. (unfortunately)