← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 20789 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-10-28
2005-10-28 13:28 | User Profile
[I]GREED IS GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA, SUCKERS!![/I]
[B][SIZE="4"]Exxon Mobil 3Q Profit Balloons to $9.92B [/SIZE][/B]
[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil;_ylt=AmK_hXqKu1GMDKcZmPmTcjsDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl]Yahoo Link[/URL]
IRVING, Texas - [B]Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books.[/B] The world's largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion in quarterly sales.
Net income ballooned to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 per share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year ago.
Excluding certain items, earnings were $8.3 billion, or $1.32 per share, versus $6.23 billion, or 96 cents per share, in the 2004 quarter.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, predicted earnings excluding items of $1.38 per share.
Revenue grew to $100.72 billion from $76.38 billion in the prior-year period.
Howard Silverblatt, equity analyst at Standard & Poor's, said both the net income and sales figures are all-time records for publicly traded U.S. companies.
The hurricanes slashed Exxon Mobil's U.S. production volumes by 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, down nearly 5 percent year-over-year, costing the company $45 million before taxes. The company said total daily production slipped to 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent from 2.51 million barrels.
"Following the hurricanes, Exxon Mobil maximized gasoline production from all of our refineries which were operating in the U.S., and increased imports from overseas affiliates to meet U.S. demand," said Chairman Lee R. Raymond.
Earnings from U.S. upstream operations increased by $498 million to $1.67 billion, while U.S. downstream earnings jumped $548 million to $1.11 billion. In the U.S. and abroad, income from the company's chemicals segment declined by $537 million to $472 million, as raw materials costs squeezed margins.
The company cautioned that reduced volumes and higher costs will also hurt the fourth quarter.
Shares of Irving-based Exxon Mobil rose 56 cents, or 1 percent, to $56.76 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded in a 52-week range between $48.25 and $65.96.
2005-10-28 14:37 | User Profile
XM,
Limbaugh was making a big deal about this yesterday. He was bragging about being a capitalist and loving capitalism in action. Of course he didn't note that these profits came about with the shutdown of the Gulf refineries nor did he note that the oil industry gets billions of dollars in tax write off and subsidies. I can see why he likes "capitalism" like this. It is crony "capitalism". A thought for Chief Dittohead. Why not shut down all the refineries in the US? That should really jack up profits!
2005-10-28 15:25 | User Profile
Sert, of course, Rush's duped and dumbed-down listeners will buy that pathetic line that "capitalism is good". The truth is that Rush and Co. channel the "greed is good" Gordon Gecko line of thinking and sell it in a benign way to unsuspecting listeners.
Rush Limbaugh is a charlatan trickster adroit in the skills of "sleight of hand". But, we also must understand that monopolies like ExxonMobil also pay Rush's salary, and Rush isn't about to bite the hand that feeds his fat mouth.
2005-10-30 19:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]XM,
Limbaugh was making a big deal about this yesterday. He was bragging about being a capitalist and loving capitalism in action. Of course he didn't note that these profits came about with the shutdown of the Gulf refineries nor did he note that the oil industry gets billions of dollars in tax write off and subsidies. I can see why he likes "capitalism" like this. It is crony "capitalism". A thought for Chief Dittohead. Why not shut down all the refineries in the US? That should really jack up profits![/QUOTE]As someone from an oil-patch state whose followed the industry closely over the years, I think a good argument can be made that at least some of the big profits of companies like Exxon now are legitimate and needed. Back in the 80's all the companies that emphasized exploration, production, and accumulation of oil reserves got decimated financially, and a lot of it just got out of this part of the business entirely. With oil prices now recovering those companies that stayed or got back into oil exploration and production are
now going to make some big money for a while, and they'll need that money if they're going to make the big new investments needed to keep us from running out of oil.
But I think the oil companies do have a problem, and its entirely of their, and the politicians making. They've allowed so much consolidation and mergers since the 80's (must be at least 3/4 of the oil companies around then are gone now) that you can no longer really argue that this is just the work of the free market, or avoid thinking about the abundant opportunitiesfor collusion going on. (Collusion is always possible, but when here are a lot of competitors it takes some work and isn't too hard to detect. When you just have two competitors, its virtually child's play, and doesn't even require tangible communication.
But I think that relates to the control of the oil companies. Used to be that all the oil companies were closely related to the original wildcatter types that created them. In the arbitrage-financial takeovers of the 80's power all got transferred to the Wall Street Banker types. Which I think explains how all those mergers got approved in the 80's and 90's, when in the 70's Democrats were al crying that we should [B]break up [/B]the oil companies.
2005-10-30 19:55 | User Profile
I've heard that politicians now want a "windfall tax". F**k them, let the oil companies charge what they want. Worse is better as I see it. The sooner the inevitable hike of inflation hits the masses the faster people are going to start paying attention to what the government has created. As people start looking for answers their worldview will start changing. What happens then, who knows? Optimistically I'd like to think it would wake enough to rock the boat. The masses are going to have to start caring more about what those corrupt ding-a-lings in Washington are doing more than what the TV lineup is for the week.
2005-10-30 19:58 | User Profile
CW,
The new head of the Fed will see to it that we get inflation. He has really made some stupid comments.
2005-10-30 20:43 | User Profile
Exxon made 10 billions dollars in the third quarter and Wall Mart made 10 million dollars in one year........at least Wally is giving employment to over one million people where all that exxon has to do is press some keys on their keyboard in order to raise the price.:confused:
At least you get to keep for a while what you buy from Wall Mart where what you buy from Exxon goes up as pollution and you get to keep nothing. :wallbash:
2005-10-30 20:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]At least you get to keep for a while what you buy from Wall Mart where what you buy from Exxon goes up as pollution and you get to keep nothing. :wallbash:[/QUOTE]You don't have to send it up as pollution - keep it in your tank and ride a bike:D
2005-10-31 02:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]CW,
The new head of the Fed will see to it that we get inflation. He has really made some stupid comments.[/QUOTE] Really? What has he said?
[QUOTE=Ponce]...Exxon goes up as pollution and you get to keep nothing.[/QUOTE] But it saves me time. I'd rather spend 5 bucks to cross town in 20-30 minutes than spend 2 hours or so riding a bike and getting sweaty.
2005-10-31 03:16 | User Profile
Whip? I didn't say anything about a bike, however I do have a small engine on the rear tire of one of my bikes that helps me up hill while going or coming back from town........and remember that I do have a 11 HP engine in the back of my small pick up for long distance that gives me around 65-72 per gallon.
2005-10-31 03:25 | User Profile
CW,
Check out this comment of Bernanke's: [QUOTE]What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm[/url]
2005-10-31 04:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]CW,
Check out this comment of Bernanke's:
[url]http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm[/url][/QUOTE] He sure meets the standards for the worse is better crowd, eh?
[QUOTE=Ponce]Whip? [B]I didn't say anything about a bike,[/B] however I do have a small engine on the rear tire of one of my bikes that helps me up hill while going or coming back from town........and remember that I do have a 11 HP engine in the back of my small pick up for long distance that gives me around 65-72 per gallon.[/QUOTE] I know, you said basically that you don't get as much bang for the buck at the gas station as you do at Wal-Mart. Do you change you mind now?
2005-10-31 05:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]CW,
Check out this comment of Bernanke's:
[url]http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm[/url][/QUOTE]Actually that sounds to me like a monetarist warning against the growth of the money supply. For a protege of Greenspan its what I'd expect.
2005-10-31 05:39 | User Profile
Okie,
It sounds like the Weimar Republic, 1923, to me.
2005-10-31 05:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okie,
It sounds like the Weimar Republic, 1923, to me.[/QUOTE]Exactly. That's what he's warning against. Sounds like worthy successor to Volcker and Greenspan.
If he just doesn't start arguing, like Greenspan, that to control inflation and save social security we need to open our borders it sounds like he'll do fine.
2005-10-31 05:53 | User Profile
Okie,
You're a lot more optimistic about him than I. I read his statement cynically.
2005-10-31 06:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okie,
You're a lot more optimistic about him than I. I read his statement cynically.[/QUOTE]The Federal Reserve's primary function these days is to calm the financial markets. If one had designs on printing money, speaking like this is the last thing you'd do. You have to recognize satire.
BTW, is Bernanke's the same tribe as Greenspan and Volcker? :caiphas: I'll say that about them, they don't care much about saving the country, but they're sure protective of the dollar.
I wonder how long it will be before Wall Street mounts a campaign to put Greenspan on one of our dollar bills. Except that might give the whole thing away :lol:
2005-10-31 06:14 | User Profile
I don't think that is satire. It's hard to tell without seeing the actual speech. If they really wanted to protect the dollar they would be up in arms over the trade deficit and these so-called free trade agreements. All I can say is I hope you're right.
Incidently, Greenspan used to be a advocate of the gold standard. I wonder if this guy thought the same at one time.
2005-10-31 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Cracker of the Whip]He sure meets the standards for the worse is better crowd, eh?
I know, you said basically that you don't get as much bang for the buck at the gas station as you do at Wal-Mart. Do you change you mind now?[/QUOTE]
Because I am getting good gas mileage thanks to what I have done and because I still have around 485 gallons in credit of the 1,000 for which I paid $1.69 per gallons I was not talking for myself but for the general public.
2005-10-31 16:01 | User Profile
Capitalism represents an insurrection of the mindless third estate (the bowels) against the legitimate arms (second estate, feudalism) and head (first estate, sacerdotium) of a social organism. There is nothing remotely conservative about capitalism, it merely preparing the way for the onslaught of the fourth estate (socialism-communism) and the fifth estate (organized crime).