Do You Know How Much Exxon/Mobil Made Each *Minute* Last Year?

[ihavenobias]

Run time: 02:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdrZlQ41yMw   Posted on YouTube: January 25, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 27, 2008 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 1954

 
http://bravenewfilms.org/network

PS---Do you think the talking heads on TV will tell you what they *really* think during this Monday night's State Of The Union Speech?

If you enjoy this or other TYT clips and or you're tired of the (corporate) mainstream media political coverage, why are you watching (and therefore supporting) it?

Support progressive media and watch the BraveNewFilms/TYT political coverage instead. They have fun and informative progressive hosts with tons of great guests (Sam Seder was on for the Iowa Caucus coverage just to name one of many examples) and up to the minute updates on the polls and other relevant information.

Next up is the State Of The Union Coverage. Normally you might find such an event boring, but a bunch of progressives weighing in and breaking down Bush's speech? Come on, how can you miss it?!

http://bravenewfilms.org/network

[ClintonTyree]

1. If Congress was given the minutes of....

the Cheney energy meetings we'd know exactly how much influence they had in the decision to invade Iraq. However, the Imperial Bush Presidency has deemed those minutes a matter of "National Security" and alas, we'll never really know. But we can sure as hell make a well informed guess as to what was said during those meetings, can't we? :eyes:

[Arizona]

2. What about...

Do they show how much the government made every second?

AC

[Enrique]

3. the government runs at a loss actually

it's called the budget deficit.

[iaviate1]

4. That $75k is PROFIT...

Not how much money they pulled in... which would be much more.

[peapod]

5. XOM profits

The amount of profit that ExxonMobil, or any other oil company, makes in a year, or a minute, is a meaningless number. That profit must be compared to the amount of capital that ExxonMobil needs to deploy in its oil exploration and production business. The oil industry's aggregate return on invested capital is barely above its cost of capital, over time. In other words, the amount of profit that the oil industry earns on its capital is just enough to cover the cost of retaining and deploying that capital.

The oil business is highly cyclical. For much of the 1990s the oil business was a disaster and earned far below its cost of capital. In the late 2000s profits recovered and the industry is earning above its cost of capital. Measured across the cycle, the oil industry's profits are equal to its cost of capital.

The notion of "windfall profits" in the oil industry is silly. Sure, profits are high now, but profits were in the toilet 10+ years ago. Was anybody suggesting in 1996 that the oil companies should receive a "shortfall profits" tax rebate? I think not.

I am not "defending" the oil industry, I am merely pointing out the reality of how corporate finance works, and also the fact that the oil industry does not earn "excessive" profits.

[ihavenobias]

6. Interesting

that your *very first post* is a non-defense defense of Big Oil.

So then, I assume you support the $13 billion (or was it 14, I can't remember now) tax break for Big Oil that the Republicans insisted on in the last energy bill?

Also, since the poor oil businesses are struggling to get by, I assume you'd like to explain the pay of some of the top executives at Exxon/Mobil? After all, if their company isn't earning "excessive" profits, I'm assuming that is reflected in what must surely be modest pay for their top employees.

On an unrelated note, I wonder how much has changed since 2005? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

[peapod]

8. Interesting indeed; thank you for reading

It's my first post because I only stubmled across this web site today. Again, my objective in writing the post was not to defend the oil industry, but rather to point out that profits need to be considered in the context of an industry's (or company's) capital intensity.

To help me make this real, which industry do you think is more profitable?

Industry A: annual profit = $10 bn; capital employed = $100 bn

Industry B: annual profit = $1 bn; capital employed = $5 bn


Industry B is far more profitable and a much better business than industry A. Industry B's return on capital is 20% whereas Industry A' return on capital is 10%. The fact that Industry A's profits are "larger" than industry B is irrelevant, and only useful in making derogatory and factually incorrect comments regarding Industry A

With regard to the tax breaks, I am against corporate taxes of any kind. Corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes, either customers of the corporation or shareholders of the corporation. I am against corporate taxes because they are indirect taxes, i.e. they are not transparent to those people being taxed.

I am not saying that the oil companies are "struggling to get by"; those are your words. I merely said that the oil industry earns its cost of capital, which is the minimum level of profitability that every company/industry must realize.

With regard to high executive pay, that is an unrelated matter. The aggregate salaries of the top executives are not a meaningful driver of the industry's profits one way or the other. Is executive pay excessive in corporate America? Yes.

[ihavenobias]

9. That's a common (conservative) argument

the idea that "corporations don't pay taxes, people do".

It's a bunch of BS in my opinion. If you're referring to the shareholders, I can't say I'm too worried about them. After all, they've been enjoying a 15% tax on their passive income while the rest of us pay quite a bit more for actually *working* for a living.

Also, while it's technically true that over half of all Americans own some stock (53% if I remember correctly), it's also true that it's at levels of $10,000 or less. In other words, the argument that *most* people are hurt by higher corporate taxes is, again, a bunch of BS.

Consider the fact that in the 50's, the federal government derived 33% of it's money from corporate taxes (check out the article "Welcome To Richistan, USA"). As of 2005 that amount was down to 7.4% and is probably even lower today (Who do you think makes up the difference?). Also consider that 82 of America's largest corporations paid NO TAXES during one of the first three years of the Bush administration. Have millions of good jobs with solid wages and benefits been created due to much, much lower tax rates on corporations since the 80's when Reagan slashed corporate tax rates (not to mention the top marginal tax rate on the rich)?

The answer is a resounding NO.

PS---Did you know that an enormous number of Wal-Mart employees (to name the best example after having watched the BraveNewFilms documentary on Wal-Mart last night) are using government programs to make up for the awful pay and expensive/lack of benefits? Wal-Mart used to (and may still even after this 2005 movie) provide employees with lists of information on various government programs they could use.

In other words, yes, when corporations aren't taxed enough and or they don't provide adequate compensation for employees, people DO end up paying in the end because we make up the difference with our tax dollars! Not to mention the fact that we shoulder the tax-cost for the wear on tear on our infrastructure (all of the heavy trucks used to transport corporate goods on our roads, etc.) and cleaning up their pollution. These passed on costs (aka, externalities) are part of the hidden cost most Americans are sadly unaware of.

And you want to get rid of corporate taxes? I'm sorry, but it's an absurd proposition.

[peapod]

10. corporations don't pay taxes; people do

the tax on shareholders is not just the 15% on dividends, it is the 35% corporate tax rate on profits. profits attributable to common shareholders are after corporate income taxes. the 15% tax on dividends is on top of the 35% corporate tax.
The prices that corporations charge for their goods and services incorporate the cost of corporate income taxes. Consumers and shareholders pay the tax, not the corporation.

You can dismiss the idea that only people pay taxes if you like, but it is an irrefutable fact.

your statement regarding share ownership is inaccurate. everybody that has a 401-K or a defined benefit pension plan is heavily invested in stocks.

[ihavenobias]

11. Enough Conservative Spin, How About Some Facts?

Why are you leaving out the huge subsidies for industries like Big Oil? The $13-14 billion or so in the last energy bill being one example? Or the the fact that 82 of the largest corporations paid NO TAXES AT ALL in one of the first 3 years of the Bush administration.

You also ignore the fact that corporations benefit tremendously from our tax dollars, disproportionately so. The wear and tear on our roads from their good transporting trucks, the pollution they pump into our air and water, the government provided stable form of currency that allows for business transactions, the legal system that allows them to enforce contracts, and of course, a huge pool of *publicly* educated workers they can hire (again, all on *our* dime).

Not to mention (again) that since profits are the #1 motive (by law), mega corporations like Wal-Mart pay next to nothing (and have no and or expensive benefits and define "full time" as 28 hours a week to skew statistics) and many of their employees end up on tax-payer funded, government programs like WIC!

It's absolutely INSANE to argue for no corporate taxes in this big picture context. The bottom line is that people who argue that the economy is good from the narrow perspective of how Wall Street is doing (and or based on GDP) are ignoring how well the *average* person is doing. To that point, corporate tax rates were much higher prior to Reagan (as were income taxes, particularly on the rich) and the middle class was doing MUCH better.

You want even more damning evidence and facts (as opposed to just generic generalizations about how "people pay taxes, not corporations"?):

"...From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.)

But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.

The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005. It’s incredible but true: ***90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period***.

Mr. Johnston does not mince words: “The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half — for all practical purposes, the poor — are being savaged by our current economic policies.”..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19herbert.html?em&ex=1200891600&en=e84c9fb476b7ff29&ei=5087%0A

[peapod]

12. Haves and Have Nots

The statutory corporate tax rate is 35%. If a company pays no taxes, it is because they have tax loss carry-forwards, or investment tax credits. General Motors pays no taxes, yes indeed. But that's because General Motors has tens of billions of cumulative losses on its balance sheet.

Your statement regrding the "benefits corporations receive from our tax dollars" borders on the absurd. Do you live in a house or in a cave? Do you drive an automobile or do you walk everywhere with bark lashed to your soles? Do you wear clothes or a loin cloth? Do you eat food from the US food supply or do you eat berries and leaves? Have you ever flown anywhere? Have you ever watched television, a movie, or read a good book? Do you listen to music?
Our standard of living in the United States is a direct result of the activities of corporate America, large and small.

The reason that incomes have stagnated for the unskilled, lower-educated lower/middle class is due to globalization, period. Incomes for educated Americans have risen dramatically for the same reason. The unskilled and uneducated in the US are now competing against hundreds of millions of people (Asia, Mexico, etc.) with whom they previously did not compete. That said, everyone in the US benefits from the new, low cost of source of labor, including the unskilled an uneducated.

The answers to your grievances regarding income distribution are EDUCATION, and tax policies that encourage capital formation in industries that require educated labor. There is no other solution to the issue.

[ihavenobias]

13. And here I thought Milton Friedman was dead?

Why do my *facts* about how corporations benefit from (tax funded) government "border on the absurd"? Because they contradict your personal beliefs?

It's funny how you said that "incomes have stagnated for the unskilled, lower-educated/middle class" while "incomes for educated Americans have risen dramatically".

Apparently you completely and utterly ignored the article excerpt in my previous post which directly contradicts your(unsupported) claim. Unless you believe that NINETY PERCENT of America is "uneducated"?

Here it is again:

"...From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.)

But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.

The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005. It’s incredible but true: ***90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period***.

Mr. Johnston does not mince words: “The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half — for all practical purposes, the poor — are being savaged by our current economic policies.”..."

PS---You do realize this is *Democratic* Underground and not Conservative Underground right? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind correcting your false, factually unsupported claims.

[ihavenobias]

14. "Free" Trade

I will say there IS an education gap in this country, but what is the conservative answer? Vouchers? Please!

We have people like Bill Gates asking for MORE Imported skilled labor, often from more *progressive* countries that offer cheap/free higher education. It seems obvious that if we were serious about global competitiveness, we'd adopt similar policies here and make our higher education as cheap as possible (if not free in some cases).

Another reason we're in trouble in the US? We're competing with countries that offer universal health care. How about rather than cutting taxes, we create a universal health care plan which would reduce a huge burden from employers *while actually helping most Americans*.

But no, the conservative answer is always just "cut taxes", as if that's some kind of panacea. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so pervasive and destructive.

Some people just don't seem to understand that a population of healthy, educated people would be more productive and competitive, not to mention the fact that they'd also likely be more responsible in general. And of course, happier. Something about health problems that makes it hard to turn that frown upside down.

[navarth]

19. good grief

I'm glad peapod is NOT defending the oil companies...

Them there workin' people has to get more ejumacation in order to compete with the overseas slave labor....what a warm hearted guy. Enjoy your profits, hope they keep you warm at night

[Extend a Hand]

15. I want that deal...

Where I just get taxed on 35% of my profits rather my revenue!!!

[USA_1]

7. It's Time For An Excess Profits Tax ...

... that will end the deficit.

The Dems, if they are smart, will not stand up and applaud Bush during his speech. If they applaud, then they have no complaint about his lies and phony pro-war, pro-corporate welfare policies.

[Extend a Hand]

16. It's time to end corporate personhood

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/edwards_morgan_corporate.html

What would change if corporations did not have personhood? The first and main effect would be that a barrier would be removed that is preventing democratic change - just as the abolition of slavery tore down an insurmountable legal block, making it possible to pass laws to provide full rights to the newly freed slaves. After corporate personhood is abolished, new legislation will be possible. Here are a few examples. If "corporate persons" no longer had First Amendment right of free speech, we could prohibit all corporate political activity, such as lobbying and contributions to political candidates and parties. If "corporate persons" were not protected against search without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, then corporate managers couldn't turn OSHA and the EPA inspectors away if they make surprise, unscheduled searches. If "corporate persons" weren't protected against discrimination under the 14th Amendment, corporations like Wal-Mart couldn't force themselves into communities that don't want them.

[ihavenobias]

17. Exactly

Thom Hartmann does a great job speaking to this issue.

PS---To the conservative in this thread, I would point out that since a corporation is viewed as a person under the law and since you argue only people pay taxes...well, apparently we don't disagree after all. ;)

[water]

18. He sounds pretty libertarian here.

[Up2Late]

20. OMG.

I've never even made $75,000.00 in on YEAR, let alone On Minute!:banghead: :mad: