Bush rejects tax on oil companies' windfall profits

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
[quote name='CNN.com'] President Bush on Friday rejected calls to tax oil companies' record profits fueled by high oil prices but said he expects those companies to re-invest those profits into alternative fuels and new energy technologies.[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/28/congress.oil/index.html




he expects those companies to re-invest those profits into alternative fuels and new energy technologies.
Click to expand...
:rofl:


Here's more to add:

Chevron's profit soars 49%

Exxon Mobil's first-quarter profit was nearly a billion dollars more than the same quarter a year earlier
 
It's probably a good idea not to impose a windfall tax. Fuel produced from corn or other renewable sources, which hovers above $3 a gallon, will bury the oil companies if they don't get smart.

I think this is the real issue I have a problem with:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats want to roll back billions in tax breaks for oil companies.
Click to expand...

Why are oil companies receiving corporate welfare? Ridiculous!

Also, we need investigations as to whether there is collusion and price-fixing, and if we find evidence, we need to haul the oil company CEOs into congress.
 
I'm glad Dubya is refusing to do anything about this so that the constituents will let Congress know how they feel in November. :lol:
 
Yes, please do not tax the windfall profits. We all know that the oil companies will do the right thing

[quote name='CNN Money']
Testy from the start

Even before the remarks got started, Democrats and Republicans debated whether the executives should have to swear to tell the truth before the panel.
Alaska Republican Stevens, head of the Senate Commerce Committee, rejected calls by some Democrats to have the executives sworn in, saying the law already required them to tell the truth.
Hawaii's Inouye, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the CEOs should want to testify under oath.
"If I were a witness I would prefer to be sworn in so the public knows what I was about to say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," he said. "If I were a witness I would demand to take the oath."[/quote]
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/09/news/economy/oil_hearing/index.htm

They can't even swear under oath so why the fuck would you trust them?
 
[quote name='camoor'] which hovers above $3 a gallon, will bury the oil companies if they don't get smart.[/quote]
Don't know where you got that estimate, currently those forms of energy dominate the brazilian market and according to a brizilians I know its comes out to $1.70 give or take. Although maybe thats just brazil, i dunno just food for thought.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']Don't know where you got that estimate, currently those forms of energy dominate the brazilian market and according to a brizilians I know its comes out to $1.70 give or take. Although maybe thats just brazil, i dunno just food for thought.[/quote]

Biodiesel can cost as much as a $1 a gallon more than regular diesel when pure, though it is typically sold as B20. Prices vary depending on volume and region, and new tax incentives are aimed at closing the cost gap. BioWillie was selling for $2.37 a gallon yesterday in Carl's Corner, Mr. Nelson's own truck stop in Texas that serves as headquarters of his year-old company, Willie Nelson BioDiesel. That was just 4 cents more than the conventional diesel selling at another station nearby.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/business/30biowillie.html?ex=1293598800&en=3b0ae71846ac300a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Soooo - you can assume that tax incentives have been built into the $2.37 price. Plus, most of us don't drive buses or trucks - I'm not sure but that probably means we have to buy the more expensive pure biowillie version. I'm sure there are other alt-fuels out there, I just think Biowilile is the most recognized (plus imagine having a car running on hemp - far out - I can hear the heads of every Republican board member exploding right now)

It's not unusual for South American countries to heavily subsidise fuel, I don't know what Brazil's deal is though.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']Don't know where you got that estimate, currently those forms of energy dominate the brazilian market and according to a brizilians I know its comes out to $1.70 give or take. Although maybe thats just brazil, i dunno just food for thought.[/QUOTE]

It's probably $1.70 a liter, not gallon.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's probably a good idea not to impose a windfall tax. Fuel produced from corn or other renewable sources, which hovers above $3 a gallon, will bury the oil companies if they don't get smart.
[/quote]

Exactly it's the same with plastic production, we know of other ways to make plastics from corn but at the moment gasoline is still the cheapest method.
 
From the Taxfoundation.org

With BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Shell reporting record profits, the Tax Foundation reminds us in its latest Fiscal Fact that the biggest beneficiaries of gasoline sales are federal and state governments, not the oil industry:

High gas prices and strong oil company earnings have generated a rash of new tax proposals in recent months. Some lawmakers have called for new “windfall profits” taxes—similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter—that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50%. Meanwhile, many commentators have voiced support for the idea of increasing gas taxes to keep the price of gasoline at post-Katrina highs, thereby reducing gas consumption. However, often ignored in this debate is the fact that oil industry profits are highly cyclical, making them just as prone to “busts” as to “booms.” Additionally, tax collections on the production and import of gasoline by state and federal governments are already near historic highs. In fact, in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits....

[F]ederal and state taxes on gasoline production and imports have been climbing steadily since the late 1970s and now total roughly $58.4 billion. Due in part to substantial hikes in the federal gasoline excise tax in 1983, 1990, and 1993, annual tax revenues have continued to grow. Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period.
Click to expand...

(bold emphasis MINE)

Companies in the oil industry are looking at about 7 cents on the dollar profit currently. The average for all industries across the board? 6.8 cents on the dollar. The gov't take of profit via various taxes currently? Somewhere around 50 cents on the dollar (for doing absolutely nothing other than TAKING the money via tax. no development, production, distribution, etc)

So yes, lets just give old Uncle Sam even more money for nothing and add more taxes on the oil industry. Surely that will help lower prices. /sarcasm off

Do people even know what basic economics are about? Walter Williams should be required reading in every single american grade school, junior high school, high school, and college.
 
Walter Williams? He's the Big Mac of economists, he's a condescending buffoon whose lessons never go beyond the simple philosophical realm of "rational choice" (and don't get me started on the uselessness of rational choice as an explanatory factor), and there are better economists out there for you. I recommend picking up a book instead of reading one man's weekly op-ed and declaring yourself an economist.

Now, if what you argue about the cyclical nature of profits is true (and I'm highly suspect of that, like I'm highly suspect of the biased interest group website you gleaned this information from - I don't cite "The Nation" in the vs forum, so I'd expect others to stick to similar means of ettiquette here), then oil profits, longitudinially should go up as often as they go down. Right? The old 'ebb and flow' analogy. It should also be related to the price of oil. The farthest back I can go without coffee (and my morning FFXI session) is to cite this data which shows the price of a gallon of gas three years back. With the exception of Katrina, there is a very clear and one-directional increase in the price. Would that I could go back farther.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24

Tell you what. I don't believe your argument at all, that oil profits are cyclical (you just want to defend the private rights to profits and disdain government taxation of oil companies, and live in your false world of "one is always good and one is always bad" and all the associated elements of intellectual simplicity). So, show me the last time in the past decade or two where an oil company didn't make their forecasted profit. When they lost money for a quarter, or growth was marginal. When the executives didn't get a bonus because of poor stock performance due to poor market performance.

Because, in this cultural era, people are finally waking up to the exploitation that they are feeling at the hands of the oil industry, and I'd argue the burden of proof is on you, since you're making a claim that's absolutely laughable.

Then again, perhaps the "downflow" for oil companies is a shitty quarter like this, where net profits were up 49%. Poor bastards. ;)

And, as I said in another thread a week ago, if you want to eliminate government taxation of gas, be my guest - but tell me how you're going to pay for road construction and maintenance? Really, the "oil companies make X per gallon, while the government makes 2-3X per gallon" argument is asinine (one s for future reference) in the sense that you're comparing two organizations with entirely different interests - one being profit, and one being paying for the roads we drive on. Perhaps you want the CEO of ExxonMobil to cough up some of his $400 million pension to pay to have your potholes filled once your state can no longer afford to fill them? Best of luck, because, as a staunch laissez-faire capitalist yourself, you shouldn't expect any help from him. Or anyone. Fill those potholes yourself!
 
The issue isn't that gov't taxes gasoline.

The issue is that gov't makes nearly 10x the profit on a gallon of gas via taxes than the oil companies are making--------- yet it is the OIL companies that are being treated as gouging profiteers.

If you want to hate "big business", go ahead. But let's not mask it with some kind of David vs. Goliath victimology.

Those big businesses are what push the economy forward. Profit is what drives people to make things, do things, and invent better ways for their fellow man. Not caring about others, but caring about profits for themselves.


Nobody holds you hostage to "big oil". Nobody. You don't have to drive a car. You don't have to work anywhere outside 5 miles from your home. Those are decisions you make personally, and you get to own the consequences. If it's paying for gas to drive wherever, whenever you want, that is the breaks.

I think the demonizing of big industries is simply politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator. Talk that social marxism to college kids that are too stupid to know it doesn't fly.

Big business in general is what drives this country and has made it the most prosperous nation to ever cross the face of the earth.
 
[quote name='penmyst']

Do people even know what basic economics are about? Walter Williams should be required reading in every single american grade school, junior high school, high school, and college.[/quote]
Here is the first thing you'll learn in Principles of Economics 101. It's called the laws of supply and demand. As an advocate of teaching economics in all educational institutions and being such an economic theory enthusiast, I find it hard to believe that you dont question the obvious problem of how supply has remained constant from just 1 year ago and demand has remained constant from 1 year ago, yet the price to the consumer has raised steeply and the profits for oil companies have increased exponentially (for the exact same quarter 1 year ago).

I defy you to enlighten the rest of us.

And it may interest you to know who the founding father of the Tax Foundation is:

William S. Farish, Standard Oil Company, President

I'm not saying that makes them less legitimate in the information you've cited from them. But I just thought it was an interesting nugget of information.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Here is the first thing you'll learn in Principles of Economics 101. It's called the laws of supply and demand. As an advocate of teaching economics in all educational institutions and being such an economic theory enthusiast, I find it hard to believe that you dont question the obvious problem of how supply has remained constant from just 1 year ago and demand has remained constant from 1 year ago, yet the price to the consumer has raised steeply and the profits for oil companies have increased exponentially (for the exact same quarter 1 year ago).[/QUOTE]

Really, supply and demand have remained constant from last year to this? Did you just pull that "fact" out of your ass or what?
 
[quote name='penmyst']The issue isn't that gov't taxes gasoline.

The issue is that gov't makes nearly 10x the profit on a gallon of gas via taxes than the oil companies are making--------- yet it is the OIL companies that are being treated as gouging profiteers.

If you want to hate "big business", go ahead. But let's not mask it with some kind of David vs. Goliath victimology.

Those big businesses are what push the economy forward. Profit is what drives people to make things, do things, and invent better ways for their fellow man. Not caring about others, but caring about profits for themselves.


Nobody holds you hostage to "big oil". Nobody. You don't have to drive a car. You don't have to work anywhere outside 5 miles from your home. Those are decisions you make personally, and you get to own the consequences. If it's paying for gas to drive wherever, whenever you want, that is the breaks.

I think the demonizing of big industries is simply politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator. Talk that social marxism to college kids that are too stupid to know it doesn't fly.

Big business in general is what drives this country and has made it the most prosperous nation to ever cross the face of the earth.[/QUOTE]

Don't you dare talk about democrats' condescension towards the public. "Guns, God, and Gays" is really all I need to say about that.

Your discourse is merely nothing more than conservative economic philosophy that is completely removed from reality. You talk about government "profit" as if it's something split amongst shareholders in a traditional joint-stock corporation. You, like bmulligan, can't resolve your demands for government fiscal security and big business' demands for ever greater profits. How do you prefer your government to spend its money? To cut policies entirely like pell grants, like afdc, like social security, in order to balance the budget; or, would you prefer that the government, YOUR elected officials, YOUR representatives, and the people in control of YOUR money, look after it somewhat more responsibly and actually engage in pricing/payment negotiations with the corporations you laud? Why should we embrace such corporations when their quest for profits comes at the clear expense of your well being? Who makes up the millions in tax breaks given to companies with BILLION dollar net fucking profit quarters? The french fry industry? The United Way?

No, foolio - YOU do. I do. We all do. Your understanding of economics is so shortsighted, incomplete, and limited to the Sunday paper that you can't understand or comprehend that your apple/oranges comparison is not only completely incorrect in its basis, but also devoid of the reality that you're comparing two fundamentally different organizations.

If you don't like the government tax structure on oil here, go move to Europe. Hell, go move anywhere, for that matter.

And, for future reference, don't waste your breath trying to bait me with your "Marxist" barbs. You haven't the slightest clue about fundamental understandings of economics, and thus I'm certain that you can't quite grasp Marx's criticisms of capitalism. Here's a little secret that you and your ilk are afraid to grasp: capitalism ain't perfect.



BOO!
 
[quote name='penmyst']You don't have to drive a car. You don't have to work anywhere outside 5 miles from your home. Those are decisions you make personally, and you get to own the consequences. [/quote]

Haha .. you obviously live in a city. I live in the boondocks where I have to drive well more than 5 miles just to get to a grocery store, let alone a job. And that goes for most of the people in the entire county I live in. So not having a car is simply not an option.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, did you even read that article? Here are some quotes for you:



So what was that about supply and demand remaining constant again?[/quote]

The main page article you just cited was tracking figures from the past 2 months, not the past year (Note it was written in April, discussing sales in March). And the point of that link was the charts on the right.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And, for future reference, don't waste your breath trying to bait me with your "Marxist" barbs. You haven't the slightest clue about fundamental understandings of economics, and thus I'm certain that you can't quite grasp Marx's criticisms of capitalism. Here's a little secret that you and your ilk are afraid to grasp: capitalism ain't perfect.

BOO![/QUOTE]

Uh, oh, someone stepped on Myke's pinko pinky toe. How dare anyone criticize Marx, he really had something there if any one could really understand him.

God knows that "rational" and "choice" are the two most important concepts Myke must destroy in order for his socialist, granola eating utopia to finally come to fruition. Anyone who would put both of them in a sentence, much less make a concept of both words together, must be an idiot.

Myke's an expert at attacking the weak sophomorisms of the under-acedemiated and hurling them back with a two dollar thesaurus for effect. It is ironic, though, that Myke would brow beat someone who takes the word of a professor as having some semblance of truth, as Myke himself hailes from the hallowed acedemic halls. But when that professor is on the other side of the political spectrum, it's to be expected. After all, the research in economics of a sociology major is much more experienced and hallowed as that of an economics professor.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Uh, oh, someone stepped on Myke's pinko pinky toe. How dare anyone criticize Marx, he really had something there if any one could really understand him.

God knows that "rational" and "choice" are the two most important concepts Myke must destroy in order for his socialist, granola eating utopia to finally come to fruition. Anyone who would put both of them in a sentence, much less make a concept of both words together, must be an idiot.[/quote]

Off the record and full disclosure: granola for breakfast this morning. :mrgreen:

Truth be told, it's an easy point of contention for me. That is correct. However, to be incredibly sophomoric, "I didn't start it." What I'm tired of is this dichotomous treatment of people as if they were inherently good and/or bad. It's not like all free-market capitalists must adore every word that Adam Smith wrote. Likewise with Marx ('cept the capitalist part). Marx was a philosopher, and the irony that a certain type of statism is the thing that is perpetually associated with his legacy; his writings were criticisms of modern capitalism, but he never offered any conrete discussion of what we know today as "communism."

Now, to be sure, his writings are the inspiration for what evolved, of course, but his detail about communism boils down to this: once the "proletariat" develops mass consciousness to their collective exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisise, there will be a very bloody revolution and then...communism. It's quite a letdown, and it's quite possibly the least substantive thing he writes. It's level of abstractness is incredible.

At any rate, his other writings criticized feudalism, the separation of a worker from his work, his disregarding of religion (and race, and gender, and pretty much anything other than the economic relationship within a society). In short, even I rarely agree with Marx, but I'm tired of people using "Marxist" so incorrectly. One is a Marxist if their view of the world concerns examining how a combination of power and wealth distribution, in concert with a particular type of economy, shapes relationships in society. One is not a Marxist, to be clear, if they want the government to mandate and regulate every aspect of every citizens' life. It's nowhere in his writings.

I don't care about being called a "Marxist," but don't use it so incorrectly; it exhibits your willingness to use words describing philosophers you haven't read.

Myke's an expert at attacking the weak sophomorisms of the under-acedemiated and hurling them back with a two dollar thesaurus for effect. It is ironic, though, that Myke would brow beat someone who takes the word of a professor as having some semblance of truth, as Myke himself hailes from the hallowed acedemic halls. But when that professor is on the other side of the political spectrum, it's to be expected. After all, the research in economics of a sociology major is much more experienced and hallowed as that of an economics professor.
Click to expand...

I'll attack him despite any credence he may have. He may be a excellent economist, but he's more well known as a Limbaughian-lapdog and Sunday editorial writer. In regards to the latter, they often and consistently contain rudimentary economics lessons (e.g., taking 400-1000 words to explain Freidman's notion that "there is no free lunch"), and are thus written to the lowest common denominator. It's certainly not enlightening, though some people who would be too frightened to pick up a intro to econ text might find some utility in it.
 
Anyone that thinks gov't house knows better how to spend OUR money than we (read: private individuals and businesses) do is a nutter.


And "social marxism" is a fitting description for people that live in a state of virulent hate for the "haves" in our society. Marxism was based on class conflict intentionally agitated to attack certain segments of society. Social marxism employs the same strategies across more than just the class segment of the social spectrum.


I don't have a problem with governments having to use taxes to take care of roads etc other necessary infrastructure. But for the love of all gods lets not sit around and pretend that it is the oil companies being evil and greedy for EARNING 7 cents on the dollar while we pretend that the thieves in government are pristine, chivalrous knights as pure as the wind-driven snow while they LEECH over 50 cents on that same dollar.

Politicians eat this type of nonsense up and use it to fuel their demagoguery because most of the public subscribe to the philosophy of soaking the rich or anybody else that is doing better than they are. Like somehow if the gov't raises taxes on rich people or soaks another business... it's going to put one more red cent in their personal pocket. /rolls eyes

----

I happen to like Walter Williams as an economist because he breaks down many somewhat difficult to understand economic principles into easy to understand lessons. Not everybody gets all hot and lathered up over learning about economics you know.

It's okay to disagree with his economic opinions. But personal attacks on him are a bit much.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Anyone that thinks gov't house knows better how to spend OUR money than we (read: private individuals and businesses) do is a nutter.[/QUOTE]

Let's see, the FDIC Montgomery GI Bill, highways and interstates...

BTW didnt you receive governmental assistance as a pup?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Marx was a philosopher, and the irony that a certain type of statism is the thing that is perpetually associated with his legacy; his writings were criticisms of modern capitalism, but he never offered any conrete discussion of what we know today as "communism."[/quote]

Point taken. The collective conscious connotation of his namesake may be a hackneyed misnomer. However, his life's work was to destroy capitalism, therefore, the label is usually apropos.

Human beings are motivated by philosophy and those that follow the doctrines of his "observations" can and should be labled for what they are, and not simply as biproducts of a misinterpreted philosophy. When Marx's can completely blank out the concept of "wealth" in it's intrinsic immeasurable sense in a civilization
and dismiss it as a "surplus value" or a measure of worker exploitation, it's clear that he has no intention of granting any moral justification of personal gain, profit, or even recognizing the elevated standard of living as a societal whole as an additional reward for one's work. To Marx, the zero sum gain is his ideal and basis for his economic theory, the surplus is a measure of how someone is getting screwed by the "bourgeois". But capitalism cannot conform to his closed definition of production and his complete rejection of the human capacity for creation and ingenuity.

In regards to the latter, they often and consistently contain rudimentary economics lessons (e.g., taking 400-1000 words to explain Freidman's notion that "there is no free lunch"), and are thus written to the lowest common denominator. It's certainly not enlightening, though some people who would be too frightened to pick up a intro to econ text might find some utility in it.
Click to expand...

No offense, but most of your acedemic brethren have this deep seeded prejudice against even granting merit to an idea unless it has at least 1000 words. Writing an indecypherable essay is much more scholarly and succintness is akin to laziness.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Point taken. The collective conscious connotation of his namesake may be a hackneyed misnomer. However, his life's work was to destroy capitalism, therefore, the label is usually apropos.

Human beings are motivated by philosophy and those that follow the doctrines of his "observations" can and should be labled for what they are, and not simply as biproducts of a misinterpreted philosophy. When Marx's can completely blank out the concept of "wealth" in it's intrinsic immeasurable sense in a civilization
and dismiss it as a "surplus value" or a measure of worker exploitation, it's clear that he has no intention of granting any moral justification of personal gain, profit, or even recognizing the elevated standard of living as a societal whole as an additional reward for one's work. To Marx, the zero sum gain is his ideal and basis for his economic theory, the surplus is a measure of how someone is getting screwed by the "bourgeois". But capitalism cannot conform to his closed definition of production and his complete rejection of the human capacity for creation and ingenuity.[/quote]

It was always his willful ignorance of how a person chooses to use the opportunities they have that turned me off. In short, while peoples' opportunities vary by their class (unarguably, wealthy people have greater choice and opportunity than middle or working class), all of them have some degree of *choice*. Some use that choice to better themselves, and some use that choice to buy Marlboros, Taco Bell, and Budweiser (though I suppose that saying that doesn't "better oneself" is my value judgment ;)). That and his brushing off of issues such as race, gender, and religion as ultimately irrelevant just smacks of the arrogance of which you speak. I'm more of a fan of Anthony Giddens' "structuration," even if he's one of the most obtuse writers I've ever had the pleasure/displeasure of reading.

[quote name='bmulligan']No offense, but most of your acedemic brethren have this deep seeded prejudice against even granting merit to an idea unless it has at least 1000 words. Writing an indecypherable essay is much more scholarly and succintness is akin to laziness.[/QUOTE]

Game, set, match. Very correct, and I certainly concede that argument.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']The main page article you just cited was tracking figures from the past 2 months, not the past year (Note it was written in April, discussing sales in March). And the point of that link was the charts on the right.[/QUOTE]

Okay, let's check the charts on the right then, since they support my point and totally disprove your assertion:

supply.gif

demand.gif


It doesn't look constant to me, or maybe I'm blind?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Okay, let's check the charts on the right then, since they support my point and totally disprove your assertion:

supply.gif

demand.gif


It doesn't look constant to me, or maybe I'm blind?[/quote]

Based on those charts you're seeing a noticeable increase in demand and/or a decrease in supply from Q1 of last year to Q1 of this year?! We must have very different eyes. Cause to me it looks like supply and demand have both increased and incrementally at that.
 
[quote name='penmyst']I don't have a problem with governments having to use taxes to take care of roads etc other necessary infrastructure. But for the love of all gods lets not sit around and pretend that it is the oil companies being evil and greedy for EARNING 7 cents on the dollar while we pretend that the thieves in government are pristine, chivalrous knights as pure as the wind-driven snow while they LEECH over 50 cents on that same dollar. [/QUOTE]

There's a falsehood you're toying with in there. It's the idea that gas companies' "7 cents per dollar" earnings is either (1) true or (2) constant. If we assume the latter is true, that oil companies earn 7 cents/dollar at all times (or that, given the ebb and flow of cost, that 7 cents is the average), then how do you explain a 49% increase in net profit (several oil companies, particularly ExxonMobil, reported such an increase this quarter, and also for the previous several quarters as well).

Such growth, if we assume that your statement of their earnings is true, is only possible if the sell 49% more gasoline. That's the only possible logical explanation. UNLESS, and this is a big unless, their per dollar take increased. If their earnings per dollar increases, then they can easily match the same amount of profits by selling *less* oil than they used to, or they can *exceed* their profits by selling roughly the same amount of gas. So, with that in mind, would you like to tell me that ExxonMobil's gas sales are 150% higher than they were the past quarter? And, if they were, why isn't ExxonMobil defending their net profit increase by citing such data?

(It's because they didn't sell 150% more gas, and because their profit is an increased take per dollar).

However, I'm certain you'll continue to lambast the government for taking more than oil companies, and keep riding that apples and oranges train. Because, as we all know, both government and big business have the precise same interests in mind: the public good and profit. :rofl:
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Based on those charts you're seeing a noticeable increase in demand and/or a decrease in supply from Q1 of last year to Q1 of this year?! We must have very different eyes. Cause to me it looks like supply and demand have both increased and incrementally at that.[/QUOTE]

So millions of barrels a day is "incremental"? No wonder you interpreted the statistics that way. In any case, they are not the same, which is what you originally claimed. I will cede that it depends on your definition of "incremental" as to whether or not the increases are incremental, although I would say your definition is uncommonly accomodating in that respect.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So millions of barrels a day is "incremental"? No wonder you interpreted the statistics that way. In any case, they are not the same, which is what you originally claimed. I will cede that it depends on your definition of "incremental" as to whether or not the increases are incremental, although I would say your definition is uncommonly accomodating in that respect.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's like an eighth of an inch on my monitor. So, err, yeah, that's incremental.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, it's like an eighth of an inch on my monitor. So, err, yeah, that's incremental.[/QUOTE]

Looks to me as if demand is up nearly 2 million barrels a day and supply nearly 1 million barrels a day. Even if you define that as incremental, which I wouldn't considering that would mean demand is up 2/86 or 2.33%, surely you all realize that in such a tight market with more or less no spare production capacity this has a very large impact? Not saying that there isn't price-gouging, but that supply and demand issues are present and a big part of this as well, probably bigger than the price-gouging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top