GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,915 Posts
Glad to see someone else jump in the ring. Scary thing is it's going to be a long time till this starts to have an impact at the retail level. Til then I guess it will be more of the same BIG OIL --> "No our profits by percentage are in alignment with other companies".

Last time we checked, wealth or value wasn't calculated as a percentage.

Example of business revenue and profit. Business A revenues were 100k, profit was 10k. Profit percentage is 10%.

Business B has revenues of a billion dollars they profit 100 million. Business B's profit percentage is 10% and in direct alignment by percentage to business A. When measured in quantity dollar for dollar business B had $99,990,000.00 more in profit than business A. So using Big Oil's terms, "profits are in alignment" doesn't exactly... well no it simply doesn't fit.

Since Big Oil likes to use percentages try this one on for "direct alignment" Business A had a profit by percentages of one hundredth of a percent or .01% when compared to business B's total profit.

Go ethanol, go something other than oil.... :cool:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
joemac, you lost me... each company is looking at their ROI (Return on Investment). While I have not looked into it, isn't the "BIG OIL" talking about their ROI? If it is, then alignment is precisely how they look at it in any industry.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,987 Posts
joemac, you lost me... each company is looking at their ROI (Return on Investment). While I have not looked into it, isn't the "BIG OIL" talking about their ROI? If it is, then alignment is precisely how they look at it in any industry.
For the record, I want the oil companies to keep prices up and getting crazy profits. If the price of petroleum drops, millions of dollars of investment in alternative energy will just go away.

And of course, the easiest thing for the politicians to do in order to lower costs to consumers is cut fuel taxes, but no Democrat or Republican wants to do that, because that would mean they have to cut spending.

But that said, I think ROI is a very poor way to measure the situation. If Microsoft prices their products too high, people will switch to Linux, Mac, or just use the older Microsoft stuff. If Walmart prices their things too high, people will shop at Target or Costco or some other store. If car prices increase too much, people will keep their previous cars or buy used. All of those events would be a major or minor drain on the economy.

When the price of oil goes up, currently there is no alternative. It's a very damaging drag on the entire US economy. In other words, the oil industry as a whole has become a type of monopoly. I think measuring monopolies by the same standards as other competitors is not reasonable.

(Although again, I think the best thing for the government to do is nothing. As long as prices are up on petroleum, the monopoly might be broken by the free market through alternative competition.)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
FWIW, ROI (or ROCE - Return on Capital Employed) is actually a really good way to measure the reasonability (normality) of a company's profits,

ExxonMobil just recently released their 2007 financial report. ROCE for the year was right around 32% (which is in line with 2006 and 2005 results, but well ahead of 2004 and 2003 results (both were closer to 20%) and far beyond where they were in the 90's, when they were earning returns in the single digits.

What this means on a practical basis is that for each dollar ExxonMobil invests in their business they earn about 32 cents each year. This would be the equivalent of you buying stock in a company and its value increasing by 32% annually (ie: 100 invested today is worth 132 after one year) or getting a 32% interest rate on your savings account.

PS. I am not "against" oil company profits, just correcting the record about exactly how profitable they are. Oil is a risky business, and for a long time these companies were barely breaking even.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
And of course, the easiest thing for the politicians to do in order to lower costs to consumers is cut fuel taxes, but no Democrat or Republican wants to do that, because that would mean they have to cut spending.

Fuel taxes are already too low.

Every penny of taxes you pay on gas go to highway construction and maintenance, and even still all those fuel taxes are barely able to pay for 40% of that construction and maintenance. IMHO Fuel taxes should be adjusted annually by the federal government to pay for 100% of all highway maintenance and construction. This was the original intent of fuel taxes, but huckster politicians have been afraid to raise the gas taxes because they are so visible. They prefer instead to borrow money from the Chinese to build our roads, and then have our kids pay the Chinese back with interest.

Call me crazy but I have always been a pay my own way kind of guy. I'd rather not pass on all this debt to our kids.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,987 Posts
SJZ3,

I thought our gas taxes paid for 100% of the road construction and maintenance with surplus left over. If you're right, then I agree with you - gas taxes should be used to fund the infrastructure. That seems the most fair way.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top