Exxon Profits = $1,318.00 Per SECOND.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]293251[/snapback]</div>

I am not privy to the gaap rules that are applied to publicly held firms but would guess that any r&d or related costs are recognized in the period in which they are expensed so when one says that "we have to compare the concimitant costs" in order to get a true value of net profit, I just don't think that's so. So far as I am aware, net profit is what it means - net profit. You can be sure that no matter the method of accounting they select for their tax basis, they are expenses whatever they're able in the period recognized.

I, for one am content with the price of a gallon of gas. I think it's the only way to shift an over consumptive world (and mainly the US) to alter their usage. Plus, and I know some argue this point, it's a limited resource and it should be respected as such. So far as I'm concerned, all natural resources should be expensive.

 

Someone out there is probably better at the math than me... but $1,318/second profits and 9.9% profit turns into the following... I think...

Income of $14,631 per second.
Expenses of $13,313 per second..

Profit of $1318 per second.

Anyone here have expenses of $13,000 a second?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 27 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]293226[/snapback]</div>

inflation in science in general is getting ridiculous. equipment cost is high. reagent cost is pretty high for some things as well. for example, i spent well over half of what i make in a month on 4 mL total of antibody yesterday.

see, here's the thing i don't get. and this is bounding way out of topic and onto evan's train of thought here. but hell, like we've ever been known for staying on topic here at PC anyway...

big pharma goes on about the millions it invests in drugs that don't make it, or have some delay in or decreased profit, or whatever, and use that as a reason for their prices on drugs that do get through. and they defend their patents to the death... they want to charge whatever they demand on their drugs for as long as possible. now partly i can see why- after the patent expires the generic versions come out for a tiny fraction of the cost and they lose out on lots of profit. well, except for the folks who just keep on getting the brand name for whatever reason but i won't get into that rant today.

so what about the millions if not billions they spend on advertising here in the US that they don't do in other countries? how about the commercials that unabashedly SOLICIT you with "call your doctor and ask if Drug A and Drug B are right for you!" how about hiring minor celebrities and sponsoring NASCAR cars? hey guys why aren't you using THAT money to recoup your r/d costs if you're that hard up?

go ahead and charge $60 a pill for viagra. you can live without it. but the cancer patient is already getting screwed over from 15 different directions...

there goes my timer so i guess this ends here. rant over.

 

Love this quote from the cnn link,

You need oil to produce ethanol!!!

 

Squid, prices in Saudi and Venezuela are below cost, heavily subsidized by the government. Why don't you move there?

High prices are necessary for us to continue to get oil:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/042_print.html

Nate

 

I don't think anybody ever said we are running out... I for one believe that supply is currently increasing, but demand is increasing also... (the whole "peak" oil thing...

Nate

 

You know, I don't like the oil companies any more than average joe on the street - maybe less, because I have so many friends who work for them =( I just think it's sort of silly to complain that they're making money. That's sort of their purpose, when you get down to it. They do it in despicable ways, sometimes, but so do many, many multinational companies. I fail to see how this is surprising. What, you give a damn now because you can see it in your pocket this time? Lovely....

EDIT: I don't get it. Whether we're running out of oil now or not, it's a finite resource. As I recall, each year we burn something like a million years worth of Earth's sunlight - it's not going to work forever. It's a resource that has begun to cost us monetarily, and has negative effects on our health and the environment. We are finding new ways to produce energy using sustainable, low impact sources. There are now solar products on the market that (even without subsidies!) beat out buying utility power over the expected lifespan of the unit. We're a little behind on cars, but we're getting there, right? The next logical step is for us to begin shifting subsidies from 'outdated' technology to new technology. Better yet, stop with the subsidies altogether, and let the market handle it. Exxon should be frantically working on either new fuel technology and/or more efficient ways to use current fuels. They have no incentive to change the status quo, though, and they're making money hand over fist. Why are we surprised that they don't feel like changing things?

 

that's why I bought stock a while ago!!!!! can't beat 'em- join 'em!

BP and the others are right behind!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]293224[/snapback]</div>

Then why haven't the Mormons converted me yet?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Trinity @ Jul 30 2006, 04:58 PM) [snapback]294787[/snapback]</div>

And Islam has not converted me, either

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 27 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]293295[/snapback]</div>

And what makes you think "tort reform" will address any of this?

If medicare reform and bankruptcy reform are any indication, tort reform will be written by lawyers to benefit lawyers. In which case...do the math. You know who will get screwed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 27 2006, 09:27 AM) [snapback]293226[/snapback]</div>

I have to agree with you here. But we beat up on the "big drug companies" every now and then too.

The other problem the oil industry has is that the price at the pump lags the production costs by 8 to 12 weeks, and is priced at the current cost-per-barrel, as its impossible to try and follow that barrel of oil through the pipeline, refinery, and into your tank. It all evens out over a longer time period. But when a barrel of oil rises 10%, retail prices rise that much, and the gross margin rises too. The reverse happens when the price per barrel weakens; retail prices go down, but the costs may actually be going up in a volatile market. But you won't see the headlines when their gross profit falls to the historic 5% or lower.

The press does a horrible job in reporting financial issues except in the financial journals like the WSJ and Barron's. But even then, the "regular" papers and news outlets will cherry pick the stats and focus on "record profits" (a meaningless phrase).

 

Our newspaper company, Scripps News, made over 25% profit last year, compared to 8% for Exxon. Why didn't they report their own obscene profits, ripping off every worker (majority of subscribers) and small business owner (majority of advertisers)? Oh yeah, they are the reporters. Who watches the watchers?

Bruce (work for one of the last family owned heavy manufacturers in the U.S.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 31 2006, 09:01 PM) [snapback]295556[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(engnrng @ Jul 31 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]295563[/snapback]</div>

I work for a privately held American owned manufacturer too; in fact, they are a UAW unionized shop (the parent company, not our subsidiary), but they have nothing to do with autos. They also have healthy margins, but since they are private, it doesn't have to be disclosed.