I don’t care how much Exxon makes per second!

August 1st, 2008 | by User Imagembhunter |

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Today Exxon Mobil announced an $11.68 billion profit for the second quarter of 2008, which works out to about $1,500 per second, as the media are reporting.

This statement reminds me of the kind of envy that dripped from Microsoft articles in the 1990s.  Bill Gates’ income was a similar order of magnitude, and I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy watching him and other Microsoft brass get their feet put to the fire with antitrust questioning.  Perhaps you enjoyed it too.

I don’t feel the same way about putting the oil companies on the chopping block.  I don’t enjoy paying $4 per gallon any more than anyone else, but how is this Exxon’s fault?  It isn’t!

News articles that make a point of calculating how much Exxon Mobil made per second last quarter are aiming to get readers feeling like the oil companies are handing it to them.  Perhaps then they’ll vote for legislators who will push for a windfall profits tax.

It all really boils down to jealousy.  The have-nots will always want what the haves have, and they will encourage decision makers to enforce a moral obligation on the haves.  The oil companies researched, explored, got drilling rights, built rigs, pumped, refined, and sold, and now we’re mad that they’re making a profit?  Come on!  We have a lot of our comforts and prosperity because these folks went out to find the oil and develop the refining technology.  Before, though, they were selling it to us on the left side of the production curve.  Now that we’re around the peak, things are more expensive.  That’s not their fault.  That’s geology!

If coal becomes the fuel of choice later down the road, I suspect we’ll direct our ire toward them.  Or solar.  Or wind.  (Watch out NanoSolar and GE!  We’re coming to get you!)

Stringing up individuals and companies that bring the most value to the table isn’t the way to encourage them to work harder for our benefit.  But I’m thinking that there are enough people who would rather have someone take care of them than to be proactive about how they react to life’s events that we’ll see higher taxes on the rich and the productive.  Then, we’ll all be poorer.

Rate this:
3.8 (6 people)

  1. 15 Responses to “I don’t care how much Exxon makes per second!”

  2. By no imageJulia (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    We have a lot of our comforts and prosperity because these folks went out to find the oil and develop the refining technology.

    Ain’t that the truth!

    If you don’t want Exxon making so much money, um, how about not driving? There are alternatives! Walk… ride a bike. Eat local food, so your food doesn’t require so much gas to get to you.

    I think this is an excellent article, and finally says something different about the oil/gas prices issue.

    Rate this:
    		2.2 (3 people)

  3. By Greener Pastures on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    At the risk of getting sandblasted here:
    If Exxon were using the extra money to foot the bill for alternative technology research, instead of pushing to drill up the gulf coast of Florida, I might have a smidgeon of sympathy for them.

    Even the United Arab Emirates is putting money into exploring alternative technologies. They’re footing the bill for the first zero emissions city (see the Carnival of Personal Finance # 159 for more details.)

    They’ll always be someone out there that is going to take the money and run, without concern for others. Exxon is run by a bunch of short sighted selfish, profit mongers.

  4. By no imageRon@TheWisdomJournal (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    What gives anyone the right to tell Exxon how to spend their money? They spend billions of dollars per year in alternative energy research.

    Rate this:
    		3.3

  5. By ChristianPF on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    @Julia
    I agree we are the ones who is giving them the profit… Most of us have kind of backed ourselves into a corner by needing a car to get to a job 20 miles away or something similar, but there are always things we can do to minimize it.

    And gas is expensive, but I would rather pay a lot for it than not be able to get it at all…

  6. By no imageKem (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    Please. Give me a HUGE break.

    Oil companies are some of the most subsidized companies on earth. They get tax breaks, money to pursue new oil sources, and the government (i.e. tax dollars) ends up with the bulk of the clean up bill whenever one of their drunken captains crashes his tanker and creates an oil spill.

    Rate this:
    		3.5 (2 people)

  7. By no imagedeepali (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    I’m not sure that rising gas prices contribute to Exxon’s profits so much as their cutting corners in production. I think Exxon funds alt energy research at a lower rate than other oil companies, which is too bad for them, because oil is not the future. But survival of the fittest and all that.

    My issue with Exxon has more to do with environmental destruction and social injustice. Profit is tied up with that, because that’s where it comes from.

    But I don’t see why it is ok to criticize Microsoft for absurd profit margins, and not ok to criticize Exxon…?

    Rate this:
    		3.6 (1 person)

  8. By no image"Mo" Money (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    I agree with you completely. I wonder if the Carnegie and Rockefeller companies were defiled like the Exxon is now. I think we get too much news, and the media is trying to sell us the news instead of reporting the news. The reports I read say that the government collects more money per gallon of gas than the oil companies. So if that is true shouldn’t we be mad at our government. Oh wait, I am mad at the government.

    Rate this:
    		2.5

  9. By no imageHayden Tompkins (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    I think the point, however, is that they are heavily subsidized and reap buku tax benefits. I didn’t hate on Microsoft in the 90’s, but then again, my tax dollars weren’t being used to help them out either.

    Rate this:
    		2.5

  10. By no imageMatchesMalone (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    @Greener Pastures,

    Why don’t we take some of YOUR extra money for alternative energies. We shouldn’t take your money any more than we should take a private business’s like Exxon. Remember that Exxon is a company made up of people. That 11 billion doesn’t just go into the pockets of one guy while he sits in his board room laughing. It serves to keep the company going and provide income for the hundreds of thousands of people they employ from all walks of life. Not to mention how many people own stock in the company. Exxon has historically given out its profits as dividends, which go to such villians as retirees living on a fixed income. You would take that away from them out of spite.

    There is no alternative to oil that is ready for mass market. It will easily be 10-25 years before we are able to power our cars off of magic fusion or whatever the new technology turns out to be. In the meantime, we might as well be using our own oil rather than buying it from the middle east.

    Besides, XOM’s profit margin is a whopping 8%. That is pretty low. Investing over 140 billion dollars and only making 11 is hardly excessive.

    Rate this:
    		2.2 (4 people)

  11. By no imageMatchesMalone (Who am I?) on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    Also, good for the UAE for researching alternatives. If one of those turns out to be viable and makes them a killing I’ll be happy for them. If Exxon makes the boat by not thinking about the future, so be it. But that is not YOUR decision to make. I wouldn’t dare tell you how to spend your money, or the money that belongs to a business you started.

    If they turn out to be wrong by focusing so much of their efforts on oil, it will hurt them in the long run. They don’t need you telling them how to run their company in the meantime.

    Rate this:
    		2.1 (2 people)

  12. By Model dlya sborki on Aug 2, 2008 | Reply

    On contrast I found it is very interesting, that slowly but surely we are going to scenarion
    with Standard oil and monopoly. The price will stay and people pay extra to Big Oil. Time to invest!

  13. By no imagedeepali (Who am I?) on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply

    @ Mo Money - Standard Oil is the reason why we have antitrust laws (and why Exxon exists today). I think America just hates on anyone with too large a market share (and profits). :)

    Great book on this, by the way - The Prize.

    Re: the government getting more $$ than the oil company. At least you get something back from the government (or do you not drive on roads?). You aren’t getting much back from Exxon. So the analogy doesn’t quite work…

    Rate this:
    		3.1

  14. By no imageMoneymonk (Who am I?) on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply

    I would not mind being a shareholder

    Rate this:
    		3.2

  15. By no imagembhunter (Who am I?) on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply

    Another issue is that everyone (save a few) in the country gets exactly one vote. There are way more strapped Americans than there are oil executives, so the math is pretty clear there.

    Rate this:
    		3.4

  16. By michele on Aug 6, 2008 | Reply

    I don’t have a problem with a company making a profit. That is the way of business. I don’t even have a problem with a company making an obscene profit, if that company is not taking govt subsidies, fighting the already less than fair settlements for putting thousands of people out of business in Alaska, destroying the environment, and lobbying endlessly to turn driving a car into a necessity instead of a transportation choice.

    I don’t have a choice of taking a train or using public transportation, because there are no trains or buses where I live. They went out of business years ago.

Post a Comment