Senators grill oil company execs over huge profits...

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Or we could talk to Microsoft, a company whose profits have been increasing at about twice the rate of the oil companies.

Your point is valid, but you don't have to fill your car up with microsoft to get to and from work. Maybe they should be taken to task as well, but that's beside the point here.

Sorry, but profits setting new records every quarter while prices to the consumer skyrocket are a problem in my mind.

What was the first quarter number -- something like $26 Billion?

In the first quarter alone?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Your point is valid, but you don't have to fill your car up with microsoft to get to and from work. Maybe they should be taken to task as well, but that's beside the point here.

Sorry, but profits setting new records every quarter while prices to the consumer skyrocket are a problem in my mind.

What was the first quarter number -- something like $26 Billion?

In the first quarter alone?

Microsoft is also in the business of developing newer current products, and is also selling more than one product.

Oil companies sell a very limited array of products and they aren't developing any new products.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Microsoft is also in the business of developing newer current products, and is also selling more than one product.

Oil companies sell a very limited array of products and they aren't developing any new products.

Some oil companies spend a lot on R&D to develop alternative fuels. Shell apparently has developed a technique to extract oil deposited in shale formations. It isn't cheap to build offshore drilling rigs.

The oil business isn't wildcatting anymore. It costs a lot of money to find a good well.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some oil companies spend a lot on R&D to develop alternative fuels. Shell apparently has developed a technique to extract oil deposited in shale formations. It isn't cheap to build offshore drilling rigs.

The oil business isn't wildcatting anymore. It costs a lot of money to find a good well.

And they've also said that extracting the oil from shale is much too expensive to do it at this point, so they aren't currently expanding on that horizon.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nate2512

And they've also said that extracting the oil from shale is much too expensive to do it at this point, so they aren't currently expanding on that horizon.

I don't know what the status of it is, but Shell a few years ago announced that they had developed a process whereby oil in shale formations could be recovered for ~$30/barrel cost.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Your point is valid, but you don't have to fill your car up with microsoft to get to and from work. Maybe they should be taken to task as well, but that's beside the point here.

No, but for 90% of the people, you have to fill your computer up with problematic, artificially overpriced and continuously upgraded MS software before you can actually use a computer (and for many, that means "work" too).

Additionally, I'm sorry to say that most people do indeed get to choose whether or not to purchase gas. Ride your bike to the bus station, take the light rail, carpool, whatever - the American "driving lifestyle" is not a right or a duty, is it?

If you live in a city too small for public transit, you can likely find non-car transportation (because there simply is not that much distance to cover). If the distance is too great, you can likely find public transportation. Most people refuse, because it is an inconvenience - well, we pay for convenience, and the oil companies profit off sloth.

It's demand - not need.

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Sorry, but profits setting new records every quarter while prices to the consumer skyrocket are a problem in my mind.

What was the first quarter number -- something like $26 Billion?

In the first quarter alone?

Why is this a problem, given that every other company is allowed to set prices at, essentially, "whatever will maximize my profit" (which can be read as "whatever someone will pay")? At what point do we say "well, we'll allow the Invisible Hand to guide our economy . . . except for when it's inconvenient for me or gets too expensive, then I'll whine about it" and think that's OK?

This is akin to complaining about insurance profits - you can always self-insure, or shop around, or take an active role . . . and those are the things that will eventually reduce insurance overhead and profit, not complaining to ineffectual Congressional hearings. You have options - and, likely, the best option is for you to pay $4/gal for gasoline. As long as you continue to pay, they'll continue to charge - and that's OK. There is no duty to reduce profits for the "greater good" - altruism is of limited utility, and don't you think asking for it is selfish?

To put it another way - some people live in crappy, government-sponsored apartments out of necessity. You don't sell your house, move into a smaller one and give them part of the earned equity so they can move into a slightly better apartment, right?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Additionally, I'm sorry to say that most people do indeed get to choose whether or not to purchase gas. Ride your bike to the bus station, take the light rail, carpool, whatever - the American "driving lifestyle" is not a right or a duty, is it?

If you live in a city too small for public transit, you can likely find non-car transportation (because there simply is not that much distance to cover). If the distance is too great, you can likely find public transportation.

While I see your point and agree with much of what you say, there are not-so-small cities across the country where public transportation really isn't a viable option right now. The public transportation that we have doesn't come anywhere near my house -- given the distance I would have drive to where I can park my car and take public transit, I might as well drive to work. And that's before considerations of things like getting the kids to school. (We could take them to where they could get a ride on a school bus, but that ride would be about 1 hour+ each way for a school 4 miles from the house and on my way to work, so . . . .)

While our lack of alternatives well may be because of the choices that people have historically made that favor having one's own car, making public transportation or low public priority in the past, the reality is that it will be many years before I or many (most?) of the people where I live, will have any viable, regular alternative to driving my own car.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

While I see your point and agree with much of what you say, there are not-so-small cities across the country where public transportation really isn't a viable option right now. The public transportation that we have doesn't come anywhere near my house -- given the distance I would have drive to where I can park my car and take public transit, I might as well drive to work. And that's before considerations of things like getting the kids to school. (We could take them to where they could get a ride on a school bus, but that ride would be about 1 hour+ each way for a school 4 miles from the house and on my way to work, so . . . .)

While our lack of alternatives well may be because of the choices that people have historically made that favor having one's own car, making public transportation or low public priority in the past, the reality is that it will be many years before I or many (most?) of the people where I live, will have any viable, regular alternative to driving my own car.

I agree, and probably overstated my case a touch, but why aren't we having Congressional hearings on this? Where's the funding for public transportation (or where is it going)?

It's a charade.