No link. Judicial opinions are in the public domain. Visit a law library if you need to. Thanks for playing.
calurker -- Standard Oil committed anti-competitive, monopolistic practices and was broken up as a result. No one disputes that. The problem is that it occurred in 1911. The remnants are now part of ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, BP, ExxonMobil and countless smaller operations. If you are trying to say that Exxon is evil based on the 19th century actions of Rockefeller and Standard Oil, then I'm afraid you are making a fool of yourself.
Quit warning him. This stuff is gold! He still hasn't figured out that Standard Oil was EVERY oil company.
GREAT article in today's journal that is perfect to use when the libs start attacking energy companies. Check it out and arm yourselves against their ignorance: www.wsj.com Oil Bashing, Round Two February 1, 2006; Page A14 Public companies typically advertise higher earnings, but such is the politics of energy in Congress these days that Exxon is blitzing the media with ads playing down its record 2005 profit of $36.1 billion. The last time Big Oil reported earnings, industry executives were paraded before the Senate, grilled about high fuel prices and threatened with special taxes -- so the reverse PR blitz is understandable. Of course, Exxon is guilty only of responding to a market need, and its earnings are nothing to apologize for. As a nation, we want energy companies investing in increased production, and Exxon and others currently have the wherewithal to undertake those investments. The worst thing for the economy right now would be to have American oil companies in no better shape than Ford or GM. Politicians and many of our friends in the press imply that Big Oil is somehow responsible for higher prices because of "gouging" or somehow conspiring to withhold supply. Never mind that every time the Federal Trade Commission looks into these claims, it finds no evidence to support them. Energy prices fluctuate over time -- oil was under $20 a barrel for most of the 1990s -- and if oil executives could pull a string and create $65-a-barrel oil and $3-a-gallon gas, that's all we'd ever see. Today's high energy prices reflect strong demand from almost every major oil-consuming nation, including India and China. They also reflect political uncertainty in some major oil-producing countries, notably Iraq, Iran and Nigeria. But the worst way to respond to such uncertainty is by robbing the profits that the companies need to diversify global oil supplies. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the politicians are up to. A backdoor windfall profits levy, which would raise taxes on oil companies by changing the way inventory is valued, has already passed the Senate. This is especially insidious because it is an after-the-fact raid on profits already earned by the company under current law. If Congress can suddenly pass a law confiscating the past profits of companies on a whim, we aren't all that far from Russian President Putin and Yukos. The Senate has also passed another punitive measure that would repeal the foreign income tax credit that all American companies receive for taxes paid overseas. This means they will be double-taxed, never mind that they made their investments and earned that profit under the expectation of getting the tax credit. Like the windfall-accounting raid, this is designed to apply only to the five companies whose CEOs testified before the Senate last year. In other words, the shareholders of these companies are being punished because their executives were honest and honorable enough to testify and defend their business practices in public. The smart CEOs turn out to be the ones who decided to stiff Congress. The House has yet to act on either provision, and let's hope it stays that way. These large oil concerns are already subject to a 35% corporate income tax rate, and record profits mean commensurate tax payments to the federal Treasury. According to a new report from the Washington-based Tax Foundation, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron paid a combined $44.3 billion in corporate income taxes in 2005, or 49.2% more than the $29.7 billion they paid the previous year. Furthermore, says the report, "the average effective tax rate on the major integrated oil and gas industry is estimated to equal 38.3%. This exceeds the estimated average effective tax rate of 32.3% for the market as a whole." In other words, even without Congress' would-be ex post facto confiscation of profits, energy companies are already providing the Members with a "windfall" to use to finance their 14,000 spending earmarks. Some of the same politicians calling for these punitive measures also fantasize about "energy independence," while blocking methods to achieve it. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, for instance, has sent letters to regulators demanding investigations into why there aren't more refineries in the U.S., but she supports restrictions on refineries in Puget Sound. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota wants a 50% tax on the price of oil above $40 per barrel and would exempt companies that invest in new energy production. Yet Mr. Dorgan opposes new energy production in places where companies want to explore, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf. This being an election year, we can expect this sort of political posturing to get worse. It's a special shame, however, that some in the media have decided to join the demagoguery in search of higher TV ratings. Not that an economics education is a qualification for punditry. But if windfalls are so terrible, then perhaps these media stars will be good enough to pay higher taxes on any "windfall" ratings they receive from populist TV demagoguery. At least oil companies provide a product we can't do without.
TJ the question is simple. is oil a national security interest or not? if it is...then oil companies should recognize their duty to the nation. and if not then why the hell are we in iraq and all around the gulf?
The oil companies are fulfilling their duty to the nation, by doing what they do best -- PROVIDING OIL. Believe me, at these prices, the oil companies are doing everything they can to pull every drop of oil out of every one of their reservoirs as fast as possible. Once you remove the incentives created by high profits, you remove the incentives to invest in new ways to find energy (beit new oil discoveries or alternative sources). Profit opportunities created by free market forces are hands down the best way to encourage investment.
I thought I busted this whack-a-troll machine, but it must be my lucky day to get the bonus game. I'm surprised this whack-a-troll is still working and heads haven't blown up from their inability to compute the scenario when big oil sells out big government during a time of war!! Gasp! The horror! Who do you pledge allegiance to then? Maybe the inability to read or comprehend is symptomatic of the impending system failure. I better call maintenance.
calurker, seriously what planet are you living on? Your argument makes zero sense. Not even close! My goodness you are out there. I feel sorry that someone as ignorant as you with regard to the energy industry has such a burning desire to make everyone aware of it.
Flip-flopping already. I was really hoping we would move more steadfastly into alternative energy. Bush aides clarify statements about oil. Bush aides claim that Bush wants to decrease, not replace completely, U.S. consumption of foreign oil. BY KEVIN G. HALL khall@krwashington.com WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic advisor said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are. The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that ''America is addicted to oil'' and his call to ``break this addiction.'' Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing ``more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.'' He pledged to ``move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.'' AN EXAMPLE Not exactly, though, it turns out. ''This was purely an example,'' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth. Asked why the president used the words ''the Middle East'' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that ''every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.'' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble. VOLATILE REGION Presidential advisor Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. ''I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region,'' he said. Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels. The Bush administration believes that plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/13768901.htm
Lots of good info in this article, but check out the bolded. Didn't Bush just say he wnated to support research and development in alternative energies? Or was it all just a smoke screen for one kind of alternative energy, namely, Noocular.
You have offered no counterpoint other than a steady downhill progression from conclusory blanket statements to name calling. Do you want to debate big oil's conspiracy with automakers to dismental public transit? How about wild life swimming in oil? Or what about aiding and abetting the enemy during time of war? You asked for "proof" but you failed to debate the evidence at every turn. This is just not worth my time. You can join your twin on my invisible list. Apologies to everyone else for derailing this thread.
There's plenty of "proof" that T_J put up. Plus my father was in Upper Management at Exxon Shipping for 34 years. I've read a thing or two about Exxon. You're the one who gave us the wonderful links about Standard Oil, (a concept you STILL cannot seem to grasp). PLUS you gave us the wonderful link comparing Exxon to Naziism. You put links up like that, expect to be treated as a laughing stock. BTW, notice how NOBODY has defended your "proof". Very telling. Graduate first, understand your position second, read a little bit, and then, maybe, you can post anything of merit. Until then, sit in the dunces corner.
According to Bush fan Novak, many Republicans deeply disappointed in Bush's speech. http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/02/02/184900.html WASHINGTON -- While jumping up on cue to cheer during the speech and delivering rave reviews afterward in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, conservative members of Congress were deeply disappointed by George W. Bush Tuesday night. It was not merely that the president abandoned past domestic goals. He appeared to be moving toward bigger government. The consensus on the Right was that President Bush's fifth State of the Union Address was his worst. Republican congressmen agreed privately that he was most effective at the beginning with his familiar message of why U.S. forces cannot abandon Iraq. The problem for these lawmakers was the rest of the 51-minute presentation, which was filled with unpleasant surprises. With polls showing the president's approval rating persistently anemic (as low as 39 percent), the speech aimed at a kinder, gentler Bush. But beyond atmospherics, the policy initiatives staked out new directions in the sixth year of his presidency that raised questions. Is this the real George W. Bush? Is he really his true father's son and not Ronald Reagan's? The president seemed more comfortable with his foreign policy declarations than with what followed, but even here he did not live up to expectations. Pre-speech tips from White House aides and from Bush himself had pointed to laying down the law to the Iranian regime (step back from nuclear arms) and the Hamas party in Palestine (recognize Israel). He did so, but not with the force and specificity promised. As expected, Bush backed away from what a year earlier were labeled as the two great initiatives of his second term. He complained that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," unintentionally setting off self-congratulatory celebration by Democrats on the floor. But Bush made no promises about trying to revive his personal accounts. The president did not even give the comprehensive tax reform the courtesy of a death notice. It went unmentioned and apparently unmourned. Prior to the speech, one conservative Republican senator fantasized about Bush turning to Democrats and calling on them to pass permanent tax cuts and then turning to Republicans and calling on them to cut spending. He did call for permanent tax cuts and for control over spending, but so briefly and undramatically that the president's demands lost their impact. However, what bothered conservatives most about Tuesday night's performance was not what the president failed to do but what he actually did. The pre-speech public relations drumbeat had promised the president would deliver a new energy initiative to Americans angry about the price of gasoline. Indeed, Bush deplored that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world" and promised to end "our dependence on Middle Eastern oil." It was how he would accomplish this that stunned conservatives. The president proposed that the government preside over a wide array of non-petroleum energy options. That has all the characteristics of an "industrial policy," with the federal government picking winners and losers. While violating the Republican Party's free market philosophy, this is a course with a lengthy pedigree of failure all over the world. The same State of the Union address that neglected the Republican goal of reforming the tax system called for an American Competitiveness Initiative that also promises an extension of growing, intrusive government. That would expand still more the federal role in education. Instead of shrinking the federal government, Bush wants to grow it. None of this change in direction will lead to a kinder, gentler Democratic Party in Congress. Tuesday night's response by newly elected Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, while far more partisan than the president's speech, was relatively moderate and restrained. But it will not be Kaine with whom Bush must deal in this election. It is the fiercely partisan Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and George Miller. Bush's softer rhetoric can be stiffened as this year moves toward the serious business of midterm elections. But what happens to the blueprint for big government laid out by President Bush Tuesday night? That will not be easy to reverse.
This speech from Bush was the equivalent of the Cookie Monster giving a speech in front of the rest of the Muppets, talking about how he doesn't eat cookies and how we've got to cut down on eating cookies and how we've got a clear plan for cutting back on our cookie dependency. Whatever cookie monster...
Noocular sounds good to me. perhaps not if you're a writer for the west wing, but if you live on planet reality, it makes a lot of sense.
Then why does Bush keep acting like he is going to develop Wind and biomass? Does it concern you at all that he would claim that he will concentrate on that kind of development and then start cutting that kind of development? Even if you approve of Nuclear energy as a source, should that be the only alternative we seek?
You didn't pay attention very well to his speech. He wants to focus on ethanol based solution for our transportation fleet, which is what consumes the most oil in this country. Nuclear is not the "only alternative we're seeking", as you put it.
