digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at concordmonitor.com

Oil Windfalls: Exxon Posts $10,900,000,000 Profit

concordmonitor.com — The oil giant earned $10.9 billion in profits, up 17 percent from the previous year.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • strafefire, on 05/06/2008, -2/+304I think you added too many zeros...
    • fmtoffolo, on 05/06/2008, -46/+6actually that number is a billion number....but in america for example instead of saying one thousand million(1.000.000.000) they directly say one billion....
      But i'm pretty sure exxon earned 10,900,000,000
      • Enochyang, on 05/06/2008, -2/+48I'm pretty sure that exxon did NOT earn $10.9 trillion dollars. Are you counting the zeros??
        • fmtoffolo, on 05/06/2008, -34/+7ok. you do know that the number in the post title is a billion number in some places right? in the states that is a trillion number. of course exxon did not earn trillions...

          "
          1,000,000,000 (alternately known as one thousand million and one billion, see below) is the natural number following 999,999,999 and preceding 1,000,000,001.

          In scientific notation, it is written as 109.

          In modern ('short scale') English language usage, it is usually called a billion (although in many other languages and 'long scale' usage, a billion means a million millions (or 1,000,000,000,000), instead of a thousand millions).

          "

          • Drahkar, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Random Terminology in different countries aside. The basic fact is that Exxon did not make $10,900,000,000,000 profit. It made $10,900,000,000. That is a mathematical fact. Terminology and language has nothing to do with it.

            Now that we have settled the fact that you are just stirring up arguments for the sake of arguments lets move onto the important fact that a company that is supposed to be 'Suffering from the cost of the oil barrel' and just managed to yet again post record breaking profits beyond anything any other industry could imagine. (The last time was the refinery scare they stirred up when they shut down two refineries and had to increase the price of gas from $1.60 a gallon to $2+ because they were afraid they might not have enough fuel refined and then posted an almost $40,000,000,000 (Written in numbers to shut up the argumentatively inclined) profit.)
        • Octanus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+16@fmtoffolo: You know why you're being dugg down? Because you're wrong.
        • catachip, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14***** that. The guy is from Chicago. Furthermore, this is a U.S. website and the story is from a U.S. news source about a U.S. corporation in U.S. dollars.
        • davidrools, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6this is not one of those "places."
        • estate, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9Exactly.
          Broadly speaking an English billion is a million million and a US billion is a thousand million.

          But a thousand million is the widely used definition and is clearly the one in use here.
        • Monstradamus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4I'm too lazy to looks this up. Does the long system use prefixes in front of -illion to denote million^prefix ? Meaning billion is million^2, trillion is million^3, etc.
        • fpaudon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5@fmtoffolo. I think you're getting mixed up with the million/milliard and billion/billiard thing. In the UK, one billion was one trillion here, because one billion was a milliard.

          And I use the past tense because that system hasn't been used for ages
        • nyx210, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Dammit, it's a US website. So when they say "billion" they imply "US billion"
      • acowman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Quick math lesson:
        $1,000 = one thousand
        $1,000,000 = one million
        $1,000,000,000 = one billion
        $1,000,000,000,000 = one trillion
        thus... $10,900,000,000 = ten trillion nine hundred billion dollars and holy crap if that were true for Exxon, but according to the article that isn't true.
        • DiggzDE, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1And thus why I buried it.
        • sarixe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1you got it wrong. the digg headline says 10,900,000,000,000. that's 10.9 trillion. it should read 10,900,000,000, which is 10.9 billion. but yeah, holy crap!
        • oneoverzero, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

          You're right though, and I doubt this is what the author was thinking of.
        • Akronos, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Ok, what the ***** is going on here? Is there some type of joke I don't understand or did digg correct the mistake?
          The current title says "Oil Windfalls: Exxon Posts $10,900,000,000 Profit". That looks correct. That number is 10 billion, 900 million.
          $10,900,000,000 does NOT equal ten trillion, nine hundred billion dollars.
          To prove that, I divided $10,900,000,000 by $1,000,000,000 (1 billion), and google calculator says that is 10.9. 10.9 multiplied by 1 billion is 10.9 BILLION not trillion.
          I'm going to feel really stupid if I'm wrong, but either my eyes are tricking me, or I'm on massive amounts of acid.
      • sovereign3, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I feel like every time a Briticism arises, I have to be the one that points this out (and I'm not even British). In the UK they use the term "million" to express what we Americans refer to as "billion." Conversely, they use "billion" to refer what we Americans call "million." So fmtoffolo is not totally nuts.

        Let me mention that the only reason I know these sorts of things is because I read the Economist (a UK-based newspaper).
        Look it up if you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion
        • sovereign3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Here's a better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_ ...
        • m1ss1ontomars, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1My thoughts exactly. You'd think at least 50% of diggers understood that there was a difference between British and American usage of billion.
        • covertbadger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"In the UK they use the term "million" to express what we Americans refer to as "billion." Conversely, they use "billion" to refer what we Americans call "million.""

          Uh, no. In both countries 1 million = 10^6. In US and modern UK, 1 billion = 10^9. The British use of 'billion' to refer to 10^12 is archaic, and I've never, ever heard of anyone referring to 10^9 as "million" and 10^6 as "billion", as you claim. Where on earth did you get this info?
    • Dustin00, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12"math is hard" -- Barbi's first Digg post!
    • shondell, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1das a beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeg numba!
    • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Zeros are cool.. Commas too! Try it, you'll like it..
    • dreamtiger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Ten point nine billion actually looks like this: $10,900,000,000
    • FyUoCuK, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, seriously... why put a trillion when you could put.... a billion?
    • brundlefly76, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Why would you post a link to the Concord Monitor for a Washington Post story?
  • Rotzooi, on 05/06/2008, -12/+46They clearly need more tax relief. Go team Bush!
    • cliffzdude, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Oil tax benefits be damned, does anybody ever point out that oil companies are FRIGGIN HUGE? As FRIGGIN HUGE companies, they can live on a slim profit margin and bring in profit numbers that are FRIGGIN HUGE.
      I'm no fan of oil companies, far from it. Get us OFF OIL NOW. The USA should start right now to build up technology, as we did in the space race *and* the cold war --> to get us OFF OIL.
      That said, even as a non-fan of oil companies I find it pretty friggin silly to look at a profit number of such a huge company and make suppositions and assumptions based upon said number. I know I'll be dugg down deeper than a Texas oil well for this, but frack it, its gotta be said, if just to keep the karma in kilter.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2then how do you explain the percentage keeps growing and growing... slim margins my ass we're being gouged as is the rest of the planet for something below our feet.
        • SpartanErik, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3The percentage isn't growing.. they get 7-8% of the price we pay for profit. That percentage is slim compared to MANY industries. The only reason they get that much profit is because of demand for their product. Learn the basics of economics, thanks.

          By the way, the United States gets its gas relatively cheap.. search Digg for the article about gas prices around the globe. We have it lucky here!
          • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1hello McFly, article says profits up 17% and they've been on the rise for the last eight years at breakneck pace
    • prahareturns, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Yeah, the effective tax rate of 43% they currently pay isn't nearly enough. Oh, by the way that equates to approximately 4.68 billion in tax revenue(for one quarter) for you an me as citizens of the USA.

      What would be an appropriate effective tax rate for Exxon and other companies who average an approximate 7% profit margin?
    • BobOki, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5But, they only ern $.08 per gallon@
  • StingingNettle, on 05/06/2008, -7/+23End subsidies! I know of one candidate whom I'm 100% who will.
    • dig1x, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I know one candidate that will turn you into a corporate neo-serf.
      • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I know three candidates who would happily do that. Which one were you referring to?

        -jcr
    • Somedude2137, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2HAHAHAHAAHAHHAAAHA YEAH ***** RIGHT.... he'll get a shot to the head if he even tries it
    • jerrycurley, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3We are talking about REAL candidates. No the jokey ones.
      • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Only the jokey ones have any chance of winning.
        • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3They're not funny, they're tragic.

          -jcr
    • sup4141, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3If the oil companies price goes up, our price will go up. We have some of the cheapest gas in the world compared to what some other countries are paying. I am sick and tired of hearing people bitch about oil prices and then turning around and blaming it all on the government. If people would stop buying suv's, move closer to work, and slow the ***** down it would go along way.
      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"and slow the ***** down"

        That's the funniest part of this whole thing. I took a road trip this weekend on some major highways. Everyone will still driving well over the speed limit. If gas was as expensive as everyone claims, you'd think they'd want to drive no more than the speed limit to reduce the consumption.
    • metaknite, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4As long as he ends subsidies to poor people as well! The government should stay out of subsidizing and taxing businesses and people.
  • keitarofujiwara, on 05/06/2008, -5/+94That's almost 11 trillion, not billion. This is what I ***** hate about Digg ...who was the dumb retard buried strafefire?!
    • liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4Also, 11 billion is actually SMALL. This story is grade-A retarded.
      As a comparison, IBM has profits in the $90 billion range per year

      Source:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/technology/19blu ...
      • KayoticEntropy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+16revenue != profits...
      • jonohull, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14Can you count? They profited 3.5 billion last quarter, nowhere near 90 billion.
      • kchristenson114, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2The point being made is that big oil is continuing to increase their profit even though the average joe is being hounded for $4+ for regular (at least where I live). If they continued to profit at the rate they did last quarter (not accounting for inflation), they were net nearly $44 billion at the end of the fiscal year. That would bring their profits up from the previous record of $40.7 billion, which was set in 2007. Furthermore, there is no cost driver of similar comparison to a barrel of petrol in a computer so that analogy doesn't serve your purpose very well.
  • shadowspawn, on 05/06/2008, -20/+3That's 10.9 quadrillion. But then again, being a millionaire in the 70's was a big deal. With the price of gold now, compared to what it was in the 70's, it's not really a shock when reading the headline. It did take me aside, however. Dugg for making me do a double-take.
    • shadowspawn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5damn trillion. need more coffee.
      • bstew22, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4it's been 9 hours, did you get enough coffee?
  • digjam, on 05/06/2008, -3/+68CORRECTION: Title should read...

    DIGG Windfalls: msaleem Posts 10,900,000,000,000 articles last month.
    • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6I was going to cut him some slack, thinking he may be British, but no. Chicago counting skool...
    • Ocelot13, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10and a rival poster, mrbabyman, posts a record 15,600,000,000,000 articles
      • DeathJux, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6They're in bed together, along with Zaibatsu. They all do a podcast together.
      • bjornski, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2So?
      • msaleem, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2You guys are awesome :)
        • digjam, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1MSALEEM ==> Submitted 4269 articles till date.... since Sept 05 ... till May 08 = approx 970 days. ie 4.4 articles per day..NON STOP...
          MRBABYMAN ==> Submitted 8859 articles till date...since dec 05....till May 08 = approx 850 days..ie ***** 10.4 articles per day...NOOOOON STOOOOP.....

          MSALEEM SUX.....MRBABYMAN......SUXER...!
          • bjornski, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2As long as I have new stuff to read on Digg, I really don't give a ***** who submits it. In fact, 99.9% of the time, I don't even look.

            I don't care.
  • reeder, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4Hard work pays of in the long run.
  • BurningGiraffe, on 05/06/2008, -20/+29Why are people so against profit? I want my company to be profitable. So long as I get my health insurance and my bonuses, I'm a happy camper. Exxon employees get great benefits. So where is the problem?
    • Ocelot13, on 05/06/2008, -10/+3um, are you serious?
      they need to suck it up and lower oil prices, sure theyre gonna earn less profit, but theyd be doing their part to help lower gas prices.
      • kurtskrap, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7yes, the shareholders, who they basically answer to, will LOVE that
      • nksoccer13, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Supply and demand. The market dictates the price; the people are apparently willingly to pay way too much for gas. Companies in all areas of the market will raise prices as long as people continue to pay.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2supply and demand is a ***** theory when it comes to NECESSITIES... The entire infrastructure of human life on earth at this point in history is completely chained to fossil fuel use age. Exxon and every other oil leech knows this and they exploit it to no end. There's no reason that gas prices have risen more than $2.00 a gallon in just a few short years other than they can because we have no alternative in place. Now if the ***** roadblocks being put in front of Hydrogen car production were swept aside and more research put into hybrid, all electric, solar assisted, etc. car design then you would see gas prices plummet worldwide. Americans are unusually blessed to have some of the lowest prices for gasoline because we produce and consume so much, but it's still far too high when profits continue to soar into the billions year after year and now it's finally hit every level of life. Food production and shipping, energy production, shipping of all goods in general, operation costs, etc. Gas stays high which means it costs more to make and ship goods, Stores charge more to hold their margins, Utilities raise prices to hold their margins, Resteraunts raise prices to hold their margins, etc. The end user is the one getting ***** because the cost of living is skyrocket ting and the income levels have been stagnant for far too long.
        • nksoccer13, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2In reply to KingPsyz - So your saying when a product is a necessity it is not controlled by supply and demand. By your account food prices, a necessity, should not rise with more demand and less supply. Ya ok, you keep on thinking that.
          • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Gasoline /= cheetos.

            The problem is that they're treated as a normal business (aside from the outrageous tax breaks, incentives, kickbacks, initiatives, grants, etc.) instead of what they are, a utility.

            Gasoline is a utility in this nation as it is in all industrialised nations. Just as electricity, water, natural gas, and other NECESSITIES started off unregulated and had to fall under utilities due to their ties to national infrastructure.

            Supply and demand is out the window when it comes to gasoline useage, or at least it is now.

            People stopped pleasure driving years ago when gas jumped past $2/gal and never looked back. That was sufficiant enough to curb demand (even though the supply is artifically throttled).

            Now the oil companies continue to raise prices, seeing how much blood they can squeeze from the stone before it shatters.

            Gas prices will continue to rise until the government either regulates them more like a utility or ends all the kickbacks and breaks. The other alternitive is that infrastucture will simply start to collapse under the financial burden.

            Those who presume to be intellectual superiors around here fail to see the big picture. People have to go to work, GAS, people have to educate their children, GAS, teachers have to get to the schools, GAS, policemen need to patrol, GAS, goods need to be shipped GAS (okay diesel, same difference here) and so on. Now raise gas prices and it starts to ripple across. Now if someone can't afford gas to get to work they're unemployed, then they can't afford their mortgage (housing crisis anyone?), then the banks start to feel the hurt and the dollar drops in value, making GAS even more expensive.
          • nksoccer13, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@KingPsyz What do you people stopped pleasure driving? Have people stopped driving to beaches, going to the movies, going to the park? I'm pretty sure none of those activities that involve driving and pleasure are a necessity. Demand has not slackened in America at all. People still resist public transportation, carpooling, and more efficient cars while they complain about rising gas prices. People who are perfectly capable of riding a bike continue to use cars well with biking distance while lamenting their fate for having to pay higher gas prices. I know some of these changes are not possible for some people but not enough Americans are making changes in their life style to lower demand for a product that is in low supply.
          • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1That's why hybrid sales are on the rise? The thing is public transportation in America sucks. Well most of America. That's if it even exists.

            Riding a bike is great and all of a single person in good shape. But how about someone with children, the infirm, ect.? Not such a viable source of diversion of use now eh?

            People still drive to do things, but they find places closer to home, go less often, and most people aside from the rich or stupid don't just drive to drive.
      • Gneimer, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Well, lets just say they gave 100% of their profits back. There are 300 million people in this country, but let's say only 50 million drive on a daily basis. $10 billion divided by 50 million equals $200.... That's some serious beer money but not much more than that. And of course my analysis completely removes the biggest consumers of the oil such as the trucking and airline industries.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4how is exxon supposed to lower oil prices when OPEC controls 60% of the supply?
    • UtahApocalyse, on 05/06/2008, -0/+18when taxes pay subsidies its crap. I am all for profit also, but how about since they have plenty of profit we quit paying their way.
      • twomeyw23334, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0I agree we need fair taxes, but honestly, is any other product taxes as much as theirs other than cigarettes.
    • robopuppy, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11Because they are gouging people for a commodity that our society has come to rely upon and watching the country go down in flames, in part due to the high prices of the commodity, while the CEO buys another Lexus?
      • LostBoyz42, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2since when is supply and demand gouging?
        • ambidexterich, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1It is when supply is artificially lowered by fake outages and not building the refineries they are given tax breaks to build.
      • twomeyw23334, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2If there were a free market the prices wouldn't be so high. But, as no refineries have been made since the 70s and we can't touch oil in Alaska or around our coast we have high prices. How about all you lefties who voted for people who supported policies that made oil expensive in the first place own up and stop blaming the corporations, who BTW, make around 10 cents a gallon of gasoline compared to the governments 50 cents. If you want a Lexus work hard on your own and stop being a whinny pussy. If you want more diversified and competitive oil industry (cheaper gas) stop voting for your leftist leaders. Or.... we could put a limit on what oil CEOs make, we could set it to like 20,000 dollars a year which would be a huge cut for the CEO and would save us the 0.000000001 cent a gallon that goes to his paycheck, then we can get our pitchforks and get together in a mob and go burn down the CEOs home and stab his children with our pitchforks, then chug some bottled water as it will sure work up a sweat.
        • corourke, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Wait they make .10 cents a gallon? So they've sold 109,000,000,000 (109 billion) gallons of gas beyond their overhead in the last year? So you figure that their own markup is a meager 20% that would mean that they've sold approx 87,200,000,000,000 (or 87 trillion for those who lost track of zeros) gallons of gas? Just Exxon did that? Really?

          Face it, they're sponging off the government, they're gouging us (unless you think it's coincidence that their profits went up massively at the same time gas prices skyrocketed?).
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Exxon posted an almost $11 billion profit for the first quarter of 2008 on a staggering $117 billion in total revenue. 11/117=0.094, or approximately 10 cents to the dollar.
            That would make my original statement (10 cents to a gallon) incorrect, but is still a small profit margin compared to most other products and still smaller than the average government tax per gallon, and again, if they are gouging us it is because of a lack of a free market due to government forces. Getting mad at the corporations is like getting mad at the manufacturer of a baseball bat after someone uses it to clock you in the head. Health, energy, and telecommunications are the three most regulated industries in the US and likewise the three most bitched about on digg as "evil industries." If you want to complain about the effectiveness of the free market, tell me what a horrible selection and price of hamburgers I have in America. Otherwise, stop crying about corporations, get rid of all the regulation and you will have cheap gas. Limiting their profits (WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY TRIED in the past) doesn't work. Who gives a crap if you can't cheap gas if you have to stand in line for 3 hours and get a maximum of two gallons. Of course, if we have cheap gas we will be destroying the environment so most leftist here don't want cheap gas. They just want the right to bitch about gas prices while at the same time bitch about pollution.
        • ambidexterich, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If I'm not mistaken prices have increased 145% since Bush took office and 32% in the time Clinton was in office. Plus congress has been Republican controlled since 1995. So which left leader was responsible for the increase? I'm not even a democrat but get your facts straight first. But I'm sure the facts wouldn't even change your view.

          And your information is slightly off. The $.10 per gallon is about what the actual gas station makes who aren't owned by the oil companies.
          • twomeyw23334, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0If I'm not mistaken the world never saw the use of atomic weapons until after women could vote but I'd be a jackass to try to imply a correlation between the two. I'm not a huge Republican fan at the moment but tell me, has it been the Republicans who keep blocking Alaska and coastal drilling? And as far as the investors (and there are plenty of investors) who have been paying crap loads of money going through all the paper work and litigation to attempt to open new refineries, they keep being stopped by the right wingers? Please enlighten me with the facts.
            I was wrong on the price per gallon, they have about a 10% profit margin, which would make their profit about 10 cents a dollar.
      • jwk4heels, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Lexus is too cheap for those CEOs, they're swimming in cash, they go for the more expensive stuff.
    • superdog87, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6The problem is besides us paying them, real well, they also get our tax money and tax breaks, incentives, and so on...
    • kettlehead, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9Because they're doing it partly through price-fixing necessary commodities, which causes people to suffer.

      Also, I'm from Alaska; so yeah. ***** Exxon.
    • jwiesenborn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9The problem is that our government is giving these dbags tax breaks when they don't ***** need it.
    • LeeMaple, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7People are against oil company profits because they live beyond their means. Any minor changes in their expenses and they have to give their home to the bank..
    • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5they're f*cking over the rest of the country, did ya notice??
      • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5Yeah, they really screw you by giving you something you want at a price you are willing to pay. They should just be good Samaritans, lower the price, stop making a (relatively low) profit, have investors pull out all of their money, and stop delivering the product you want. Then you wouldn't be getting screwed.
        • jflm3, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Exactly. I love it when high school students come on here and violently argue something their anti-capitalistic teacher or better yet, Barack Obama said and hold it to be true. Does anyone realize how many people as shareholders benefit from a company making a profit? This is a public company, not owned by one guy, millions of investors have their money in exxon/mobil and to say lets screw them would ruin this country. Imagine a world without MS windows? For all you sorry-ass high school kids that love to complain about big-business, if exxon closed their doors like you wish, your parents would be able to drive you to the movies on friday night in their 12MPG Escalades and Suburbans.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1are you retarded? no really.
          • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Even if I were retarded, my point would be valid. Really. Or didn't you recognize that I was being sarcastic?
    • santaliqueur, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Companies are bound by law to seek a profit anyway.
    • ummmmm, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11Everyone is so against it because they are making so much profit at the expense of others. They obviously don't need to be charging that much for gas if they are posting a 10.9 billion dollar profit. That would like me charging a starving person 25 dollars for a loaf of bread, it's just ridiculous.
      • Nothlit, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Not really. Do you know the difference between profit and profit margin?
      • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Why do people not get this: their rate of profit is average. It is not anywhere near the top industry for rate of profit. Their investors are LOSING money by not moving it into an industry with higher rate of profit. They are not gouging the public. They get much less profit from a gallon of gas than the government gets taxes. If you want to complain about the price of gas, start with the ones who are profiting the most: your government.
      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If they invested $100 into the business and made $10 in profit, would we be complaining? No, not at all. So why is it when they invest a hundred million into their business and only get a measly ten million back it's a terrible crime?
    • zspeed78, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Buy less gas if its too expensive. Then theyll lower the price.
      • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Not according to digg logic. Supply and demand doesn't apply to oil, apparently. I was told that lower demand would lead to higher prices, because they need to maintain corporate salaries. This sort of logic shows why people home-school their children.
      • t0ny, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2How do you buy less gas when you need it? I have to drive 40 miles to college and and I dont feel like walking that far. And lately thats the only place I go.
        • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There is probably a hotel that is closer to the school than 40 miles. Stay there during the week and walk to class.
          • t0ny, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well hotel would work but it would still cost more then gas.
      • foofightrs777, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Besides the fact that for many people oil/gasoline is a necessity oil isn't necessarily tied to consumer supply/demand. There are many other factors which effect the price of a barrel . Perhaps the biggest right now is speculation. With a weak and declining dollar speculators are shifting their money into the surest bet on the market right now oil. This is causing the price of crude and thus gasoline to skyrocket. Furthermore, you have to factor in the effect of war and turmoil in the Middle East. Any bad news from that region sends oil futures up a few bucks. I could continue on about the declining dollar being able to buy less oil and more but I think zspeed and rficwizard's condescending little heads might explode.
        • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Give it a go. If my head explodes, I won't hold you responsible. You could start by comparing the price of oil in 1950 (as measured in gold) against the price of oil now (as measured in gold).
    • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Dagny Taggart is that you?
      • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Those sorts of comments will get a lot more action once the movie comes out.
      • metaknite, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1In four minutes I will be reading that book.
        • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I'm sad that I will never again be able to read that book for the first time. I should have slowed down and enjoyed it more, but I just couldn't stop myself.
    • drmangrum, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Nobody is against profits in a FREE MARKET. However, the market is not free. Big Oil is clearly guilty of colluding to keep prices intentionally high. How would you feel if all the dairy farms started to charge $10 for a gallon of milk? What if eggs cost $15 a dozen? What if a bunch of bananas cost you $20?

      4 of the top 20 fortune 500 companies are oil companies ( which also happens to be the number of american big oil companies....hrm ).

      Everyone bitches about the defense contractors, but look at the numbers. The top defense contractors ( United technologies, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing ) are posting YEARLY profits in the 3-4 billion mark. Big Oil is cheating the market. They should pay.

      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"How would you feel if all the dairy farms started to charge $10 for a gallon of milk? What if eggs cost $15 a dozen?"

        Funny you should mention those two products of all things. Dairy and poultry products are supply managed in this country. Except it works quite well. Our products are as cheap, and often cheaper, than the equivalent products in the US and the farmers are able to actually make a decent living.
    • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The big question isn't how much, but what is the rate of return or how much volume. Shell just posted a huge profit as well, but it was only a 7.5 percent of total sales. That is very reasonable. If Exxon has the same percent, or eanywhere close, it is very reasonable. Please remeber that the taxes take 15 percent in this industry (PS - I am a teacher - facts are important).
    • jsd8cc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I would assume most of the people here lean more toward socialism, if not outright communism (or at least anti-capitalism). I am not of that persuasion, however I can give you two reasons outside of political ideology of why this is a problem.

      Contrary to your company, the oil companies have next to no competition in the marketplace. The 6 major oil companies are a cartel that form a oligopoly that fix prices depending on who sneezed over in the Middle East in a given day. Their cop-out is to blame the speculators who bid up the price of oil in order to make money. But they don't HAVE to raise prices. They can take a hit for the good of the country, to help out the average American, by keeping prices low and STILL make RECORD PROFITS. Why should they take a hit, you ask? That brings me to my second point.

      Oil is a commodity that we NEED. This isn't like McDonald's where you have a choice on whether to buy something or not. The country runs on oil, period. It's sad but true. Why do you think when oil prices skyrocket, prices everywhere go up? Trucks need gas to get food to supermarkets. People need gas in their cars to deliver goods and services. Our whole economy is underpinned by oil, and our national security depends on it. The oil companies know this, and don't care, instead giving CEOs hundred million dollar retirement packages.

      The only way to send a message to these thugs is to hit their wallet. Ride a bike. Walk more. Buy more locally grown foods. Do whatever you have to do to cut down your oil consumption. On the plus side, I feel this has stimulated a more vigorous look into developing alternative (renewable) fuel sources, which will help detach us from this sickening master-slave relationship forever.
      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"Contrary to your company, the oil companies have next to no competition in the marketplace. "

        Nuclear, wind, solar, coal, hydro, and ethanol all come to mind as competition*. They're just still more expensive than gasoline so oil wins out every time. Should oil start to become too expensive, the alternatives will take over the marketplace.


        * Whether or not they can operate on the scale of oil is another matter
        • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Nuclear has been shut out here, but it is exploding in Europe and other countries. But we shut that out which will hurt us.
          Wile we bad mouth the oil companies, who controls the oil in the countries we are getting it from? Oh, the country, not the oil company? That is the cartel, the countries not the oil companies.
  • panzermeyer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7mathing good, keep it up!
  • doctechnical, on 05/06/2008, -10/+35Exxon's making the same profit per dollar they were two years ago, it's just that they're selling much more product now. What's the BFD?
    • wwhitleyjr, on 05/06/2008, -6/+16You're 100% correct.

      There are hundreds of businesses making much higher profit margins, but nobody complains. Why are we surprised that the company with the second highest sales in the world, happens to have the highest profit in the world?

      For a list of higher yielding industries; http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/05/unconscionably ...
    • gubatron2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I guess we should also note that they're earning weaker dollars.
    • scamper22, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0I require a scapegoat.
      Obama 2008!
      /sarcasm
  • bernandoo, on 05/06/2008, -14/+28In the 90s, it was the drug companies.. now it's the oil companies. Why must there always be an industry that people blame for their lack of wealth? It definitely could NOT be their own personal decisions.
    • Samsong, on 05/06/2008, -11/+9Liberals hate the rich.
    • Digger1218, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6Never, it must be those evil rich people lighting foot-long cigars with hundred dollar bills they stole from the poor.
      • jgtg32a, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm

        It doesn't matter how obvious it is, this is Digg.
    • TJ11240, on 05/06/2008, -9/+1I hate them because they are directly responsible climate change and massive environmental damage
    • Archimboldo, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4If elected president, I will give Exxon's, Arco's, Pfizer's, and WalMart's profits to the poor and require car makers to make flying cars powered by fusion by 2010.
      • jgtg32a, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'm Barack Obama and I support this message.
    • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2You must be a socialist. Hey, we are seizing your property and money as well. Oh, and you can't say anything because we control them. Move to a socialist country. We don;t want it here.
    • fluxion, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3its not about lack of wealth. i can afford to put gas in my vehicle without calculating how long my next paycheck is gonna last me

      it's just ridiculous that they keep jacking up the prices when there's no stimulus for doing so.
      • Digger1218, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Oil is a commodity. Its price is directly related to supply and demand.
  • wwhitleyjr, on 05/06/2008, -20/+14As mentioned before, apparently you failed grade school math.

    Secondly -- for every dollar in profit Exxon made, they paid $3 in taxes.
    See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/05/exxon-paid-alm ...
    • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -2/+15Sigh, and again, you don't pay taxes on profit, you pay on income. Why the red herring?
    • kund57, on 05/06/2008, -2/+17lol $3 paid in taxes for every $1 of profit. That would make Exxon broke dummy.
      • liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -15/+3It means for every 4 dollars, they had to give 3 to the govt. Don't get stupid.
    • Jforsyth89, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Sorry, but I am having trouble mustering any sort of sympathy for Exxon.
  • sgiffy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20The raw amount of profits is irrelevant. What is relevant is the profit margin, or the percent profits represent of total revenue. In this regard oil companies are well within normal ranges, though they do tend to be near the higher end.
    • jimmies, on 05/06/2008, -4/+11Actually, their margins are average at best. Tech companies have much higher margins - where's the outrage? Oh, that's right - most Diggers who complain about oil companies' profit work for (and therefore benefit from) tech companies.
      • soomprimal, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4Well technology isn't a commodity that empires invade other countries over... yet.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4exactly, consumer goods /= commodities
      • sgiffy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Fair enough. The S&P averages about 8.5 while Oil companies are near 10. I probably should have been clearer that I meant the higher end of the normal range.
    • Dou6, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4No they don't, they are very middle of the pack. The high end are techs, pharmaceuticals and banks.
      • sgiffy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Fair enough. The S&P averages about 8.5 while Oil companies are near 10. I probably should have been clearer that I meant the higher end of the normal range.
  • synystar, on 05/06/2008, -14/+18Exxon explains profits: "Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!" [sucking sound]
    • hittnrun, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1you're an idiot and There Will Be Blood. It was a fail. Nice attempt to use that line, plagerist.
      • ThickGreenPuke, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4"you're an idiot and There Will Be Blood."

        Try to form full sentences first before you go telling other people they are idiots.
      • Chris_F, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2get a dictionary and find the correct spelling, then continue by reading the definition. Maybe one day you'll be able to correctly use it in a sentence.
    • santaliqueur, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Digging down "There Will Be Blood"? Stupid diggers.
    • synystar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6It's "plagiarist". And I was quoting a movie - I never claimed that I wrote that. Sorry you didn't like it guy.
      • hittnrun, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1it didn't work and fvck you spelling cops. That's a sign I tweeked your azz. When you use other people's words you give them credit. Exxon RULES.
  • TROY7, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3That's ridiculous!
  • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -6/+24Since when were profits bad? That used to be something to be celebrated in America
    • Ryan166, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5Your right, everyone has the opportunity to share in the profits of Exxon, but most of us just decide to whine instead.
      • NHurley, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Yeah.. and the American Dream WAS also something to be celebrated in America.
    • soomprimal, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10Profits earned honorably are something to celebrate. Exxon does not qualify.
      • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8How is it not "honorable"? What have they done? Respond to the market? Supply and demand? I don't think Google's profits are logical, let's take their profits too.
        • soomprimal, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Hmm, let's start with Exxon Mobile in Indonesia, followed up by a little illegal trade with Sudan, topped off with multiple indictments on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Just for ***** and giggles how about a little corporate discrimination against its same-sex employees. But I guess that's just responding to market supply and demand, and constitutes honorable business practices.

          Exxon's profits and Google's profits are not earned the same way, there is no comparison.
    • V0lk, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5so, by your logic, if they TRIPLED the price of gas, then it should be celebrated? There are people who can't afford to drive to work, and are now faced with rising food costs, and year after year, oil companies are posting record profits. I suppose that makes you "proud"?
      • patpl22391, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Whose fault would it be if they did? We have failed to secure oil reserves, many of which are located within our borders. If we actually started drilling our own oil we wouldn't have to be stuck in that situation
        • knowitman, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4But the liberals won't let us.
        • fluxion, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1who's gonna drill it? exxon, because they feel bad about artificially inflating their prices?

          your answer suggests that's it's a matter of supply rather the whim of the gas companies, which ignores the premise of the originally posted scenario.

          edit: well, less cost to them for drilling. so they could make the same profit per barrel while charging less. so i retract my statement
      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Tripling the price of gas would not necessarily lead to higher profits. So no, unless they were increasing their profits, such an increase would not be celebrated.
    • NHurley, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Agreed with V0lk... And what about the American Dream, that's also something that USED to be celebrated in America and is now being taken away from people and becoming impossible to attain... but that's ok because those who really matter are making record profits. Whatever.
  • AndrewDB, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4It's over 10,900,000,000,000 ?!?!
  • Falor42, on 05/06/2008, -6/+210 trillion does seem a bit high, but then again, gas is as necessary to modern life as air. What? 10 trillion was a typo? only 10.9 Billion? thats not that high for something as necessary as air!
  • Inohavehalos, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Can we *not* be at war with these people?
  • piratearggghhh, on 05/06/2008, -10/+5I hope the next president, whoever it is, launches a full fledged criminal investigation. Heads need to roll for this fleecing of the country - including some members of this administration.
    • rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6That's right. The poor education that leads to outrage over a company making a reasonable profit is deplorable. Those responsible should be flogged.
      • briantodd, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Those responsible for making reasonable profits have been sacked.
    • ludar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2(grabs a spray bottle and starts yelling bad) since when is it illegal to make money? If you look at there total income for that same time period i'll bet that the profit margin is below 15%
  • dangerousgoat, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1buried, oil companies aren't making trillions god, its only mere billions.
  • Dou6, on 05/06/2008, -6/+19Amazing how the same morons keep digging this *****. Once you can show me record profit margin instead of sadly average profit margin, I may give a *****. If you want to talk about price gouging, take a look at banks, techs, pharmas.

    "But But" all the starbucks sipping mod morons of digg keep whining "Why can't we be more like Europe?"
    • Hawk2007, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well, in order to be "more" like eco-friendly Europe, we ought to be paying about $5-6 or more per gallon.

      but, your last line is funny as hell.
  • DirtPile, on 05/06/2008, -7/+41. Oil Production.
    2. ...
    3. Profit.
    • C0MF0RTABLYnumb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Your right, we complain but it is us buying the oil.
    • gozilla09, on 05/06/2008, -0/+22. Refine and sell said oil.

      That wasn't so hard.
  • thebloodvayne, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13Title = FAIL.
  • OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -13/+10Thanks for your example of liberal's inability to perform simple math operations. Just another symptom of a failing public school system (run by, you guessed it, Liberals).
    • austinisi, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Run by the Dept. of Education - an unnecessary dept

      Please support vouchers
    • gozilla09, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2What does this have to do with political ideology at all?

      Only on Digg...
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Don't forget Google, hell those are just internet adds
  • jerrycurley, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Wow! That's A LOT! Well...I mean, to a simple mind that seems like a lot. Until you realize that that represents...oh...about a penny or less per gallon of gas.
  • Adam420, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Haha idiot not knowing how to write a billion.
    But if you owned the oil company you'd be ***** happy.
    • santaliqueur, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3You say that like one guy owns the company.
    • SickofSects, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You say that like you own an oil company.
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2The thing is that the oil companies are making a percentage off of the price of gasoline. When crude, refining, and overall prices are high, they make off with a higher profit with the same profit margin. High prices are good for the industry, because they can make more off the same percentage of the price of gasoline.
  • casuallyevil, on 05/06/2008, -7/+7Quit villainizing them... Don't you realize that Exxon pays all that money out to A) Pension and retirement funds, very widely held by a great deal of low-income (and high-income) Americans, and B) Investment into new sources of energy? You have two choices here: a windfall profit tax that takes that money and puts it into the coffers of the people that brought you the Iraq War, Social Security, Hurricane Katrina Relief, and other assorted fountainheads of government efficiency, or give it out to the people that took the risk to invest money into that company expecting returns and will continue putting that capital into productive enterprise. So STFU.
    • sathias, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Pension and retirement funds would be taken out before profit is calculated, it is part of their costs. Same with R&D costs.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1no they don't that's why it's called PROFIT... operation, wages, benifits, compensation packages, taxes are all accounted for before this number is left over. I can't belive some of the internet elitists running aorund in this posting.

      A buisiness making billions of profit at rising percentages every year on a COMMODITY is outrageous and should be criminal. Remember Enron anyone? Everyone said that was just a company profiting for a job well done during these harsh economic times (when gas was $1.40/gal BTW) yet it came to light shortly afterwards that they had cooked the books, lied, and fleeced many markets, California notably for millions if not billions, also while milking bogus tax initiatives and credits.
  • atact88, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7According to the state of California, the oil company profits by 1 cent per gallon of gas sold. That doesn't include all the other stuff crude oil goes into.
    And they pay $43 billion a year in taxes now, thanks to Congress. More than what a majority of the American population pays collectively.
    • Hawk2007, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Don't know why you got dugg down. Gas accounts for little to no profit at most gas stations. It's all in the convenience store. They sell gas at just enough of a rate to break even.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Sorry, I can't buy that. Nobody would stay in business or be able to afford infrastructure like the oil industry if they actually had such a razor thin margin.

      That would be like making cars that only got a 1 cent profit. Let's spend years designing and testing this new vehicle, produce, ship, and store it and we might make a whole cent!

      Sorry, I call *****.
      • atact88, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The sheer amount of turnover can make up for a low profit margin. In fact, companies do it often, such as on big discount sales promotions. For oil, gasoline is only one product that comes out of crude. There are many, many, many other sources of revenue with the different fractions of refined oil, though I have no information on those.
  • RomeyRome, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3And their operating costs went up about the same too. Afterall, the price of oil is up as well.
    • ausfahrt, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3but they covered that and still increased by 17% ... that is what profit is over and above all costs.
  • Irfit, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3BREAKING NEWS! Big corporations win money.
  • lobstermobster, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I don't understand what the problem with this is...They are taking huge risks by going into foreign countries which are unstable. Foreign government can nationalize their assets whenever they want and this huge profit is a result of them taking a risk and spending huge amounts of money. Who cares if our economy would fall apart if this company wasn't feeding us oil
    • KingPsyz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1you do know exxon produces much of it's crude from american refineries and deposits right? texas, california, etc.
  • Ryan166, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6I hope Exxon does post a 10 trillion dollar profit next year, so complete morons like msaleem won't be able to afford to drive, and instead will atrophy and die.
  • cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1You added too many zeros to that number.

    By the way, vote for Mary Ruwart for a sensible foreign policy!

    http://votemary2008.com
  • Sicarius, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That looks really good until you realize their market cap is over $500 billion. If you had that much cash you would do better to put it in the bank.
  • jwiesenborn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9If you're going to the trouble of typing all the zero's instead of just saying, "10.9 billion," then for *****'s sake put in the right number.
  • unpolloloco, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1ummmm........isn't 10,900,000,000,000 more than the GDP of the world?
    • Sicarius, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Not quite. 2006 World GDP = $66 trillion.
  • bodaciousjon, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1demand's at an all-time high mostly due to to the rapid increase in auto sales in india and china, so this isn't really big news. more demand=more profits.
  • Somedude2137, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1just bury this ***** ***** as inaccurate and stop complaining about extra zeros
  • brimg87, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1It's only a matter of time before push comes to shove.
  • mfc5200, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Listen, I've read a lot about bad business practices, and Exxon has been in some of those articles. But bashing a company for making money is stupid (assuming they were gained legitimately).

    For one, the vast majority of Exxon Mobil ownership is owned by normal people.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=XOM

    They are owned usually by investment funds, which represent different pensions, retirement accounts, 401k's, etc.

    This is like people complaining about rising gas prices or the decreased value of the dollar. For those people, I have no pity. If you know gas is going to be more expensive in the future, then buy gas futures so you can hedge yourself against future price rises. If you are scared about the falling value of the dollar, hedge against that by purchasing gold/silver/foreign currencies.

    If you think the oil companies are "price gauging" or w/e, then just buy their stock. Last year, Exxon's profit margin was 11.2% and they gave out roughly 2% of their market value out in dividends or 10 billion dollars. No one is preventing you from buying into the company. If you think the company is doing "too well" then just buy part of it and go along for the ride.
    • NSResponder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4You're entirely right, so you'll probably be buried.

      -jcr
  • nastronomical, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Wait so...selling more of a product that is increasingly in heavy demand garners a bigger profit from before? wow ***** wow.
  • p0s3r, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9The industry average profit margin is 8.3%. It's hard to find such an industry that has such small margins.
  • Jespoir, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Inaccurate! Buried.
  • Luvtodigg, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Hellllooo.....learn some basic math if you want to be taken seriously! WTF
  • taradisiac, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1The invasion sure has been worth it!
  • BlackJackJester, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11To be fair, less than 10% of their revenue is profit, which means they're pulling hundreds of billions of revenue each year. Now lets look at another supergiant company; Cisco. Cisco did $36 billion in revenue, and about 10 billion was profit, and nobody is calling foul on their 25-30% profit margins, seeing how the high price of service provider sized routing switches is one reason for high internet prices. Get a clue, it's a business, and is a low margin one at that.
    • betadan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1the difference being that they (Cisco) are not bailed out by the government. also when was the last time that you noticed Cisco jack their prices. And when was the last time you heard anything about Cisco bleeding the world dry?
      • skidooer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11. If they aren't even making 10% of revenues now, if the government pulled out either gasoline would have to be considerably more expensive or the oil companies would be out of business fairly quickly.

        2. If demand for routers surged tomorrow, you can be sure the price will go through the roof. I assume the sale of routers is fairly constant and as such they can price the product accordingly.

        3. The media is only able to focus on one problem at a time. Eventually we will get bored about hearing about oil companies, like we got bored hearing about the ozone layer, for example, and maybe they will pick on Cisco next. Who knows?
  • andyd2k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1$10 trillion! Yay - they can pay off our deficit

    You should proof what you write
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.